Lord Harper (Con)

Oh, he is here, but now in a different place, which is what threw me. I beg the Committee’s indulgence for not noticing that he had moved. All that is driving up the cost, which will increase the subsidy required for the railway rather than reduce it. It is important to reduce the cost of the public subsidy because otherwise, the temptation for Ministers is to keep prices down but dump all the cost on the taxpayer, hide it away somewhere and hope that nobody notices. Replacing paragraph (f) in Clause 18(2), which is a bit weak and is arguably inconsistent with what the department has already signed up to do, with the much more robust paragraph (j) in my noble friend’s excellent amendment, would put an impetus on the department to drive down public subsidy, which is much more in keeping with what the department has already signed up to do. I therefore hope that, when the Minister responds, he will be able to say that he can accept not the whole amendment—that might be going a bit too far—but at least one part of it, replacing what is in the Bill, because it is consistent with what the Government have already said they intend to do. I look forward to hearing him say such words shortly.