I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said that the Treasury would like to redefine what is public expenditure and what is not. I am sure that is the case—it would like to get some liabilities off the balance sheet. The whole point of having an independent ONS is so that the Treasury, led by politicians, cannot adjust the figures and the liabilities to suit its convenience.
What has not come out in this debate is that there is competition between the roscos to supply the wants of the train operating companies. Originally, there were three, now there are four, and there have been two recent entrants. The competition between them has driven down the costs. The Government, who on Monday spent time trying to persuade foreign investors to invest in infrastructure, will have been a little disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, being less than complimentary about the investments that they have made in some important parts of the infrastructure.
10.15 pm
I turn to the thrust of my amendment. As the Minister said, he cannot predict what the ONS will do. To that extent, I remain concerned that there is a huge gamble here of a significant sum of money coming on to the department’s balance sheet. The department will then have to get more money from the Treasury or cut back on other bits of its expenditure. I look forward to the Minister’s detailed reply on what I confess is an abstruse subject around what is and what is not public expenditure. In the light of his letter, we may want to come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.