Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
DFT, ATOC, NETWORK
RAIL, ORR AND
SRA
12 OCTOBER 2005
Q180 Mr Davidson: So during that
period every situation where you identified inefficiency in a
station it got resolved, did it?
Mr Newton: It got addressed in
some way or another.
Q181 Mr Davidson: So there should
be no station during that period where there was any cause for
concern because you had the methodology to get it resolved?
Mr Newton: No. It was those transgressions
that were identified by monitoring.
Q182 Mr Davidson: So only if you
noticed it? On any occasion when you noticed anything wrong it
was always resolved?
Mr Newton: In some form or another,
yes.
Q183 Mr Davidson: What does "in
some form or another" mean? It either means yes or no.
Mr Newton: It might be a phone
call to the operator and they can put it right. It might be an
inaccurate notice displayed, any number of things.
Q184 Mr Davidson: But it got sorted
out?
Mr Newton: Yes.
Q185 Mr Davidson: Let us be clear
then. During this period 2004-05, if there was any situation where
there was an inadequacy in station provision, that was only because
you had not spotted it because any time you did spot it it was
resolved? Is that correct?
Mr Newton: Action was taken, yes.
Whether it was resolved immediately is another matter.
Q186 Mr Davidson: That is interesting.
Can I go to paragraph 2.19 though where it says that the SRA reviewed
this franchising policy in 2002 and concluded—and there
are a couple of other clauses—that overall it had not delivered
the outcomes envisaged, which I take it means it did not work.
Why do you think it did not work? Why do you think it was a failure?
Mr Newton: It did not work, as
I referred to earlier, because the early franchise agreements
were predicated on a number of assumptions which did not materialise.
The key one was that the operators would have commercial incentives
to address all the quality and investment issues needed at stations.
Q187 Mr Davidson: So if they were
not getting funded for it they were not doing it? There was no
sense of responsibility on their part that they ought to upgrade
stations or maintain them adequately?
Mr Newton: No. As I say, the assumption
was that there would be a commercial incentive for the operator
to address all the quality requirements at stations.
Q188 Mr Davidson: I do not quite
understand that point but presumably that means that if the operator
did not upgrade the station they got the passengers anyway and
therefore there was no incentive for them to maintain the station
adequately. Is that a fair way of putting it?
Mr Newton: No. The presumption
was that they would generate revenue from doing all the things
that were required at stations so that would be a justifiable
expenditure by them and they would therefore undertake the expenditure.
That was a flawed assumption.
Q189 Mr Davidson: Indeed it was.
You then had to move to a situation with the new franchise agreements
where it was much more specific, was it not, which is an indication
really that under the previous arrangement the train operating
companies were not doing what you thought they ought to?
Mr Newton: That presumption did
not materialise, yes.
Q190 Mr Davidson: So that is a yes
then, is it?
Mr Newton: The franchise policy
change in 2002 addressed that deficiency.
Q191 Mr Davidson: That is a yes then.
Am I right in finding it quite astonishing that in dealing with
train operating companies, all of whom apparently apart from one
were making substantial sums of money, you had to specify that
where they had toilets, for example, they had to be open because
under the new franchise agreement it is specified that the toilets
have to be open, so presumably under the previous arrangements
they could have toilets but they did not actually need to be open?
Also, the toilets have to be clean, which presumably was not the
case before, and at least 50% of cubicles or urinals have to be
available when the station is manned. It really does not say very
much for the train operating companies before that they were not
prepared to do that and you had to specify that. Is that fair?
Mr Newton: Yes. I am saying that
it identifies the fact that the early franchising policy was flawed
in assuming that would happen.
Q192 Mr Davidson: They did not do
it; that is right. Coming back to the original franchise agreements
for adequate lighting, you had to specify that lights should not
be flickering; they should meet the required lux level. That is
a pretty damning indictment of the train operating companies again,
is it not?
Mr Newton: It is an indictment
of the inadequacy of the early franchise agreements.
Q193 Mr Davidson: That is right.
Who drew up the early franchises?
Mr Newton: The Office of Passenger
Rail Franchising, driven by the key criterion, which was that
the lowest bid won. That was the selection criterion.
Q194 Mr Davidson: I think it is fair,
Chairman, to mention my own particular favourite, which was that
in the original franchise agreement it said that the environment
had to be kept reasonably clean but the new specification was
that the person employed to pick up litter on the platforms must
be instructed not to sweep the litter onto the track bed, which
presumably was what the train operating companies were doing before
because there was no commercial incentive there for them not to
sweep the litter off the platform onto the track bed. Does that
sound to you like the action of responsible people?
Mr Newton: No, but it is one of
the reasons that justified the franchise policy review which was
published in 2002.
Q195 Mr Davidson: Mr Muir, the train
operating companies, it would appear, could not be trusted further
than you could throw them to behave responsibly. Is that reasonable?
Mr Muir: No.
Q196 Mr Davidson: Why did you have
to be specifically instructed not to sweep the litter onto the
track beds?
Mr Muir: It would indeed be irresponsible,
whether instructed or not, for station staff to sweep litter onto
the track bed. If they do it it does not, as it happens, help
the financial position of the train operator because if we have
to clear litter off the track in a station the train operator
has to contribute to the cost of doing it. It is mere stupidity
by the staff.
Q197 Mr Davidson: Why do you think
you had to have it specified to you that it had to be done? Presumably
there would be a saving because the wind would remove much of
the litter onto neighbouring properties over a period, as anyone
in the area round about stations will have seen.
Mr Muir: It was specified. Lots
of things get specified. It did happen but it should not have
happened and it should not have happened anyway.
Q198 Mr Davidson: I wonder if I could
come to another section, 3.15, where there has been a noticeable
increase in the figures, and that is relating to crime. From 2001
to 2002 and 2003 to 2004 there was a 17% increase in crime on
the railways. To what extent do you think that is accounted for
by cost cutting by the train operating companies?
Mr Muir: Can I just please address
that paragraph? As you say, it is paragraph 3.15. It is comparing
a change between the years 2000-01 and 2003-04. During that period
there was a change of method of recording and in April 2002, halfway
through the period, the National Crime Recording Standard was
introduced which changed the numbers. If you adjust for that change
the overall increase of 17% would be a decline of 5%.[15]
The adjustments arising from the change in the method
in recording are complex and the figure we gave of 5% is not correct.
See also Ev 29.
Q199 Mr Davidson: Did you have the opportunity
to see this Report?
Mr Muir: Yes, I did.
15 Note by witness: We have been in discussion
with the NAO regarding the percentage change in total crime, stated
as 17% in the Report. At the Committee I said this figure should
have been a decline of 5%. Back
| 
