Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9220
- 9239)
9220. MR PURCHAS: Well, I always revel in sympathy
from Mr Elvin; it is always a good start to a Wednesday morning!
My Lords, actually this is nothing about any negotiations at all.
It is about something pretty simple; it is about the operation
and maintenance of the railway. The 1993 Act, as your Lordships
will know, was careful to distinguish matters of commercial interest,
no doubt real interests to TfL, from safety and performance of
the rail network, and that is all we are interested in. Whatever
TfL may want to negotiate with us or anyone else is nothing to
do with our Petition. It is quite interesting we heard my learned
friend because it is exactly what we suspect has been going on,
that the financial interests of TfL have obfuscated what we see
as the very important public interest of ensuring safe and effective
operation and maintenance of the system.
9221. Having said that, my Lord, can I explain
what we want from the Committee which is very simple, straightforward
and sharp-edged. My Lord, that, I hope, is going to be number
one of the overheads and we have provided, 24 hours before we
have appeared in your Committee's House, a bundle also for your
Lordships. Do your Lordships have that?
9222. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but only this morning.
9223. MR PURCHAS: Well, I do apologise. We did
deliver it yesterday and I apologise for that. My Lord, there
is not a lot of great complexity in there, but, if your Lordship
goes to tab 1, these are the three undertakings.[1]
My Lord, the second undertaking has been given, or offered, that
we should take on the role of infrastructure manager as soon as
reasonably practicable, but, importantly, limited only to the
safety regulations. My Lord, I will come back to that in due course.
In other words, it is not dealing with all operation and maintenance
which is a matter of considerable public importance.
9224. My Lord, the other two assurances remain
outstanding. The first is an undertaking by the Promoter that
we will, on completion of the Crossrail works, have responsibility
for, and control over, the operation and maintenance of the Crossrail
systems from end to end, including those in the central tunnel
section. That is the basic issue we are concerned with. Also,
very recently we had, as it were, a whiff in the air that the
Promoter is intending, or may be intending, to exempt the whole
of the central section from the operation of the 1993 Act. That
raises a whole range of very important issues not just for us
and for others, and we have asked not once, but now three times,
for a straightforward assurance that that is not the intention.
9225. CHAIRMAN: They have powers to do
that?
9226. MR PURCHAS: They do. Under section 7,
they have remarkable powers actually. They could, at a stroke,
put the whole of the central section outwith the control, in the
public interest, of the Office of the Rail Regulator. That, as
far as I am aware, has not been indicated anywhere in the paper
coming from the Promoter and certainly it never crossed our minds
that it would be the intention until very recently. I will be
showing you a document in due course which came into our hands
legitimately, I should emphasise, being, as it were, from TfL
to the Department, in April which raises that very proposition.
We think your Lordships ought to ask for a straight answer to
that question.
9227. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, where is
it again? I am looking at clause 7.
9228. MR PURCHAS: I am so sorry, my Lord, it
is in the 1993 Act. I should have made that clear, my Lord, and
I did not make it clear. The 1993 Act, under section 7, has a
power of exemption. The Secretary of State has to consult the
Office of the Rail Regulator, but then it is in his, or her, I
should say, discretion.
9229. CHAIRMAN: Then he ousts the ORR?
9230. MR PURCHAS: All this time that Mr Berryman
has been giving tutorials to your Committee, my Lord, it goes
out of the window at a stroke, so we are modestly interested in
that. The 1993 Act has formed the framework for our discussions
about operation and maintenance of this railway and we place great
store on the Office of the Rail Regulator in balancing all the
various interests in the overriding public interest.
9231. My Lords, I say that we yesterday got
an answer to those three points, particularly one and three, and
we were given a no to both the first and third assurances, albeit,
if I may say so, in the customary `Promoterese', if I can call
it that, but it was no, as far as I could see. We found that both
astonishing and, in the public interest, very regrettable.
9232. My Lord, if I can identify the issue as
we see it, I hope I do not put it too high, but we would see the
issue as whether Crossrail and the rail network with Crossrail
at its centre should run as an integrated network or on a fragmented
and piecemeal basis. That is actually the hard-edged point of
where we are at present. Now, we think it is entirely unsatisfactory
that it should not be run otherwise than on an integrated basis.
9233. My Lord, can I then take your Lordships
to tab 2, page 2.[2]
Your Lordships may recall that in the early 2000s the rail industry
went through some pretty torrid and gloomy times, to try and use
a neutral expression, leading up to the Government's White Paper
The Future of Rail in July 2004. The central part of that,
it is the first bullet point in this extract we have made, was
that Network Rail, which had been created shortly before, would
"be given clear responsibility for operating the network
and for its performance". Then the text below is important:
"With no one organisation clearly in charge, improvements
in reliability have been sluggish, the railway has not delivered
the performance that passengers expect. The changes outlined in
this White Paper will give Network Rail a strengthened role as
operator of the network, with overall responsibility for its performance.
Government will set out what Network Rail is expected to deliver
for the public money it receives, and on that basis Network Rail
will lead industry planning, set timetables and direct service
recovery. Too often under the current system, companies have been
able to pass the buck for poor performance. Under the new structure,
Network Rail will be held accountable for ensuring that the network
delivers a reliable service for its customers through an agreement
with the Government."
9234. We are concerned, my Lords, that what
is presently afoot is to reverse that process so far as Crossrail
is concerned. My Lords, Network Rail, one needs to bear in mind,
is not strictly a non-profit-making company, but it is one where
all its profits are ploughed back into the enhancement of the
rail infrastructure network, and of course it is under the control
of the Office of the Rail Regulator and indeed with ultimate responsibility
not only for operation, but also for safety through the ORR and
Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate. Now, all of that is enshrined
by Parliament in the Railway Act 2005, and we have included at
tab 3, simply by way of shorthand, this is from our Petition,
our various duties for renewal and replacement, and for operation,
that we should do so in a timely, economic and efficient manner
and so on and so forth, and I would just ask your Lordships kindly
to glance through that.[3]
You will see that we are subject, in the public interest, to a
wide raft of duties placed upon us for discharging the policy
of the Government. My Lord, I think the Government and we can
claim without undue complacency a measure of success, and I can
do no better than to take the Promoter's or the Government's description,
which is at tab 4, in their update on the White Paper in July
of last year: "Britain now has a railway which carries more
people and more freight than it has in over 50 years. It is safer
than ever before. Reliability, which declined sharply after the
appalling accident at Hatfield, is now good and improving on most
lines, and the finances of the industry are stable and improving.
Network Rail is on course to improve efficiency by nearly one-third
in five years, and strong growth in demand means that passenger
services require less subsidy."[4]
My Lords, with your Lordships' leave Mr Gisby will say a little
bit more by reference to what is at tab 5, but I will not do that.
9235. My Lords, could I take your Lordships
to tab 21. On Tuesday of last week, my Lords, Mr Berryman gave
your Lordships a tutorial, which your Lordships will recall. It
may be worth very briefly going back to look at one or two of
the points he said with which we indeed agree.
9236. My Lords, in tab 21, if your Lordships
go to page 15, your Lordships will see that he dealt first of
all and foremost with the position of Network Rail.[5]
That is the top of that page: "First of all, who is the infrastructure
manager? They are all owned by Network Rail, who have a legal
position as infrastructure manager as set down in the various
bits of railway legislation. They are regulated economically,
and in other ways, by the Office of the Rail Regulator. Network
Rail gets a network licence, which is issued by the Office of
the Rail Regulator, to operate the trains, and that is intended
to continue, as far as Crossrail is concerned, both during construction
and after". I have to ask your Lordships to note that because
the sophistry is such that now it is being said, "Well, after
all we didn't mean that, what we meant is you can be infrastructure
manufacturer manager but just for one part of the legislation
but not for actually real life operation and maintenance".
Sir, that is the basis of refusing the assurance we have looked
for.
9237. My Lords, Mr Berryman went on to explain
to your Lordships that there was then the provision of access
rights to both access agreements and franchises and that was again
a matter between the facility owner—we will come back to
that in due course, it is not the infrastructure manager, that
is the facility owner—and those seeking access, as your
Lordships know here, the Access Options have been granted. He
also drew your Lordships' attention to the bottom of that page
the position of Network Rail in delivery of the operation both
within the timetable and dealing with perturbations and the importance
there of having integrated and overall control. Your Lordships
will recall over the page, albeit I think described there as "passenger
performance measure", it is Public Performance Measure, PPM.
It is public.
9238. CHAIRMAN: It is public.
9239. MR PURCHAS: You are quite right. I think
somewhere else it is described as passenger. Public Performance
Measure and the 92 per cent which your Lordships heard about.
All of that is something that we would submit to your Lordships,
and we believe it should be accepted by the Promoters, is critically
dependent upon ensuring integrated management, not just when things
are going well but particularly during perturbations, accidents
and acts of that kind. My Lord, Mr Gisby will explain how the
position of Crossrail at the centre of the network is such that
any problems at that point will have a ripple effect across the
network as a whole. My Lords, I do not elaborate on that but your
Lordships have the passage where Mr George was asking some questions
of Mr Berryman and you will recall at pages 28 and 29 of the transcript
in that tab. If your Lordships have page 28, it is an answer to
question 8193: "I understand the point, but I would put it
to you another way: as you said earlier in your remarks a moment
ago, it would be up to the discretion of the rail regulator to
decide how the capacity that had been created was allocated. If,
through some oversight or mischance, we failed to build all of
the bits and pieces which were necessary, then it would be up
to him to allocate the space", and so on. The Promoters rely
strongly, as I understand Mr Berryman's evidence, on the role
and good management of the rail regulator to control these things.
We are fully content with that and I will come back to that.
1 Committee Ref: A54, Undertakings sought by Network
Rail (SCN-20080430-001) Back
2
Committee Ref: A54, The Future of Rail-White Paper, Department
for Transport, Cm 6233, July 2004 (SCN-20080430-002) Back
3
Committee Ref: A54, Extract from Petition No. 110-Network Rail
Infrastructure Ltd (SCN-20080430-003) Back
4
Committee Ref: A54, Delivering a Sustainable Railway-White
Paper, Department for Transport, Cm 7176 (SCN-20080430-004) Back
5
Para 8111 [Mr Elvin; Mr Berryman] (SCN-20080430-005 to -006;
and -008) Back
|
