Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9320
- 9339)
9320. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Can
I ask you a question on that, just going back to paragraph 10
in the document it says that TfL believe that DfT shares TfL's
view that Network Rail's role as infrastructure manager will be
limited to the application of the ROGS. That is not true.
9321. MR ELVIN: We are agreed and there
is no dispute that the ROGS apply. Where one goes beyond that
the Secretary of State has not yet decided. We are in a position
where there are two parties—Network Rail on the one hand
and TfL on the other—and both are essential to the delivery
of Crossrail and they have adopted different positions on maintenance
and operation after construction. We have to listen to both of
them and reach a view. If we are not to apply the regulations
and seek an exemption there is a proper process that has to be
gone through. The Secretary of State is piggy-in-the-middle at
the moment, listening to the position of Network Rail and TfL
who are not in agreement over this issue. It does not represent
the Department's position as to Network Rail's role other than
the ROGS. It is simply TfL's wish that that be the case.
9322. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: But
having listened to all the evidence so far this morning, it would
indicate that the position of the Department was abundantly clear
hitherto.
9323. MR ELVIN: There is a difference
between us on that and I do not want to steal Mr Purchas's thunder
in making his opening. I just wanted to make it clear to Mr Purchas
so he knows where we are going that that document from TfL is
not departmental policy and it does not represent any view by
the Department.
9324. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, do you say
that the duties under the ROGS include maintenance to produce
safety?
9325. MR ELVIN: The duties under the
ROGS do not go as far as the entire management and access regulations.
9326. CHAIRMAN: I did not ask that; I
said maintenance.
9327. MR ELVIN: I will take a view from
those sitting behind me as to how far we think they intend and
I will see if I agree with Mr Purchas in due course, but I would
rather finish hearing what Mr Purchas has to say and then I will
come back to it.
9328. CHAIRMAN: Yes please, I want an
answer to this sooner or later.
9329. MR ELVIN: You will get an answer
to that.
9330. LORD SNAPE: While you are looking
at that one, Mr Elvin, can you relay to the Department that it
is somewhat bizarre at this stage in the parliamentary proceedings
that a situation like this has arisen, and if the Secretary of
State is piggy-in-the-middle, as you put it, then perhaps mixing
my metaphors, you ought to climb off the fence and give us an
answer sooner rather than later.
9331. MR ELVIN: Can I say this my Lord,
the position is this: the Secretary of State has to discharge
a statutory power and a statutory duty. What we do not wish to
be in the position of is to be railroaded into the proper decision
to be taken by either party. At the minute TfL has made its bid.
Negotiations, as I understand it, have moved on since that document
was produced. Network Rail is making its bid by trying to up the
ante by making the point to your Lordship when there are representations
and discussions to be had. The difficulty is, as your Lordship
would accept, that the Secretary of State has got to take a proper
decision, and it would be wrong, given that TfL has raised these
issues—and it is unwelcome to everybody that there should
be uncertainty at this stage but it has now arisen and having
TfL as an important partner in the delivery of Crossrail—to
simply ignore it.
9332. LORD SNAPE: As my colleague Lord
Brooke indicated a few moments ago, it seems the Department has
somehow changed its position so far as the central section of
Crossrail is concerned.
9333. MR ELVIN: It has not, my Lord,
because the position that was agreed was the position under the
ROGS. Let me make it clear now—and if your Lordships want
an answer that is my answer. If you look at Schedule 5 of the
draft agreement, which is not yet an agreement because it has
not been executed, you will see that it says "subject to
future agreements" and the subject to future agreements is
what we are trying to sort out at the moment, so it is not inconsistent
and, in any event, the position still is that the Secretary of
State has a statutory power which Parliament has given to her
to discharge, and Mr Purchas and Network Rail increasing the temperature
by ventilating it before your Lordships when TfL is not a Petitioner
and there is a negotiation and discussion to be had outside under
those provisions in order to ensure what decision is made, it
does not help the position for Network Rail to adopt this stance
because it is effectively trying to steal a march on the negotiations.
9334. CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is
altogether the end of the story.
9335. MR ELVIN: It is not.
9336. CHAIRMAN: We are going to finish
our business at the end of next week. Are we going to get a resolution
of this issue by then, because we will have to report to Parliament
what the situation is?
9337. MR ELVIN: I am sure the Committee
will but I think it highly unlikely, my Lord, that there will
be a final resolution to the question of the issue that Network
Rail raises. Our position, I am afraid, is a firm one that this
is a decision that the Secretary of State has got to take listening
to the concerned parties and reaching a decision then based on
the discussions that have been held. We are not going to conclude
that within two weeks. It is an unfortunate position, I can well
understand that. Let me make it clear, the principle which Mr
Purchas has set out of integration to ensure proper safety and
maintenance is not in issue; the issue is who controls access
and how maintenance is paid for. To suggest that this is divorced
from finance is unreal bearing in mind we are talking about a
£16 billion investment of which a significant proportion
will come from TfL. We cannot simply ignore the views of TfL before
we reach a decision.
9338. LORD SNAPE: There will be degree
of cynicism amongst the Committee, Mr Elvin, that the reason TfL
are not Petitioners before this Committee is that they have had
a nod and wink from the Department that if they keep quiet on
this then a decision will be made at some unspecified time in
the future with which they might not disagree.
9339. MR ELVIN: My Lord, all I can tell
you is that my instructions are that the position TfL has marked
out in that document is not departmental policy, it does not represent
the Secretary of State's view, and the Secretary of State is having
to manage through the departmental team a fairly sensitive negotiation
on matters which are of considerable importance, not only to Mr
Purchas's clients but to TfL as well, and you will understand
that such a sensitive negotiation is rather difficult to conclude
when one is facing this sort of argument in Committee seeking
to force undertakings. It is seeking to conclude that negotiation
without TfL being a party to it.
| 
