Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9460
- 9479)
9460. MR ELVIN: And they could also make
life very difficult because, as I was going to put to Mr Gisby,
they are responsible for the management of the access agreement
and we have to comply with the access agreement and achieve the
92 per cent PPM and, therefore, we will have to achieve that even
if Network Rail are not managing the central section because I
am sure Mr Gisby is right, that how the central section operates
is going to be of vital importance to achieving the objective
standards established by the ORR in the access option. Is that
right, Mr Gisby?
(Mr Gisby) That is right.
9461. I told you that I was not disagreeing
with you on some of your points!
(Mr Gisby) I also would just point out that I do not believe
it is going to be the Promoter, the sponsor or the builder who
is going to achieve 92 per cent PPM.
9462. It is going to be the operator?
(Mr Gisby) It is going to be us and the TOCs, the train operators.
9463. Well, your position, therefore, in these
discussions is going to be, and I did say I had some sympathy
for your position at the outset and it was not just empty words,
but I understand the logic of your position, Mr Gisby, and your
position is that, in order to make the access option work smoothly
and to make the other issues of integration work smoothly, you
say that that has a certain consequence in terms of your being
the infrastructure manager?
(Mr Gisby) Yes, it does.
9464. That is your position and you will no
doubt make it to us strongly in due course?
(Mr Gisby) Yes, I will.
9465. If I can come back to where TfL are coming
from, TfL are saying, "Well, you can exempt and do it by
contract", but actually I have not finished Lady Fookes'
question. To be able to enter into the sort of contractual arrangement
that TfL would wish, we would have to disapply the 1993 Act, would
we not?
(Mr Gisby) Yes.
9466. The access regime would have to be disapplied
and I think we would have to use a combination of section 7 and
section 20. Section 20 specifically disapplies sections 17 and
18 which are the access regime provisions. Is that right?
(Mr Gisby) I am not completely sure about that, but I am
sure there is somebody sitting behind me who can confirm that.
9467. Yes, Mr Purchas is in agreement. To do
that, there is quite a complex process because the ORR have to
be consulted on the proposals for exemption and there has to be
an industry-wide consultation which will include not only TfL
who have asked the Secretary of State to do this, assuming the
Secretary of State would be ultimately persuaded, but there would
then have to be quite a complex public process before this could
be done because you are asking the ORR to agree in the dispensation
of the national regime.
(Mr Gisby) I believe that is the case, yes.
9468. You have made the point that, unlike CTRL,
unlike the DLR and unlike the London Underground which are essentially
closed systems, this connects directly into the national network.
(Mr Gisby) Yes, the CTRL one was like that when we ran Eurostars
from Waterloo across the southern routes and so on and it will
become like it again which is why I think getting this established
is important. We face a similar issue with the development of
what is known as the `East London Line extension' between Dalston
on the North London Line through to New Cross and the service
there. That six-mile piece of railway has been taken out of the
1993 Act and we understand that TfL intend to operate it and maintain
it in a similar way. Again, how that will work, we are quite uncertain.
9469. If I were to tell you, Mr Gisby, and I
have sought instructions on this, that the next stage in this
process, TfL having put forward its position, is to involve the
ORR in discussions over how the central section should be dealt
with and to involve your organisation, would that be a welcome
way forward to you?
(Mr Gisby) It would be very helpful indeed, yes.
9470. So if I say that that is what we are proposing
and, if necessary, a roundtable meeting in due course could be
facilitated by the Department, involving Network Rail, the ORR
and TfL, that would be a suitable way forward for these arguments
to be put forward and evaluated in the light of both the points
that you are putting cogently and TfL are putting forcefully because
of their involvement?
(Mr Gisby) I think that would be very helpful. I suspect
we would start from the position we thought we were in last July.
9471. MR ELVIN: Well, Mr Gisby, I really
will not take up the invitation of raking over the coals because
I do not think that helps as a constructive way forward to resolving
what is clearly a very important issue.
9472. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, you are at
the moment representing the Promoters of whom TfL is not one?
9473. MR ELVIN: I am representing the
Secretary of State.
9474. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary of State
and not TfL?
9475. MR ELVIN: No.
9476. CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say, we
are becoming increasingly interested in why this strong representation
is coming from you about what TfL have by way of an intention
and, incidentally, when did they start having this intention?
9477. MR ELVIN: This document, as I understand
it—
9478. CHAIRMAN: In March?
9479. MR ELVIN: Indeed.
| 
