Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9540
- 9559)
9540. MR PURCHAS: No, my Lord, I do not
think it is necessary to call another witness. I think my Lords
have the measure of the point we make.
9541. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions?
9542. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: From
what you have said, could I summarise your position as TfL are
perfectly entitled to put in this paper however it managed to
appear but your recommendation at the roundtable and to the Secretary
of State will be "you should not go along with this because
it might be interpreted by our friends at the Daily Mail as `Railtrack
2' or `Ghost of Railtrack' or something like that?
(Mr Gisby) I had considered more the safe operation of the
railway and delivering the passengers on time than what the Daily
Mail might say. I am well used to what the Daily Mail says.
9543. LORD SNAPE: The Daily Mail is compulsive
reading in the liberal party, I fear!
9544. CHAIRMAN: Very well, thank you
so much, Mr Gisby.
The witness withdrew
9545. MR PURCHAS: Thank you very much.
My Lords, I was going to say a few words only, but I know that
would be running into what would be the word short adjournment
but that would dispose of this petition.
9546. CHAIRMAN: This is counsel's short
or really short?
9547. MR PURCHAS: I very much wanted
to finish in three hours, that was my intention, but I have failed.
We have covered a lot ground in that time.
9548. LORD SNAPE: He is going to object!
9549. MR ELVIN: Having said that I made
my submissions in cross-examination, there was one point I wanted
to raise. It was suggested in re-examination that the issue of
infrastructure manager under the regulations allowed one to pick
and choose between Access Option capacity and maintenance and
operation. The fact is that under regulation 16 of the access
regulations, once the infrastructure manager is established or
designated it is the infrastructure manager which is responsible
for the allocation of capacity. You cannot pick and choose, it
is the infrastructure manager that has the maintenance, the operation
and the capacity allocation. I understand why Network Rail are
less interested in the capacity allocation, but it is one of the
reasons—
9550. CHAIRMAN: This is operating capacity?
9551. MR ELVIN: This is the access agreement
which, if required, has to go to the ORR for consideration.
9552. CHAIRMAN: What trains get on to
the tracks.
9553. MR ELVIN: Absolutely. Once the
infrastructure manager is established under the regulations, that
is part of its function as well as the rest. So you cannot divorce
the two; once you are infrastructure manager you are there. I
am not suggesting that makes any difference to the position that
I outlined earlier, but I wanted it to be put on the record for
accuracy.
9554. CHAIRMAN: Mr Purchas, you will
be very short?
9555. MR PURCHAS: Not quite as short,
because what my learned friend has just said was simply wrong.
Let us have the definition of infrastructure manager which I provided
to your Lordships—
9556. MR ELVIN: It is regulation 16,
please.
9557. MR PURCHAS: Forgive me, Mr Elvin.
I would like, if you do not mind, regulation 3.[38]
I want to look and see what is the infrastructure manager. Can
I just read it, because your Lordships had it on the overhead.
"Infrastructure manager means anybody or undertaking that
is responsible in particular for the maintenance of railway infrastructure
or the provision of network services ... Notwithstanding that
some or all of the functions of the infrastructure manager on
a network or part of a network may be allocated to different bodies
or undertakings, the obligations in respect of those functions
remain with the infrastructure manager except where the functions
and obligations pass to an allocation or charging body by virtue
of regulation 16(3)."
9558. The purpose of that is to give exactly
the point I was making earlier, to allow for the undertaking that
we want, which is limited to responsibility for operation and
maintenance to be handled within the 2005 regulations. That is
why we cast our assurance in the way we did. What we say to the
Committee is simply this: if the Secretary of State, or TfL, wanted
to achieve some other commercial arrangement, they have had all
the time in the world—two years—to do it. The fact
is they have not done it. We say to this Committee that the operation
and maintenance of this system is of critical, public importance,
and this Committee ought to say that you, the Promoter, must give
an assurance that we have the responsibility, for all the reasons
we have drawn to the attention of the Committee.
9559. The last point I just wanted to deal with,
if I may, was the email from Stephen Allen of TfL. It is the nearest
we have got to TfL in these proceedings, so we might just see
what they say.[39]
They say four things, and this is in the second paragraph—and
I know my Lord, Lord Snape, drew attention to it. "I think
our objectives on maintenance are: ensuring that it is priced
reasonably ... ". It is a difficult area but regulation 12
provides for arbitration through the ORR on what we charge. So
that is dealt with under the regulations. Secondly, "ensuring
that funding is ring-fenced"—I have said it too many
times this morning: that has nothing to do with operation and
maintenance; that is dealt with on a wholly separate charging
regime. Thirdly, "establishing an effective performance regime
with remedies for under-performance." That is the obligation
on us; it is there in the statute and it is enforced by the ORR.
Fourthly, "ensuring that the nature of the maintenance regime
does not undermine flexibility in a possible future sale of the
central section."
38 Crossrail Ref: P67, Use of infrastructure on the
mainline railway, The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems
(Safety) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/599) (SCN-20080430-037) Back
39
Committee Ref: A54, Correspondence between TfL and DfT, Crossrail
Centre Section, 10 April 2008 (SCB-20080430-040) Back
| 
