The performance of the Department for Transport - Fleet News

Processed: 26-02-2010 19:09:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 442441 Unit: PAG1Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 52 December 2009 Rt Hon Lord Adonis and Mr Robert Devereuxaccount of these factors in the revised plan that wehave put forward but we do remain committed to the1,300 target.Chairman: Mr Pritchard?Q32 Mark Pritchard: Welcome, Secretary of State.You mentioned your experience on the Victoria Lineon the tubes. What is your Department doing towork with the Mayor of London to reduceovercrowding? There is a really serious issue ofovercrowding on some tube lines and do you thinkthat is likely to increase or decrease in the LondonOlympics?Lord Adonis: It is the Mayor’s responsibility tomanage his budget and his programme. We havegiven him a £40 billion 10-year settlement. He thenhas the responsibility. There will be very significantadditional capacity brought into play in theUnderground as part of that £40 billion investmentwith the major upgrades that are taking place in thetube lines. However, the commitments that you seekare commitments you need properly to seek fromhim because I do not have responsibility for thedirect management of the tube.Q33 Mark Pritchard: But you will have a view asSecretary of State.Lord Adonis: With the very significant additionalcapacity which is going to be brought into play, withthe major line upgrades, I would expectovercrowding levels to reduce, but the managementof that upgrade programme and seeing that itactually meets the real needs of passengers is amatter for the Mayor and TfL.Q34 Mark Pritchard: Going to rail franchises andNational Express and the nationalisation ofNational Express on the East Coast Line, is it likelywe are going to see other rail companies being bailedout by the government in 2010?Lord Adonis: Very unlikely I can say to theCommittee. No other train operating company hasThis is an embargoed advance copy.Not to be published in any form until00:01 on Thursday 4 Marchindicated to me any intention to default on theirfranchise obligations. I cannot say for certain that itwill not happen because of course who knows whatmight happen in the future, but we are now a goodpart of the way through the recession and no othertrain operating company has indicated any intentionto default. On the contrary, the others have all toldme that they intend to stick by their obligations. AsI say, given the stage that we are in through therecession the fact that they have made thatcommitment I take to be an extremely positive sign.Obviously I cannot give a categorical assurance buton the basis of the information that is available to meit looks to me very unlikely that any other trainoperating company will default. If I could also saythat in my whole handling of the diYcultiessurrounding National Express—and this has been avery diYcult period managing it because of courseour expectation was that National Express wouldstand by the franchise and continue to meet theircommitments—I have sought at every stage to act ina manner that would not give any incentiveswhatsoever to other train operating companies towalk away from their obligations. If you look andsee what has happened since 1 July when NationalExpress indicated that they were likely to default ontheir franchise, the fact that we have now had thatfranchise moved without disruption into the publicsector, and that of the other two franchises thatNational Express hold, one is to be terminated in2011, the other was to be terminated in 2011 anyway,so National Express will not be operating a railfranchise by mid-2011, I think that has given a verystrong signal to other train operating companies thatif they do not stand by their obligations to thetravelling public then there will be very seriousconsequences.Q35 Mark Pritchard: The second half of your reply,Minister, is very revealing because in the earlier partof your reply you suggested that the recession mightbe the primary factor in the decision by NationalExpress and the circumstances that followedthereon. In the latter part of your answer are yousuggesting that the recession was not entirely thereason for the demise of that franchise and thereforethe recession point that you made in your earlierremarks may not also apply to any existing otheroperator?Lord Adonis: I was simply giving the explanationwhich is the one that National Express itself gave asto why they were not able to continue, as they saw it.My view was that they could and should have stayedby their franchise. The explanation that they gavewas the impact on their revenue from the East CoastMain Line of the recession.Q36 Mark Pritchard: What new early warningsystems has your Department put in place to ensurethat it does not happen again? You say that you werenot aware at an early stage so what lessons have beenlearned and how can we ensure that if there are someproblems with operators that your Department isable to go in early and discuss these issues ratherthan they knock on your door and say, “I am sorry,this is the franchise” and they hand it back?Lord Adonis: We do monitor—and in previoussessions you have gone into the way that wemonitor—franchises closely. There is a whole teamin my Department of franchise managers.Q37 Mark Pritchard: So was there a failure on theNational Express franchise?Lord Adonis: No, I do not believe so. There was notan absence of monitoring. It was a decision byNational Express East Coast they were going towithdraw from the franchise. We had been awarethat they regarded themselves as in a vulnerable stateon the franchise before they made theannouncement. They had made that very clear. TheChief Executive of National Express made it clear tome personally that they regarded their position asdiYcult to sustain. It was not an absence ofinformation, and indeed if you look back on theevents of the last few months I believe that we actedabsolutely appropriately, both in the monitoringthat we undertook and in the action we took whenthey announced that they were withdrawing.