Live Rail Reform Question House of Commons

committee. I think this show will run on.

Probably for some years... Order. Urgent questions to Andy McDonald.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a

statement on the Government's plans for train operating companies to

take responsibility for track and infrastructure for Network Rail.

The Secretary of State for Transport...

Mr Speaker, he clearly misunderstood my plan. Let me explain. This

morning, a written miss ministerial statement in both libraries of this

House, my vision for reforming the railways to put passengers at the

heart. Providing better, more reliable journeys. We have seen

substantial growth in passenger numbers since privatisation but this

growth brings challenges and impact and disruption could be immediate

significant and wide-ranging. Our railways need to adapt and change in

order to be able to cope with this huge expansion in the number of

passengers. We spend very large amount of money trying to tackle the

challenge, with new and longer trains add more capacity, big

projects like Crossrail and small projects locally. Earlier this year,

it was recommended Network Rail devolve responsibility to the roots

level. I report the principles of the sure report and the reform

programme but there is more to do. I intend to press ahead with Sir Roy

McNulty's recommendations on how to make the railways run better and

more cost-effective. I will do this at an operational level initially,

so all involved will be incentivised to deliver the best service for

passengers. I expect new franchises starting with south-eastern midlands

who have integrated operating teams between train services and

infrastructure working together in the interest of the passenger. I

will be inviting transport for London and Kent County Council to be

more closely involved in developing the next South-eastern franchise by

embedding their own operatives in the franchise to develop and monitor

it. We continue to develop the model for track and trade as for the

franchises are renewed including the of joint ventures. We will also

publish an update of the rail franchising is schedule I am placing

in the libraries of this house. I also bring new skills into the

challenge of upgrading our railways, or I want to. I will look at the

reopening of the link between Oxford and Cambridge. East - West rail will

be a new and separate organisation. We are to secure private sector

involvement to design and operate the route in an integrated way. This

will be established earlier in the New Year and cheered when the former

chief executive of Chilton rail, Lord Brickhouse. This will set the

railway on a firmer footing for the future. We will make sure that we

play our part in making this country a country that works for everyone. I

will bring forward a new strategy for our railways with more detail

than what I'm setting out today in due course.

Hear, hear. Mr Andy McDonald.

Private Company 's will only engage with the Secretary of State's plans

that they believe they can extract further value from British Railways

at the expense of taxpayers and commuters. This is poor value for

the public and risks come promoting on safety. The last time the Tories

privatised rail tracks, there were a series of fatal accidents leading to

the creation of Network Rail in the first place. Now the secretary of

State wants to start on the slippery slope back to the bad old days of

Railtrack where profit chasing companies are entrusted with the

safety critical role of being responsible for infrastructure. As

the Secretary of State not learned the lessons of Railtrack or is he

simply choosing to ignore them and why seeks backing them to be

different? Annie explain why his planned integrated operating teams

will be different from the alliances between Network Rail and the South

West trains, which were abandoned. Or the similar arrangement between

Network Rail and ScotRail, which is performing abysmally. What

discussions has he had with the regulation? What costings have been

done for this programme and has there been a cost benefit analysis?

Mr Speaker it is time for our railways to be run by public

ownership and in the public ownership as an integrated national

asset in public hands with affordable fares and long-term

investment. Sadly, today's announcement takes us further away

from that than ever. An incoming Labour Government will redress it as

a matter of urgency. Unfortunately, there is not an

imminent labour Government anyway... The trouble is, with the party

opposite, they always want to turn the clock back to the day of British

rail and unions having sandwiches and beer in number ten. We want to

modernise the railways and make them work better. This isn't about

privatisation. I am not privatising Network Rail but creating teams on

the ground with the same incentives to work together in the interests of

the passenger. An essential part of that he has not spotted is that the

recommendations about devolution by Shaw, giving real power to local

teams to make decisions without always referring to the centre,

makes it possible for alliances to work better than they did in the

past. Where there have been alliances, they have made a

difference but they could do so much more. Mr Speaker, it is not rocket

science. If the trains are here and the tracks are there, there are two

separate teams. They do not work together, our railways do not

maximise potential. This is about forging tumour on the ground to

respond to challenges and plan and deliver a better service and that is

what we should all aspire to. Moving the deck chairs around and be

nationalising the railways, taking away hundreds of millions of pounds

a year of investment by the private sector in new trains would take our

railways backwards and make the travelling public worse off, and a

sign is always at the Labour Party has not made it into the modern

world. I welcome efforts to create greater

integration between those who run tracks and trains, but will he

acknowledged that a one size fits all model would not be the right

one. Certain lines are so heavily used by the operator... That degree

of integration is difficult. That is right and it is

straightforward in areas where there is a single iteration between

Network Rail routes and the train operators. On the West Coast

mainline, you have multiple operators so it is not like that. We

must protect the interests of freight operators and open access

operators. I do not plan to change the fundamental regulatory structure

but by forging things together and letting franchises and structuring

Network Rail in a way that integrates, over the vast majority

of our network we will be able to deliver a day-to-day performance and

a more reliable railway. The Secretary of State is right to

acknowledge the problems of the rail network but he should not do this to

first privatisation. There is higher privatisation and satisfaction in

Scotland than any other network in the UK but Scotland could do better.

Will he agreed to devolve power over Network Rail to the Scottish

Parliament? The point the honourable gentleman

has missed is describing progress in Scotland. Scotland is the one place

where we have a working alliance of the kind I am talking about. What he

describes is a step on the road to the model I want to create across

the railway, which he says builds passenger satisfaction. That is why

this is the right thing to do. But about privatisation but teamwork to

deliver a better passenger service. Although Network Rail does many

things well it is often cumbersome and non-responsive to customers.

Could my friend rack confirmed the purpose of his virtual operating

companies is to bring skilled benefits to the customer both in

terms of cost and service? He is right and has long experience.

What he will know is that right now the incentives for team members are

Network Rail are different to incentives for train operators. The

incentives over the whole railway should be to deliberate better jobs

for the customer. Part of the process will be aligning incentives

so everyone has the right motivation to deliver for the people who matter

and that is the customers. A joined up approach could bring

benefits and has been called for on many occasions by the transport

select committee. In this model but he is advocating, how would safety

be protected and could this be the beginning of potentially highly

expensive fragmentation of the system?

The opposite is the case. This is not about fragmentation, it is about

joining up. We have teams on the ground around the railway, something

out of the tracks and some the trains and working together well and

sometimes not. By creating a structure that shapes teams on the

ground and that involves decentralisation, the partnership

that has been recommended, that takes us to the place she has talked

about on the past. The joined up railway.

I congratulate him on to gain this initiative that should've been taken

20 years ago. I am delighted that my constituents travelling from east

Kent will be among the first to benefit from the cooperation between

Railtrack and the operating company. Can you indicate the funding will be

available so that the Kent coast line can be brought into the 20th

century and preferably into the 21st?

One of the things I hope and expect will come from the new franchise

bids is the kind of benefit that we have seen in east and clear where

every single train on the east Anglia rail network is due to be

replaced as part of the franchise. That is the kind of progress that

makes a real difference to passengers and I hope and expect to

see that improvement across the network and as the two sides work

closer together, the ability to deliver smaller improvements more

quickly becomes better, more credibly available and began

improved services. Isn't this the Minister that has a

bit of form? In a previous job he wrecked the prison system and now he

has got the job at transport and he is about to cause havoc there as

well. Let me surprise the honourable

gentleman by saying that I am the minister who decided not to

privatise the prison service. The decision described by the prisoners

Association as a victory -- prison officers Association. I am an

improver of services. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my

honourable friend his statement. Very encouraging. Would you not

agree that number of operators working with Railtrack going through

our constituencies at the moment and we agree with my experience that the

number of complaints has dropped as a dramatically as a result. There

has been a positive response to requests for changes in services by

constituents. That is right. It is the case. I

have two real routes through my constituency. We know and understand

the issues in southern but I went public meeting recently in my

constituency about the service provided by Southwest trains where I

found an audience who were broadly full of praise for the operator.

This autumn some things have gone wrong on the network but there are a

lot of decent, hard-working people on our railway and they have been

there for a long time. We should always recognise that.

Some of the main causes of delays and problems on the network are a

sickener failure, -- signal failure, can he explain what would be

different under his proposal is that currently take place now.

Let me give him a very specific example. On the south-west chains

network ten days ago quite a bad signal failure at lunchtime. I got

the train home in the evening and the services back to normal. That is

a joined up route with the nearest alliance that we have on the

network. I know they very hard together to try and deliver

improvements in something goes wrong. That is the example of the

kind of benefit you get by having joined up working, rather than

waiting several hours. May I welcome the move towards

greater integration with the operating teams. Does he share my

hope that this might stop the buck passing between train operating

companies and Network Rail, something that many of my

constituents north of the river on the terms link line have suffered on

a daily basis and something I drew to his attention yesterday?

He is right. I make no pretence, there are genuine problems on our

railways. They are mainly problems of intensive use, dramatic increase

in passenger numbers. We do have to deliver change and improvement. That

comes through capacity improvements and a lot of money has been spent on

the terms link right now. It come through better performance on a

day-to-day basis. I will never be afraid to hold real company 's feet

to the fire if they do not deliver. At the same time, we need to

recognise that many of the problems arise on infrastructure and getting

the two to work together to deliver real solutions to those problems.

That has to be right way forward. He said he once less contracting

complexity and more localised decision-making. Given more power to

private train operating companies will create a new an even layer of

contracts in the industry. How can you beat the be confident this will

not return to the real tragedy is such that happened at Potters bar's

I do not think she has been listening to me.

I am not talking about complex structures but teamwork on the

ground. We'll be started and it makes a difference, like in

Scotland. We need to strengthen these alliances and create stronger

teamwork on the front line. That is what will make a difference.

May I also welcome the announcement very much, quitting the proposal to

involve Kent County Council more. DN, day out real computers my

constituency have two deal with the trains. The acid managing director

of south eastern to write to his boss to explain why he is lead each

day. Can I ask him to see more about how these proposals will allow my

constituents to get to work on time? It is very much my hope that... I

know in the Kent area that has been disruption over the last couple of

years because of the improvements on London Bridge. There are lessons

that need to be learned to make sure we minimise disruption in the

future. We need big investments that will create extra capacity but they

have to be done anyway that is on damaging as possible to ongoing

services. What I would be saying to hard as I won the new franchise to

deliver the best possible improvements to services to Kent and

London. It is the design of this franchise has to be a 3-way

partnership. It is a multifaceted franchise that has to work for

everyone. In East Yorkshire, did we not have a

plan for joined up thinking using the train operator called first

trains to improve services for local people by electrifying to Hull. Was

that not abandoned by the Government just a couple of weeks ago, that

joined up thinking? What happened was that Hull trains

ordered before I had reached deciding about alleged location on

the line. That means we can spend more money around the network,

improving services. People in Hull should be pleased because they are

about to get smart, new trains that are going to improve services to

that area. I think we would all welcome more in

the integrated teams. In terms of the trans-Pennine route, could she's

been how this will work from my local passengers. The franchise runs

out in 2020 and the other into thousand and 23.

The central focus is ignored and franchise. That was the

recommendation. A large part of the real network is easy to deliver in

this way. There are some parts we have multiple operators and mini to

look quite carefully about how to do it. It is the integrity of the

Northern franchise and the foundation of the strongest alliance

and that area. Some of this integration is already

in place in our network. This isn't really a change, is it? Or this is

the predecessor to privatisation. Which is it?

It could just be that we have had some tentative steps in this

direction and early signs of promise and we think we should pursue them

were seriously. It could just be that. Thank you.

Commuters on the Braintree to Liverpool Street line suffered

cancellations and delays that are far too regular occurrence. Whilst I

welcome the commitment to the new rolling stock and franchise, does he

agree with me that bringing together of the train operating companies and

Network Rail will mean there can be no excuses the rolling stock,

signalling to further delays for commuters in my constituency?

I think what the public want is to know that someone is in charge. The

aim is to make sure everyone is in charge. -- someone is in charge.

There will be problems on a real system. We all want another is a

joined up team trying to solve them. I hope the new trains, when they

arrive, will deliver more reliability than the existing ones.

Will you explain whether this near Richmond has any impact on future

investment decisions. I know we've franchise is one of the first to be

considered. How does that impact on the possible education? We have had

a scheme that has been committed, paused, on paused but recommitted.

Now it seems to be the poor is not committed.

There is no impact. I have said that before. We are proceeding with the

next stage of electrocution to Corby and we're looking at how we deliver

service improvements to Sheffield by 2020, with improved journey times,

remodelling of key places like Derby station. I am looking actively about

how we provide the next and best trained fleet.

I have been campaigning for the reopening of the east-west rail line

for many years. May I thank my right honourable friend for those early

Christmas present. Will he assured me that this new body will be

working closely with the infrastructure commission on

unlocking these potential of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor? Do we

have an updated likely date for the opening of the line?

Absolutely we will be working with them and we will also be working

with the local authorities. I am not going to give him a date but I would

say one of the reasons we are doing this is that I want to accelerate

the process. If we look at the pipeline projects that Network Rail

has, I do not want to see this disappeared into the next decade. I

went to see a start and real improvement in works quickly. We

have money from the Autumn Statement to start some of that work around

the juncture point with high-speed rail to. This is a project I want to

make happen quickly. We have to demonstrate sometimes we can get on

with things in this country. My constituency on the north Wales

line is covered by two major franchises. Two governments, the

Welsh Government and the UK Government and one Network Rail. In

future there are plans, who will be responsible for safety? Has into the

Welsh Government about this? Today's announcement is about

England predominantly. The Welsh Government has taken the lead in

designing the franchise. The Welsh Government has in the with this view

because they are themselves part funded in securing bids from

integrated consortia in order to bid for the Cardiff Metro service that

has been proposed. Yes, I will be discussing this with the Welsh

Government. I have regular conversations with them and I hope

we will be able to build on some things we are seeking to do in

England. The Secretary of State decision to

reintegrate train and track where appropriate. It is sensible. Will he

accept that my constituents will regard his failure to remove the

London metal services from the discredited south eastern franchise

as being a cop out and failure and no sense at all as far as real users

in my constituency seat? I know my honourable friend feels

passionately about this but I do not agree with him. We will have the

opportunity between London and Kent to design and improved franchise for

the future. What I had to decide is where the benefits set out in the

Mayor's business plan, which did not increases involve increases in

capacity into London, was the improvements that the TEFL claimed

they could deliver, really worth putting his railway line through

what would have been the biggest restructures and the 1920s? My

judgment is that we can achieve the benefits through partnership rather

than mass organisation. What devaluation has been at the

time and cost benefit of doing the Oxford Cambridge line in the way he

is proposing, as proposed to Network Rail doing it? Does he envisage

other projects being run in this way? Is this about getting an

looking at different ways of doing things. Would he allow the public

sector to bid for a train franchises in future?

The issue about the Oxford to Cambridge corridor is that it is a

much broader project than just a really line. It is a key development

corridor by the Treasury, National infrastructure commission and we

need to look at improved road links between the two. It is a much more

complicated project than saying it is a really line. We do need to

build a model that helps development contributions on the route and it is

good for our rail sector to have a bit of contestability. The

presumption that Network Rail should do everything does not give us any

benchmarks to judge whether somebody else can do it better. I want to use

this as an opportunity in a way that does not affect the rest of the

network and see whether we can do them better and quicker.

Passengers in my constituency just wanted a better service, one which

matches the train timetable, something I have raised the

Secretary of State and a number of occasions. I agree both track and

train teams must work together to deliver a better service. What

improvements will my constituents see with this new initiative?

Secretary of state. Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the

things that I asked for around the southern route was to create the

kind of partnership I described today. The early experience with the

National rail minister was that Network Rail and the train operator

were not working closely together are not addressing problems

together. The real challenge in a constituency is the ongoing

industrial action. It is utterly pointless. Based on 01 losing their

jobs and the one losing any money... It is all about adopting new

technology. -- based on 01 losing their jobs. Based on technology

already being used on the same routes. It is a tragedy and I call

on them to go back to work. Madam Deputy Speaker, when transport

for London to cover the London Underground, it went from being the

worst performing rail line to both the best performing rail line in the

country. That is why an agreement was signed with the London

Government in March to take over South-eastern when the current

franchise expires in 2018. What has happened to make the Government

break their promise to London? I look carefully at this and I

think... She needs to understand the difference between the London

Underground and rest of the suburban routes. The overground has been a

good service, run by a part of German Railways and MPR, and

franchise operators like the rest. My judgment, rightly or wrongly, is

that having read the Maer's business case closely, the level of change

required to split this franchise in half to create the biggest operating

change on this railway since the 1920s, and the potential disruption

to passengers over a period of time, that we could deliver the service

improvements and TEFL we're talking about by forging a partnership. Also

crucially involving Kent because this is not just a London issue but

a rail line that runs from London to the south coast. You cannot just be

a rail system in terms of London because many passengers and

representatives in this House are from further afield and would take a

different view to her over what will work the rail line.

Can I welcome the secretary of State's pragmatic approach to this

problem? We on this side of the House believing devolution and we

believe in different solutions... We believe in different solutions

depending on the circumstances. The West Coast mainline is working at

almost 100% capacity. Kenny explain to my constituents Howell London

Midland and virgin are Network Rail on the West Coast Main line will

work better together through his proposals.

Mr Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are typical issues... There is

a logic around the Midlands and around the North of having a joined

up relationship between Network Rail and other train operators. Of course

you will have services like the West Coast Main line and the Virgin

service that cross countries and across boundaries service that meant

we must preserve the existing regulatory frameworks other services

are not affected. He joked about devolution... I'm talking about for

London the same model we have adopted for drugs were for the

North. And also in the Midlands. -- adopted for parts of the North. The

North has had big part of what has been thought to be a greatly

franchise to structure that will deliver real improvements for people

in the North of England. A couple of weeks after what was

meant to be about heralding new investment infrastructure, the new

Secretary of State gave the game away with today's announcement that

the new railway from Oxford to Cambridge will be run by private

investment. The true colours shining through. Back to the comments of the

success of the Alliance... If it is working so well just now, would it

not work better if we fully devolve Network Rail in Scotland to the

Scottish Government? The honourable gentleman talked

about investment and true colours. My view is that the public sector is

already putting a vast amount of investment into the railways. I

support that I will get as much investment as I can for our

transport system. There is no harm in trying to do more by

supplementing that with private finance. Maybe an ideological

division between us but I cannot see how a transport system loses by

having some private finance alongside huge amount of public

funding already going into it. Network Rail recently carried out ?3

million worth of upgrades to the line running through Fareham, my

constituency. Doesn't make secretary agree that this announcement will be

more passenger focused? There are still so many commuters from Fareham

who struggle because of the troubles with Southern Rail. A more joined up

and coordinated approach will be a step in the right direction to

ensure commuters can travel better to work.

There are three things that need to happen to deal with the issues on

Sutherland. First, we need joined up working, as I described. The second

is we need more money into the infrastructure for Southern, which

is under great stress. Intensively use and a lot has been spent on it

over the years. We are to get the workforce back to work. I find it

bizarre that I get very often a morning train to Victoria, which is

a Kent coach train, with a driver and no guard. It has been like that

for years. Why are the drivers and the cards on Southern, when no one

is in danger of losing their jobs, putting passengers to enormous

distress? Is shocking. The thing I would like to hear is just a word of

condemnation to the party opposite. They were ever hear any condemnation

of their union paymasters? The answer is, not for a moment.

Heidi Alexander. Thank you. When Zac Goldsmith was

standing as the Conservative candidate for mayor of London,

Department for Transport were all for the idea of devolving

responsibility for letting the south-east franchise to TEFL. Now

that he has gone, the promise seems to have gone as well. -- TFL. Why

does the Government jettisoned practical improvements that could be

associated with evolution in favour of this political experiment?

The problem was he talks about little experiments... Little

experiments would be implementing a business plan that I did not judge

delivered substantial improvements to passengers and brought the

biggest shake-up to the railways in the south-east since the 1920s. That

would be a risk we do not need to take. I think we can improve through

partnership and it is not just about London but also Kent. A partnership

and involves passengers in different parts of the route designing a

franchise structure that delivers improvements for everyone.

Passengers on the diesel operated East Midlands Trains franchise from

London to Kettering, who already experienced some of the most

expensive fares in the country, often have delays to their service,

not because of anything East Midlands Trains has done, but

because of Network Rail problems with the overhead lines coming out

of Saint pancreas Govia Thameslink service, often happening at Luton

and Bedford as well. Will the Secretary of State ensure that East

Midlands, cancelling trains, and Network Rail are one of the first to

set up these joint operating arrangements? That would be welcomed

by my Kettering constituents. My honourable friend is right and

that will be the case. It is one of the franchises to be liked. I think

there are improvements. One of the things I think is unsatisfactory

about the service for his constituents in Kettering as they

have to do is cram into city trains from further north than East

Midlands in the mornings, and we aim to deliver by 2020 better city

service and the better dedicated commuters service for Kettering and

further south. Jonathan Edwards.

From what I can gather, integration seems to be at the heart of what he

is endeavouring to achieve. With that in mind, now the UK Government

is handing over and devolving responsibility is for the Welsh

franchise to Wales, it is not logical to devolve responsibilities

by the Welsh network? We are not devolving responsibility

for the whole Welsh franchise in the way you described. We are in part,

because what I said to Welsh Government, I am very happy they

should take control of the Welsh valley lines with a view to

developing a natural system they hope to be able to put into service.

But the Welsh franchise as a whole is not fully Welsh but runs a large

parts of England also. We could not have a situation where Westminster

had given up control of services in England without checks and balances

to the Welsh Government. That will not happen.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome my honourable friend

announcement today of greater alignment between track and train

operators. In the last fortnight or so, it seems that Southern and

cancelling passengers have suffered a lot of apparent broken rail

reports. It seems more reports in that period than the last year. How

can this new model help address that situation?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the instance of broken rails is a

worrying coincidence to put it mildly. I am concerned about the

number of breakdowns that have been on the infrastructure in recent

weeks. When passengers blamed the train company, actually it's very

often, in recent times, more often than not and infrastructure problem.

But that route is suffering intensely from low-level industrial

action on non-strike days, where we have effectively had a work to rule

of sorts in different parts of the railway for months. That is also

putting intense pressure on. I wish the unions would just accept that

are not losing as a result of the change. They have more job security,

better pay than a lot of people in the south-east, they should get back

to work and do the job they need to do.

The public devolution... After a number of Conservative MPs and

council leaders and assemblies, if the Government signed a joint

prospectus with the previous, why is it the narrow, petty point that he

does not want to devolve to a labourer Merrimack that he does not

want frozen fares? The honourable gentleman said he

would provide more frequent trains but the Merrimack's plan did not

provide more frequent trains. It would have involved the biggest

reorganisation of those routes since the 1920s. My judgment is that says

it does not deliver the more frequent trains he has described, we

will design the franchise through partnership rather than people.

As the Secretary of State is aware, there are ongoing problems on

Southern Rail, which have been going on for a significant time. Work

done... And they have been made worse by the inability of Network

Rail and the GTR to work together. Can I welcome the work he has done,

his pragmatic approach to that? Also the pragmatic approach towards the

unions. I appreciate my honourable friend's

comments. One of the frustrations of breakdowns last week was caused by

equipment left behind on engineering work being done to sort out the

problems in that tunnel, a reason from reliability. Some of the money

I set out in September is now being sped operationally on the ground...

It is frustrating that it has an unfortunate accidental effect.

Can the Secretary of State to tell us when the electrification works

between Cardiff and Swansea will be finished?

I have said to him before, I will make no bones about the fact I am

not happy about the progress for the electrification, which has not made

the progress I hope. My priority is to deliver for him the new trains

and improve journey times that will result from where we have got to so

far. And we hope we will get too soon on the electrification

programme. What will make the biggest difference to Swansea is

faster trains to London. What are the implications in the

proposed partnership on the East Midlands franchise for smaller

capital schemes like that for a level access at the station which

was scandalously delayed by Network Rail last week?

Madam Deputy Speaker, one thing he will now is that train operators

have made improvements in the past and it has made evidence for them,

including Chilton. But I hope on the ground as we will have more autonomy

for the Network Rail team, including autonomy for private sector

operators and they will come together and look at small schemes

which will look at differences which can be afforded on local budgets.

Proposals to devolve rail services in London were championed by his

predecessor, underpinned by a solid business case, had cross-party

support inside and outside of London, and importantly were

incredibly popular among passengers in London and Kent who suffer daily

at the hands of South-eastern with unreliable and overcrowded services.

Does the Secretary of State accept his decision to take this proposal

of the table today will be seen as a betrayal by those passengers of the

hopes and affectations raised earlier in the year by the

Government? No. The business plan submitted does

not consider extra capacity. I have invited them to work alongside us in

designing a franchise that maximises performance, takes advantage of any

best practice that we can learn from, and works for London and for

account. Both are important. Thank you.

People in Corby are delighted with the Government's commitment to the

electrification of the Midland mainline. They are very pleased with

the grades that we have seen in recent weeks. They would like to

seek more trains running northbound and southbound through Corby. What

benefit does he see this great cooperation having in terms of

responding most effectively to local concern and demand?

What we know is that often on the railways, it is the small things

that can make a real difference. What I want to see is when

decentralisation of Network Rail into a route based structure with

autonomous local managing directors who have their own budgets, they

will be much better placed to really apply small amounts of money to

small schemes that make material difference to passengers. I think

that this approach will make that more likely. Starting with East

Midlands, it's a real opportunity for them to be early benefactors of

this. Ian Lucas.

Transport for London and Merseyrail are successful vertically integrated

train companies. Why if we want more integration don't we apply their

successful model, which does not put private and public investment to the

rest of our network? Merseyrail is not a vertically

operated train operator. I discussed with them whether they wanted to

take control and they have suggested they did not agree one too. I would

be very happy if Merseyrail took control of their tracks. It