Chair: Welcome. We have been reflecting, and we always like to get the positives on the table. Those are that once the decision was taken to go ahead with this project, certainly as far as phase 1 is concerned, you delivered a complicated project within budget and, I think, within time. We think that that is good, and we want to explore a little why that happened-probably talking to Michael Hurn a bit about it.
It will have taken us 30 years by the time it is up and running since people first thought it was a good idea to modernise the Thameslink line and stations. Thirty years, Permanent Secretary! Why? What on earth can you learn from that? It is just not an acceptable way. Even when you think about HS2, which we are going to do in a couple of weeks' time, 30 years is a heck of a long time. Why? What do you think are the underlying issues? How are you trying to tackle them? Maybe David Higgins wants to come in on that too.
Philip Rutnam: You are absolutely right, it is a very long time. I assume you are referring back to The Central London Rail Study in 1989, which first put forward this idea of enhancing the Thameslink service. A lot of things happened after that study: there was a downturn in the economy and great pressure on public finances. So a number of particular events-
Chair: But downturns, booms and busts, are common.
Philip Rutnam: They are cyclical, yes.
The key features to managing very big projects like this successfully are: a clear sense of direction, with a clear set of decisions, ultimately made by Ministers if public funds are involved, setting clear objectives; preferably as much political consensus as you can get around the projects, because even if you condense 30 years to, say, the 11 that this project will have taken, you are still exposed to the fact that there will be general elections during that period, so an element of political consensus is desirable; very strong project planning, because the more effort you can put into the planning stage, before you actually start the excavation and construction phase, the better; and, finally, clear, stable, predictable public funding. Those are the elements I would pick out for how you can condense the 30-year period into something less, but I would say that these projects are always going to be lengthy; they are always going to be challenged; it is always going to take longer than public expectations would want. We have to be realistic, but you are right that 30 years is a long time.
Q1 Chair: I still do not feel that you have entirely answered the question. You have said what makes for a good project, but what can we learn from this one? What would you have wanted different so that you could have done this quicker? I don't know why it even has to take 10 years. This is a modernisation; it is different from building a completely new track à la Crossrail or HS2. You have an existing track and you are modernising it and you are modernising the station, so there are not hugely difficult planning permissions that you would have from public inquiries and things.
Philip Rutnam: You mentioned positives. I think there are lots of positives to be taken from this. Obviously we are still part way through, but there are lots of positives to be taken from it. I would say from the point where the Government made the decision in 2007-
Q2 Chair: What happened between now and when we first had the report. You answer, Mr Hurn, if you know.
Michael Hurn: As you rightly say, the project has had a lengthy period. It originated in 1989. Throughout 19 June 2013 Department for Transport and Network Rail the '90s it had a very protracted planning process and there were two public inquiries, each lasting a number of years. Also, there was a stop-go approach to some of the funding for the development work for the project as a whole. That impacted on the ability to deliver those public inquiries to certain time scales. Clearly, the public inquiries had a lot of things to discuss. It is a very big project with lots of work in London and lots of issues to consider in terms of construction and the effect on the local community. By their nature, there is reason to have a lot of discussions with the local community to get agreements on a range of things-putting a new viaduct through Borough market is a significant thing for the local community and had to be handled with a great deal of care, taking account of their concerns, from a construction point of view.
There was a combination of things, with two quite lengthy public inquiries and a lengthy process for the development, because the funding varied in the amount available from 1990 to 2000. The final public inquiry planning powers were confirmed in 2006 and we moved very rapidly into the construction phase of the project, agreeing arrangements with Network Rail in 2008 and starting the main construction work in 2009. When you want me to, I will talk about where we were with key output 1, which was the first phase of the project, and our success in delivering that for the rail industry.
Q3 Chair: Do you want to add anything, Mr Higgins?
David Higgins: A huge improvement in the industry now is the Department's high-level output statement, which is the Government's requirement for the industry, particularly Network Rail, accompanied by the statement of funds available. That responds to the industry's submission, which is the initial industry plan, and that ties in to the five-year funding settlements that Network Rail gets. That has provided a huge amount of discipline and a framework from Government.
Q4 Chair: But that could be challenged by a future Government.
David Higgins: Yes, it could. Both Thameslink and Crossrail are spread over 10 years-two control periods-but they were set out in an initial high-level output statement at the start of control period 4, which was 2009. I think that is very good discipline and a great improvement on where the system was 10 years ago.
Q5 Chair: It is interesting, because it shows that for these big infrastructure projects, you need to move forward, probably with cross-party agreement.
Philip Rutnam: An element of political consensus is clearly helpful-and, crucially, clarity around public funding.
Q6 Chair: The Treasury accepting that it is a priority.
Philip Rutnam: One thing that the rail industry does have now-David has referred to it-is this multi-year framework for planning the funding that Government will provide to it. That goes well beyond the spending round period, and that is a great help.
Q7 Chair: How far does it go ahead?
Philip Rutnam: At the moment, to 2019.
Q8 Chair: Not that far ahead, but better-
Philip Rutnam: Better than exists in some other areas, you could say.
Q9 Chair: But it would not cover you for HS2.
Philip Rutnam: HS2 is another matter, which I think we are talking about shortly.
Q10 Chair: I'll go to Mr Hurn again. It is a joy for us to see an SRO who has been around for more than two minutes, and you have been there since 2008.
Michael Hurn: I have.