Q171 Chair: Very quickly, each of you, will it be finished by December 2018?
Michael Hurn: That is very much our target date.
Q172 Chair: Yes or no?
Michael Hurn: We are confident that, with the right industry approach, we will deliver it, but there are challenges ahead. There is no doubt about it.
Q173 Chair: So "maybe". Yes or no, Mr Rutnam?
Philip Rutnam: I think there is a very good prospect of it. If we work really hard at it, there is every chance we will overcome the challenges. It cannot be guaranteed, but if we do not set about making it happen, it definitely will not happen.
David Higgins: The infrastructure will be finished in January 2018, which will allow us to run 20 cars in May 2018. The trick is going from 20 trains per hour to 24 trains an hour, which is a complex signal and control system. It depends on the contract that we can work out with Siemens, the onboard train equipment and the testing in the Hertford loop. We will then understand whether December 2018 is realistic, and we need to get that right. The vast majority of the benefits come-
Q174 Chair: So "maybe"?
David Higgins: No. The vast majority of the benefits come as soon as the 20 trains an hour come.
Q175 Chair: Very finally, we are taking the opportunity of your appearance to ask you about previous reports and implementation of the recommendations. There was one that we did in February 2013. You produced a response to a report we had done in November 2010, two and a half years ago, which was on passenger rail capacity. In that report, one of our recommendations to you was that, in franchises, you should ensure that the franchisee has an obligation to provide sufficient capacity to meet passenger demand without excessive overcrowding. Will we see that in the way in which you now pursue franchises?
Philip Rutnam: An obligation-
Chair: To provide sufficient capacity to meet passenger demand without excessive overcrowding. Will that be an obligation on franchisees?
Philip Rutnam: I will have to write to you on that point. Apologies. I did not know that question was coming up. Sorry if I should have known.
Q176 Chair: Tell your colleagues that that is something we intend to consider.
We looked at the increase in fares, and where that money was spent. We asked that you provide transparent information on how many new passenger places that increase in income from fares is delivering, where and at what cost to taxpayers and fare payers. It was really a transparency issue. My question to you now, given that this was two and a half years ago, is when will you publish data on how many new passenger places are being delivered, on which trains and at what cost to fare payers and taxpayers?
Philip Rutnam: I'm afraid that my answer has to be the same. I will write to you within the week.
Chair: Okay.
Q177 Stephen Barclay: One of our previous recommendations was that the National Audit Office would have access to Network Rail. You disagreed with that, even though we had quite a long debate about the fact that Network Rail's liabilities are fully underwritten by the taxpayer. Can you update us on the rationale for refusing what has clearly been demonstrated in other areas as being a useful tool for Parliament in achieving value for money?
Philip Rutnam: The Government's rationale remains the same now as I think it would have been then, when we did not agree with the recommendation. It has two elements: first, it is indeed very important that there are the right incentives and the right scrutiny of Network Rail to promote efficiency and value for money, but that is a role that the Office of Rail Regulation has, and which it pursues with considerable vigour. It published its draft determination on Network Rail's finances for the next four years just last week, and it runs to well over 700 pages. A very serious and intensive process is attached to the economic regulation of Network Rail. You will be familiar with the second point. I know that the Committee may not agree, but Network Rail is classified to the private sector. It is not under the control of the Government, so the Government do not think that it is their job to say that Network Rail should be-
Q178 Stephen Barclay: I just wondered whether there had been any change because, clearly, you disagree with the head of the No. 10 policy unit when he was on this Committee. He said, "To all intents and purposes, it is a public company. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck." I recognise that his role has changed, but that is the view of the head of the policy unit, when he was on this Committee. Presumably, your position is at variance with that.
Philip Rutnam: The Government's position is very clear on that matter. As he is a Government Minister, I imagine that, if Mr Johnson were asked now, the answer that he gave would be in line with the Government's policy.
Q179 Chair: Why is the ORR not involved in the project?
Philip Rutnam: It is involved in the project actually. It sits on the Government's committee that Michael leads but, because of the scale and complexity of the project, we also have something called a regulatory protocol in place between the Department and Network Rail that gives us an additional level of incentivisation for Network Rail, particularly for this project, and an additional level of involvement.
Chair: Good. Thank you very much indeed.
____________________