Kelvin Hopkins

Following remaining recruitment, the Department will have five full-time officials working on Eco Design and Energy Labelling Directives.

ICF International are contracted by the team to provide technical advice and this is supplemented by support from analysts across DECC’s Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.

DECC have appointed the National Measurement Office to monitor compliance and enforce the Eco Design and Energy Labelling implementing measures within the UK.

At the time of publication of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) consultation document, the Government estimated that ESOS would have a net present value ranging from £900m to £3bn, with a central estimate of £1.9bn, measured over the period 2015-2030. The Final Stage Impact Assessment, published alongside the Government’s Response to the ESOS Consultation, took account of new evidence which led to it revising down the estimated net present value, to between £600m and £2.7bn, with a central estimate of £1.6bn. The reasons for this change are set out on pages 17-19 of the Final Stage Impact Assessment, which can be found at the link below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323116/ESOS_Impact_Assessment_FINAL.pdf.

Following the end of a two year agreement with the Department, Peter Boyd completed his formal role as Chair for Energy Efficiency Deployment Office in May 2014.

The Department has decided not to continue a Chair role for this Office.

The Government is committed to increasing compliance with minimum wage legislation and effective enforcement of it. Everyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have 173 staff dedicated to the enforcement of the National Minimum Wage.

The Government is already taking tougher action on employers that break minimum wage law. We have made it simpler to name and shame employers that don't pay the national minimum wage and increased the financial penalty that employers pay for breaking the law.

As stated on page 6 of the consultation document, the Government has confirmed that ECO is intended to be ambitious and long term, extending through at least until 2022. The precise shape of the obligation beyond 2017 will be consulted on in due course, and is not in scope of the current consultation exercise which focuses on the period through to 2017.

The original question 10 was unclear, in that it requested views on the proposed ECO target in the obligation period to March 2017, but followed a series of specific questions (now questions 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the amended consultation document) seeking views on targets for each of the ECO sub-obligations in that period. As explained on the DECC website, the question was therefore removed in the interests of clarity and to avoid unnecessary repetition.

The Electoral Commission informs me that the confirmation dry run involved matching all entries on the electoral registers against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Customer Information System database. Entries would be marked as green if they matched with DWP, amber if they were a partial match or red if there was no match.

Results for all wards are available on the Commission's website here: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0003/163146/Confirmation-dry-run-2013-Results-Wards.xls

The ward results for Luton Borough Council were as follows:

The consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) closed on 16 April 2014, and the Government expects to publish its response before Parliament rises for Summer recess.

The Government has already confirmed that the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is intended to be ambitious and long-term, extending through until at least 2022.

The recent consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) focussed on the period between now and 2017. The precise shape of the obligation after March 2017 will be the subject of a separate consultation in due course.

The insolvency of a party will not necessarily prevent the use of existing dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration. If, however, insolvency related remedies are sought, for example in relation to claims against directors, preference claims, claims to set aside transactions at undervalue, steps will need to be undertaken to ensure appropriate authority is provided by the court.

Insolvency practitioners deal with a number of conflicting interests and their authorising bodies cannot intervene in, or adjudicate upon, disputes of a commercial or legal nature. Ultimately, it is for the Courts to adjudicate upon commercial disputes and disagreements about the application of insolvency law.

Where there are concerns about the actions of an insolvency practitioner, these should in the first instance be raised directly with the practitioner. If this fails to resolve the matter, then a complaint can be made through the Insolvency Service’s Complaints Gateway at: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner. In June 2013, we established this new gateway to provide a single point of entry for complaints about insolvency practitioners following collaborative discussions between the Insolvency Service and the bodies that authorise insolvency practitioners. The Gateway handles circa 700 complaints annually.

Given the existing options for resolving disputes, I am not proposing to make any changes at this time.

The following UK bodies have regulatory responsibility for enforcing compliance with the Companies Act 2006:

Public Bodies (under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000):

Companies House

Financial Reporting Council

Insolvency Service

Other:

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

Chartered Accountants Ireland

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

Takeover Appeal Board

Takeover Panel

This answer does not consider obligations on companies and other businesses generally such as employment regulation, environmental regulation or for reasons of public safety, or those bodies that have general responsibilities in respect of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The categorisation of bodies reflects the categorisation used for government accounting purposes and the application of the requirements of managing public money.

Under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises certain independent professional bodies, called Recognised Professional Bodies, for the purpose of authorising their members to act as insolvency practitioners. There are currently five Recognised Professional Bodies:

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales;

Insolvency Practitioners Association;

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;

Institute of Charted Accountants of Scotland; and

Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The Recognised Professional Bodies enforce compliance with insolvency laws by insolvency practitioners they authorise. The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, regulates the Recognised Professional Bodies on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Insolvency Service also enforces compliance with insolvency laws through a range of powers exercisable against a Recognised Professional Body and directly against an insolvency practitioner.

Documents filed with Companies House should be legible and enable Companies House to make an acceptable copy of the document for the public record. Documents are examined for legibility before they are accepted for registration and may be returned if an examiner believes they do not meet the legibility requirements. Should Companies House receive a public complaint, or become aware in some other way, that a document is not legible, it will contact the company and request a new copy of the document.

When Thames Water Utilities Limited files its accounts for 2017-18 they will be subject to Companies House’s usual examination checks. These include checks to ensure a legible copy can be made for the Public Record. If Companies House is not satisfied a legible copy can be made it will reject them and ask for a copy that meets the requirements.

Data that relies on company filings such as annual reports as its source shows that, as at 27 June 2018, 3,263 UK companies report that they have between 500 and 1,000 employees; and 3,573 UK companies report that they have more than 1,000 employees.

Companies House does not hold this information. Having a criminal conviction does not preclude a person from being a director. Consequently, Companies House does not ask for or record this information.

Unless it is already in voluntary liquidation, a company may only be wound up by a petition to the Court. There are no provisions in the Companies Act 2006 for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy to present a petition to wind a company up; these are contained in the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy may present a petition, as provided in the Insolvency Act 1986 only if he decides it is in the public interest to do so, having considered a report of information obtained by a statutory investigation into the company's affairs. I am not currently aware of any ongoing investigation into Business Bank Italy Limited.

There are no directors of companies registered in the UK who are aged under 16.

The Insolvency Service is currently bringing disqualification proceedings against a number of former directors of BHS and connected companies. As these matters may now be tested in Court it would not be appropriate to comment or issue further information at this time.Once the disqualification proceedings are complete government will consider what detail it is appropriate to publish, having full regard to any legal restrictions on publication and also the legitimate public interest in the cause of the BHS failure.

The Secretary of State has delegated responsibility for overseeing the work of recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). The FRC must be satisfied that an RSB meets the conditions set out in Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006, as amended by the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016, in order for it to be recognised. In addition, as the competent authority for statutory audit, the FRC must be satisfied that each RSB has the necessary arrangements in place to fulfil the audit regulatory tasks delegated to it by the FRC.

If necessary where there is a failure to meet the required conditions the FRC can reclaim any audit regulatory functions that it has delegated to an RSB. If an RSB does not meet the Schedule 10 requirements, the FRC can remove the body’s recognition as a supervisory body.

The Department has identified a number of partner organisations as performing regulatory functions. They are the British Hallmarking Council, the Coal Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Copyright Tribunal, the Financial Reporting Council, the Insolvency Service, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the Oil and Gas Authority and the UK Space Agency.

All our regulatory bodies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with the exception of the Financial Reporting Council which is subject to the Act for some but not all of its functions. The Financial Reporting Council and its status under the Freedom of Information Act is currently being reviewed by Sir John Kingman. We expect the review to report at the end of 2018.

Companies House does not hold this information. Having a criminal conviction does not preclude a person from being a director. Consequently, Companies House does not ask for or record this information.

The Department is not responsible for carrying out checks on dividends paid by companies to ensure that they do not exceed their distributable reserves.

The Government has no plans to appoint such a committee. The work of the Financial Reporting Council has been reviewed by committees in both Houses of Parliament and we would expect this to continue.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) agreed a disciplinary scheme with the accountancy professional bodies in 2004 meeting requirements in company law for it to have in place arrangements with the recognised supervisory bodies for the purposes of disciplining auditors. The funding basis for the scheme was that the professional bodies would fund the costs of disciplinary actions and that any costs and fines ordered against the members of their bodies would be paid to those bodies.

New statutory powers for the FRC to impose fines on auditing firms were introduced in the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016. The Regulations require that fines imposed under the powers must be transferred by the FRC to the Secretary of State.

The FRC continues to maintain a disciplinary scheme for non-statutory audit matters: for fines recovered under those arrangements, the fines continue to be paid over to the relevant accountancy professional bodies.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) oversees of the work of recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) as the Secretary of State’s delegate and the UK’s competent authority for audit. The FRC is designated for these purposes by the Companies Act 2006 and certain secondary legislation. If the RSBs breach the requirements put in place under that legislation, the FRC can remove the bodies’ recognition and can also reclaim any audit regulatory functions that it has delegated to them.

Shareholding through nominee accounts is commonly used for legitimate investment and commercial reasons. The Government has no plans to introduce legislative proposals to prohibit nominee shareholdings.

Companies are already required to identify all of their shareholders. Companies Act 2006 requires companies to keep a register of members and enter the details of members in this register (in the case of a company limited by shares, the members are the shareholders). The register of members must be kept available for inspection at the company’s registered office and any person may request to inspect it on payment of any fee set by the company (the size of which is limited by legislation).

Companies House does not have powers to verify the authenticity of company directors, secretaries and registered office addresses. However, it does carry out a number of checks on all information received; ensuring it is valid, complete, correctly formatted and in compliance with company filing requirements. The obligation to ensure the information is accurate lies with the company and its directors. An offence is committed by the company if it files false information. Companies House maintains one of the most open and extensively accessed companies’ register in the world. It is a powerful tool in identifying false, inaccurate or possibly fraudulent information. With many eyes viewing the data, errors, omissions or worse can be identified and reported.

No action has been taken at this time against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing inappropriate information in Italian at Companies House. The company has already filed documents providing appropriate information and terminating the inappropriate appointment.

None of the Recognised Professional Bodies who regulate insolvency are subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

The following bodies are authorised to act as Recognised Supervisory Bodies under the Companies Act 2006: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; Chartered Accountants Ireland; The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. They are independent private bodies and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

It would not be appropriate for details of the Insolvency Service’s ongoing investigation into BHS to be made public at this point, as that may prejudice the outcome of any criminal or civil cases which arise from it.

The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 inserts new sections 156A-C in the Companies Act 2006 that will require that all company directors should be natural persons and prohibit (subject to exceptions) the appointment of corporate entities as directors. The Government will bring forward regulations to set out the exceptions and commence this requirement when Parliamentary time allows.

Companies House’s role is to incorporate and dissolve limited companies. It registers the information that UK companies are required to disclose and makes it available to the public. Companies House does not have a front-line role in combatting money laundering but it can support and assist law enforcement in their investigations.

Company House carries out a number of checks on all information received, ensuring it is valid, complete, and in compliance with company filing requirements. When it detects or receives intelligence relating to suspicious actions, including possible money laundering, Companies House will report the information to the relevant enforcement body.

No action has been taken at this time against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing inappropriate information in Italian at Companies House.

The Nuclear Industry Council last met on 22 February. The meeting included a broad-ranging discussion to help inform the proposed nuclear Sector Deal as part of the Industrial Strategy.

The Council – which is co-chaired by Lord Hutton and myself – has a smaller membership than previously, comprised of executive-level representatives from across the nuclear industry and relevant parts of government, to facilitate a more strategic approach and broader focus. The full membership list is available on the NIA’s website: https://www.niauk.org/

The Low Carbon Contracts Company Ltd. (LCCC) monitors and enforces the Secretary of State Investor Agreement (SOSIA), and will impose any sanctions as necessary.

The safe decommissioning of the Pile Fuel Storage Pond is a priority of the hazard and risk reduction programme at Sellafield. The entire bulk stocks of historic nuclear fuel have now been removed from this nearly 70 year old facility, and the assessed radioactive hazard risk associated with the facility has been reduced by 70%.

The current life time plan budget for emptying the Pile Fuel Storage Pond of fuel and waste, and decommissioning the facility in line with the agreed end state for the Sellafield site is approximately £1bn.

All Freedom of Information requests are considered on a case-by-case basis taking into account all the circumstances of the case at the time the request is made. If the Department considered that information within the scope of a request would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it) and the balance of the public interest favoured withholding it, subject to applicable law, then the information would not be disclosed.

Queen Mary University of London, as the research organisation which held the award, is responsible for the management of the study, including the investigation of any concerns relating to research conduct and research integrity.

Whilst the Medical Research Council (MRC) was one of the funders of the PACE trial, the responsibility for the management of the trial rested with the host research institution, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). This responsibility included oversight of the trial and the investigation of any well-founded allegations of misconduct that are brought to its attention. As part of this oversight, in accordance with MRC guidance on best practice, a trial steering committee was set up and supported by various sub-groups, including a data monitoring committee. The MRC was an observer on the trial steering committee.

Anyone wishing to raise concerns to over the conduct of individual researchers or research programmes is advised to contact QMUL in the first instance to allow the University to investigate appropriately. It would be inappropriate for BEIS to intervene in such investigations or to impose sanctions against researchers.

Queen Mary University of London, as the research organisation which held the award, is responsible for the management of the study, including the investigation of any concerns relating to research conduct and research integrity.

Whilst the Medical Research Council (MRC) was one of the funders of the PACE trial, the responsibility for the management of the trial rested with the host research institution, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). This responsibility included oversight of the trial and the investigation of any well-founded allegations of misconduct that are brought to its attention. As part of this oversight, in accordance with MRC guidance on best practice, a trial steering committee was set up and supported by various sub-groups, including a data monitoring committee. The MRC was an observer on the trial steering committee.

Anyone wishing to raise concerns to over the conduct of individual researchers or research programmes is advised to contact QMUL in the first instance to allow the University to investigate appropriately. It would be inappropriate for BEIS to intervene in such investigations or to impose sanctions against researchers.

Management of individual staff within the Medical Research Council is a matter for the MRC as the legal employer.

The MRC welcomes applications to support research into any aspect of human health and these are subject to peer review and judged in open competition. Awards are made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made. The MRC has promoted research into Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalopathy (CFS/ME) through highlight notices for a number of years.

Concerning dissatisfaction of patients, I will write to the Chair of the Medical Research Council to request an account of the development of relevant policies and in particular how CFS/ME patients’ views have been considered. I will deposit a copy of his reply in the Libraries of the House.

My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has not held any discussions with Acas on this matter. This is an operational matter for Acas.

Acas has provided regular updates to officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on its programme of transformation to better meet the needs of service users and deliver its vision for 2021.

Reform and other business processes are an operational matter for Acas.

There have been numerous discussions with trade union representatives on concentrating helpline services in four locations and other aspects of change. A PCS representative was included in the working group looking at the proposals on office structure in the North West.

Acas is committed to maintaining the service it provides during this 12-18 month period of change and will continue to monitor performance standards to ensure that this is the case.

The business change programme involves the closure of a single office (Liverpool) in the only economic region in Great Britain which had two Acas offices – the other one is located in Manchester. The closure will not result in any significant reduction in overall staff numbers.

Acas conducted an equality impact assessment to inform its decision to have one office in each economic area, including the North West. The assessment highlighted that staff with caring responsibilities or a disability would potentially be most impacted as they may be less able to travel to another office to work. Further equality impact assessments will be carried out as necessary to inform subsequent options and decisions.

A total of eight 16 to 19 free schools have opened in 2014-15. We hold student recruitment data for seven of these schools who have, in total, recruited 686 students in that period.

After contracts for site acquisition and construction are finalised, and the cost of the project is no longer commercially sensitive, we will publish details of the capital funding received by each open free school here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/capital-funding-for-open-free-schools. None of the schools opened in 2014-15 are at this stage, so the data is not yet published.

In the academic year 2014/15, there were two maintained schools and 29 academies that established a new sixth form. The total revenue funding allocated to these sixth forms in 2014/15 was £11.4 million and the total capital funding identified for these sixth forms was £16.6 million.

The Department for Education has provided £6.7 million in revenue funding to 16-19 academies that opened since January 2014. This figure includes £1.6 million in start-up funding. All of the 16-19 academies that opened since January 2014 are free schools.

The Department publishes details of capital funding allocated to free schools once contracts for site acquisition and renovation are finalised and once the cost of the project is no longer commercially sensitive. None of the schools opened since January 2014 is at this stage, so the data is not yet published. Once available, details of capital funding for free schools is published at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/capital-funding-for-open-free-schools

In 2013/14, the latest year for which data is available, there were 12,500 students enrolled in those new sixth forms which had opened between 2011/12 and 2013/14. The Department for Education does not have records for new sixth forms prior to 2011.

In 2013/14, the latest year for which data is available, there were 3,000 students enrolled in those 16-19 academy and free schools that opened since 2010.[1]

This figure does not include those that opened in 2014 as there is no student data yet available. The data sources used are the School Census 2013/14 S02 and Individualised Learner Record 2013/14 R14. The figures include funded learners only.

[1] Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

Information on the number of students who entered AS level qualifications in the 2012/13 academic year by school type is provided in the attached table.

The information requested is not currently available. Provisional information for students entered for A2 levels in the 2013/14 academic year will be available in October 2014.

The information requested is not held by the Department for Education.

Key stage 4 results for individual schools, including academies, are published online in Performance Tables[1]. A copy of the list of schools and academies that established a sixth form since 2011, with their current details, has been placed in the House Library.

[1]http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/

The net cost of unfilled places referred to in my previous answer was based on the funding per student for each individual institution and the number of students recruited in that institution above or below the allocated number as appropriate. This figure was then adjusted to take into the account the sixth form element of funds recovered by the Education Funding Agency from those academies which are funded on the basis of estimated pupil numbers but which educated fewer pupils than had been provided for in those estimates.

The net cost of unfilled places referred to in my previous answer was based on the funding per student for each individual institution and the number of students recruited in that institution above or below the allocated number as appropriate. This figure was then adjusted to take into the account the sixth form element of funds recovered by the Education Funding Agency from those academies which are funded on the basis of estimated pupil numbers but which educated fewer pupils than had been provided for in those estimates.

The total number of students funded in 2012/13 in school sixth forms, academy sixth forms and 16-19 free schools established since September 2011 was 9,610 and the total actual number of students enrolled was 7,775. The numbers by institution type are as follows:

The majority of academies and all maintained schools are funded on a lagged basis so that numbers recruited in one year will then determine the allocation in the following year.Some academies are funded on the basis of estimated numbers, and their funding is then adjusted based on actual recruitment. The impact on sixth form funding of any such adjustments is included in these figures.

The approximate total net cost of unfilled places in respect of the above in 2012/13 was £5.76 million. Institutions with unfilled places will have their funding reduced in the following year. The costs by institution type are as follows:

The total number of students funded in 2012/13 in school sixth forms, academy sixth forms and 16-19 free schools established since September 2011 was 9,610 and the total actual number of students enrolled was 7,775. The numbers by institution type are as follows:

The majority of academies and all maintained schools are funded on a lagged basis so that numbers recruited in one year will then determine the allocation in the following year.Some academies are funded on the basis of estimated numbers, and their funding is then adjusted based on actual recruitment. The impact on sixth form funding of any such adjustments is included in these figures.

The approximate total net cost of unfilled places in respect of the above in 2012/13 was £5.76 million. Institutions with unfilled places will have their funding reduced in the following year. The costs by institution type are as follows:

Sixth-form colleges are classified as private sector institutions and already benefit from the freedoms that academies enjoy. For this reason, the Department for Education has no plans to publish guidance for sixth-form colleges that wish to convert to become 16 to 19 academies.

The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 standards apply to non-mainline operations (such as trams, light rail and metro systems). Accessibility standards for trains operated on the mainline are either the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 or the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI) (under the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011).

Thameslink is in the process of commissioning and operating 1140 brand new Class 700 vehicles, which are PRM-TSI compliant. The following units are built to the standards mandated in the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998:

Class 171 (6 x4 car units plus 10 x 2 car units), Class 377/1 (64 x 4 car units), Class 377/2 (15 x 4 car units), Class 377/3 (28 x 3 car units), 377/4 (75 x 4 car units), class 377/5 (23 x 4 car units).

The Department has not provided the information requested in Question 55011 to the Guardian.

The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.

The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.

Govia Thameslink Railway’s (GTR) claim for force majeure relates to official and unofficial action by Southern train crew. This includes unofficial action for all days throughout the claim period. On days where there has been a notified strike, GTR’s claim also includes a claim for official action. Due to the unprecedented scale of disruption, the rail industry systems that capture disruption data are unable to differentiate between the two. Any such difference is likely to be immaterial to the passenger affected by this damaging and unwarranted action.

I am not aware of any statistical evidence having been submitted to the Department by train operators about delays or cancellations so caused.

The Remedial Plan includes benchmarks covering all cancellations that Govia Thameslink Railway are responsible for. The benchmark is not disaggregated by specific reasons or rolling stock types.

Since May 2015, 4 events across 3 train operating companies have had force majeure claims agreed in respect of industrial disputes on the railway.

As this is a management contract, officials have regular meetings with Govia Thameslink Railway. All levels of official can and do attend, from the Director General for Rail Group and the Managing Director for Passengers Services down.

Govia Thameslink Railway provided the Department with the figure that was given to the Chair of the Transport Committee. The force majeure claim has no impact on such calculations.

The Department has not issued general guidance to franchised train operating companies, as the force majeure provisions are defined as part of franchise agreements, which form the contract between the Department for Transport and train operating companies for the provision of franchised rail passenger services.

Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.

Train operators report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock. This information is not segregated by type of operation.

Govia Thameslink Railway have delivered the commitments detailed in the Remedial Plan to date, including exceeding the key requirement to maintain a minimum number of drivers. The other requirements which are due to be delivered at a later stage will be kept under review by the Department.

The Department does not hold information for the number of delays or cancellations caused by faulty rolling stock.

It is apparent that as the industrial dispute on Southern has continued, staff sickness levels have risen. Both publicly and in correspondence with hon. Members, we have consistently called for the union to stop all industrial action - which is not about jobs or safety - and which is doing nothing but hurting passengers, not least when Driver Only Operation is already in operation on the network.

Information about the two individuals that reported minor perceived conflicts of interest is as follows:

1. An employee (AA) of an organisation commissioned by the Department to produce a specialist report on each bidder’s response to a specific set of requirements in the invitation to tender. After attending a training session for specialist report authors that included material on conflicts of interests, AA notified the Department that AA had a relative who was employed by Southern Rail, on the operational side of the business, and that the relative held a very small number of shares in the parent company. The Department was content for AA to continue in the appointed role because AA had declared the perceived conflict of interests and because AA’s relative was not in a position where they could have any influence over the procurement process.
2. An individual (BB) (not an employee of the Department) who was appointed to fill one of the quality and delivery evaluator roles. After attending a training session for evaluators that included material on conflicts of interests, BB informed the Department that a former colleague had joined one of the bidders and had drafted parts of the bid submission. BB informed the Department that the perceived conflict of interests was mitigated away because the parts of the bid submission that BB’s former colleague had drafted were not parts that BB would be evaluating.

Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.

I have not received any formal representations on this specific point.

This information is not held in the form requested, and can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

The Department has made no such assessment; it is an operational matter for franchised train operators to ensure that their traincrew planning and management is sufficiently effective to provide the required service to passengers and to meet their franchise obligations.

Govia Thameslink Railway has given a commitment to its staff and the RMT union that trains affected by the conductor changes will only leave a station without an on board supervisor on very rare occasions. So, for example, in times of disruption (or when there is short-notice sickness) if a driver but no on board supervisor is available, to avoid delaying passengers unnecessarily, a train will run rather than be cancelled. During times of disruption an on board supervisor may be able to join the train later in the journey.

GTR exceeded the breach levels for cancellations last year and were required to agree a Remedial Plan with the Department. The main focus of the Remedial Plan was the recruitment and training of sufficient drivers to operate their services, including training requirements. To date, GTR have fulfilled their contractual obligations in respect of driver numbers.

Since April, there has been significant disruption on Southern services as a result of industrial action by conductors as well as conductor and driver absences. The information on the shortage of Southern train crew has been provided to the Department as part of GTR’s claim for force majeure; this claim is currently being assessed.

No simple answer can be provided to this question, as the time taken under either mode is dependent on too many variables, including class of train (there are over 60 classes of rolling stock in use on the UK rail network) and station operating conditions.

We are not aware of any formal representations on this.

The Department is currently assessing the Force Majeure claim received by Govia Thameslink Railway in relation to industrial action. This is an ongoing process and it would not be appropriate to outline the results until the analysis is completed.

The primary source for all industry information about train performance is Train Running Under System TOPS (TRUST) operated by Network Rail. This includes data which is subsequently supplied to the Department by train operators. However, train operators use the TRUST data in their own systems, and have access to additional information which may mean there are minor differences between the raw data from TRUST and the data provided to the Department by operators.

The Department’s team assessing the claim includes resources with specialist knowledge of the industry operations and systems. Additionally, the force majeure guidance mandates that operators provide clear evidence that disruption was as a result of the event in question. The overall assessment is being peer-reviewed internally to provide consistency with industry guidance and any precedents from previous claims. This assessment approach follows previous Department for Transport practice when dealing with force majeure claims.

No consultants have been used to assist the Department’s assessment of the claims for force majeure.

Yes. The data providing the number of cancellations is derived from the industry system which captures train running data across the industry.

The combined Cancellations and Serious Lateness (CaSL) measure reported by the Office of Rail and Road covers disruption caused across the whole industry, including incidents caused by Network Rail and other train or freight operators. There are separate benchmarks under the franchise agreement and the remedial plan covers cancellations and delays to passengers caused by Govia Thameslink Railway which incentivise the operator to reduce both. This obviates the possibility of an operator playing one measure off against another.

Govia Thameslink Railway’s benchmarks are based on the entire franchise, not each component business group. There are no separate benchmarks for Southern or the southern section of the franchise.

Ministers meet regularly with representatives of Govia Thameslink Railway. Details of Ministerial meetings are published in the Department’s Quarterly Transparency Returns, which are made publicly available on GOV.UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-ministerial-and-special-advisers-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings-april-to-june-2016.

All individuals engaged by the Department in assessing the bids, awarding the contract and overseeing the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise signed a franchise specific conflict of interest and confidentiality form; or were covered by a memorandum of understanding between their employer and the Department; or were covered by a contractual provision or professional duty to report conflict of interests. Two individuals reported minor perceived conflicts of interests, that the Department reviewed and was comfortable with. There was a conflict of interest relating to the Department’s Technical Advisor, Atkins and one of the losing bidders. The Department sought legal advice about managing this matter and mitigations were put in place.

Govia Thameslink Railway have submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. At present we cannot provide this information as we are currently finishing our assessment of the claim for the first three railway periods since the action started.

The Department monitors the effective delivery of train services by operators against the obligations in their franchise agreements, including those in relation to delays and cancellations. However, how operators plan to meet those obligations is an operational matter for them, and the Department does not specifically assess their plans for ensuring the availability of traincrew. I would note however that Driver Controlled Operation removes the frustration of trains being delayed or cancelled as a result of no guard being available because, for example, they have been delayed on another service.

GTR’s performance is assessed across the whole franchise. If found in breach or default, it would be at the Secretary of State’s discretion to make a decision on next steps, according to provisions in the franchise agreement.

GTR’s benchmarks are based on the entire franchise, not each component business group – we do not have that information to that level of disaggregation.

GTR’s benchmarks are based on the entire franchise, not each component business group – we do not have that information to that level of disaggregation.

The performance benchmarks are calculated as a percentage on a moving annual average basis. This is to ensure that an operator’s performance is measured over the long term and not impacted by short term issues. Therefore a comparison of the number of cancellations for each period against a percentage-based annual benchmark is misleading.

We have attached the latest position against the Remedial Plan benchmarks in the table below. Cancellations are in excess of default levels. GTR has submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. The outcome of our assessment of their force majeure claim will determine GTR's performance level.

The performance benchmarks are calculated as a percentage on a moving annual average basis. This is to ensure that an operator’s performance is measured over the long term and not impacted by short term issues. Therefore a comparison of the number of cancellations for each period against a percentage-based annual benchmark is misleading.

We have attached the latest position against the Remedial Plan benchmarks in the table below. Cancellations are in excess of default levels. GTR has submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. The outcome of our assessment of their force majeure claim will determine GTR's performance level.

Due to the unprecedented scale of disruption to passengers, that has been caused by the unwarranted union action, Govia Thameslink Railway have been unable to separate the claims of force majeure in this way, and therefore have made a single force majeure claim in respect of official and unofficial industrial action.

The Department does not specify to GTR how long every train must be and therefore does not hold this information. It is for each operator to use all reasonable endeavours to operate with sufficient capacity to meet passenger requirements. The Department incorporates a Peak Short Formation benchmark within GTR’s financial incentive regime, which measures the capacity delivered when the network is busiest.

We have attached the latest position against the contractual benchmarks in the table below. Whilst Peak Short formations appear to be in excess of default levels, GTR has submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. The outcome of our assessment of their force majeure claim will determine GTR's performance level.

The Department does not hold information on why a peak train has been short formed, except when it is subject to a force majeure or service recovery claim. In such instances, an operator needs to submit sufficient evidence of mitigations to the department. This is the case in respect of Govia Thameslink Railway’s current force majeure claim.

The Department has made no quantified assessment of these effects, as the rail industry reporting available to the Department on delays caused by train crew does not differentiate between the potential reasons behind those delays. However the Department is aware from discussions with train operators that the non-availability of conductors and guards can be a significant contributor to such delays.

The current Managing Director of Passenger Services became a directly employed member of staff at the Department for Transport on 1^st November 2014.

Open access track access applications are a matter for the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). They are not specifically referred to the Department.

The ORR publishes a list of all historic and pending decisions it has made on track access applications on its website:

http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/track-access/applications-decisions-appeals-and-agreements.

The Department has arrangements in place to manage any actual or perceived conflicts of interest which may arise in relation to its senior members of staff. This process does not include routine assessments of the kind referred to.

For planned timetable changes, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) is required to consult stakeholders before introducing them. However, when – as is the case for the revised timetable which came into effect on Southern and Gatwick Express services on 11 July a revised timetable has been introduced to mitigate the impact of official and unofficial industrial action – no consultation is required. GTR has an overriding obligation to act in the overall interests of passengers and to take all reasonable measures to avoid or reduce the impact of any disruption.

The successful bidder for the East Anglia franchise will help us realise our ambitious plans for East Anglia’s rail network. We have been clear that as a minimum they must provide a modern service with state of the art trains, and also introduce at least two 90-minute services each way between London and Norwich. In addition they must invest heavily in improving stations.

We continue to consider the bids and will announce the new operator in due course.

Emergency timetables are introduced by the rail industry in reaction to specific circumstances as they are responsible for operating the railway and do not need the prior approval of the Secretary of State. GTR has introduced a revised timetable which seeks to use the resources that are likely to be available in order to provide a service that passengers can rely on. It is for the operator, in conjunction with Network Rail, to manage the timetable effectively.

The Department did not design either the Remedial Plan, or the revised timetable being introduced on 11 July. Emergency timetables are introduced by the rail industry in reaction to specific circumstances as they are responsible for operating the railway and do not need the prior approval of the Secretary of State.

There have not been, and there are, no ‘non-planned’ services.

Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .

The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.

Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .

The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.

Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .

The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.

It is not for the Department to approve changes to the timetable. GTR has informed us of their intention to change the timetable in order to provide a more reliable timetable for passengers.

We monitor GTR’s performance and we have ongoing discussions with them over the delivery of their train services.

There are no automated rail services on the UK national rail network.

Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. However, the Department may consider on a case-by-case basis whether, exceptionally, to invite proposals involving driver-only or driver-controlled operation when it holds competitions for future franchises.

No assessment has been made of the potential effect on passenger revenues of an extension of driver-only operation on services operated by Govia Thameslink Railway.

Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. Therefore, no such estimate has been made.

The safety of passengers and rail users is paramount on the railway and the Department for Transport would never do anything to put passengers at risk.

Driver-only operation is already in safe use on almost a third of rail services in Great Britain and has been for up to 30 years and we think that it can help to improve the service to passengers. By giving responsibility to the driver to operate the doors, the other staff on board the train could provide a better face-to-face service for passengers. Whilst we regulate Ticket Office opening times through the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement station staffing levels are a matter for operators, as we believe that railway operators themselves are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. However, it is important that those who need assistance to travel can rely on railway staff to provide this. Each operator is required to participate in the Passenger Assist system which allows disabled passengers to book staff assistance when they require it.

We recognise that passengers can feel very strongly about station staffing hours and we expect all operators to take on board the views of stakeholders before taking any proposal to change such hours forward.

Representatives from Govia Thameslink Railway briefed officials at the Department for Transport on their plans to carry out a consultation on proposals to change ticket office opening hours at some stations.

Govia Thameslink Railway have made officials aware of the intention to engage with staff and their representatives regarding future plans for Driver Only Operation on some services.

The potential cost savings from an extension of driver-only operation were included in Govia Thameslink Railway’s formal bid for the franchise. The Department assessed all bids for the franchise against the evaluation criteria in the Invitation to Tender which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245041/invitation-to-tender.pdf.

The safety of passengers and rail users is paramount on the railway and the Department for Transport would never do anything to put passengers at risk.

This system has already been in safe use on almost a third of rail services in Great Britain for up to 30 years and can help to improve the service to passengers. Giving responsibility to the driver to operate the doors can improve operational performance and can enable other staff on board the train to provide a better face-to-face service for passengers. Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of all passengers. However, it is important that those who need assistance to travel can rely on railway staff to provide this. Each operator is required to participate in the Passenger Assist system which allows disabled passengers to book staff assistance when they require it.

Neither the Department for Transport nor the Office of Rail and Road have held any specific discussions with Govia Thameslink Railway on changes to criteria for driver-only operation.

The Department is actively looking at a range of commercial and technical options to ensure passenger benefits are delivered on time. We have a commercially confidential estimate however no decisions have been taken on IEP conversion.

The only railway infrastructure in Britain that can accommodate a rail freight service carrying lorry trailers is HS1 between the Channel Tunnel and Barking, which can carry the standard international 4 metres semi-trailer. It represents 0.75% per cent of Britain’s rail route mileage.

The 80% of the UK domestic semi-trailer fleet with a height of 4.25 metres or greater cannot be accommodated on trains in Britain. However, container goods can be accepted across the freight network, which carries some 1 million containers – 30% of total container freight in the UK - a year.

Mode Shift Revenue Support (MSRS) expenditure for rail freight moved in each year since the scheme started in April 2010, is shown in the table below.

The MSRS scheme also covers inland waterways but not maritime freight. Mode shift support for coastal and short sea shipping is provided though a separate scheme, Waterborne Freight Grant, for which expenditure is shown in the table below.

Operation of the schemes was assessed in a research study carried out by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. A summary report entitled "a Review of Revenue Support Freight Grant Schemes" was published on the gov.uk site in May 2014.

An evaluation of the Waterborne Freight Grant scheme was also made in October 2014 by the Department and the Scottish Government as part of the State Aid renewal application process.

The frequency and volume of freight moved between any origin and destination is a commercial matter for the rail freight operators and their customers. The Department’s policy is to encourage the use of rail for freight transport where it is practical, economic and environmentally sustainable to do so, and to ensure that rail freight has fair and transparent access to the rail network, regardless of the route in question.

This is a commercial matter for the freight operator concerned.

This is a commercial matter for the freight operator concerned.

Freight volumes are a commercial matter for the freight operating company concerned and can be obtained directly from Freightliner Group Ltd.

Financial Support for rail flows was provided under the Rail Environmental Benefit Procurement Scheme (Intermodal) in 2009/10 and the Mode Shift Revenue Support (Intermodal) scheme in subsequent years.

The following table is an estimate of the funding awarded, including contributions from the Welsh Government, where appropriate.

As funding is awarded on a zone to zone basis, it is not possible to give an exact assessment of funding for freight flows from individual ports.

There were no awards for rail freight operations during this period at either Tilbury or London Gateway through the Freight Facilities Grant Scheme, which was closed in England in 2011.

Financial Support for rail flows was provided under the Rail Environmental Benefit Procurement Scheme (Intermodal) in 2009/10 and the Mode Shift Revenue Support (Intermodal) scheme in subsequent years.

The following table is an estimate of the funding awarded, including contributions from the Welsh Government, where appropriate.

As funding is awarded on a zone to zone basis, it is not possible to give an exact assessment of funding for freight flows from individual ports.

There were no awards for rail freight operations during this period at either Tilbury or London Gateway through the Freight Facilities Grant Scheme, which was closed in England in 2011.

As part of our ongoing management of passenger rail franchises, train operators report on their financial performance – including revenue, cost and profit – on a regular basis.

This is a commercial matter for the logistics sector. I expect that workers at these private sector ports and in the private rail freight operating companies will deal with rail freight activity as in the normal course of business. I do not intend to undertake any special assessment.

The department does not hold estimates of future freight container activity for individual ports, nor estimates of the mode used for onward journeys.

Freightliner is a private enterprise; its acquisition by Genesee and Wyoming is a commercial matter for the company.

There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two. I have not had any discussions with any of the bodies in question about rail freight operations between the two ports, as this is a commercial matter for the freight operators and their customers.

There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two. I have not had any discussions with any of the bodies in question about rail freight operations between the two ports, as this is a commercial matter for the freight operators and their customers.

Freight volumes are a commercial matter for the freight operating company concerned and can be obtained directly from Freightliner Group Ltd.

There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two. There is no requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment on the existing rail infrastructure used by the services between the two ports.

The Department continues to support the shift of freight from road to water and rail through the Mode Shift Revenue Support and Waterborne Freight Grant schemes. The State aid clearances for these schemes have been renewed to enable grants to continue to be offered in Great Britain until March 2020.

The Department recently published details of awards of up to £20.6m for 2015/16. These include services beginning and/or ending in South East England or East England and also Scottish and Welsh cross border freight services for which Scottish Government and Welsh Government co-funding is sought.

None. This is a commercial matter for the parties concerned.

The Department made no specific assessment of these commercial, operational decisions.

The impact on local road and rail network will have been assessed as part of the planning process. The London Gateway planning consents require various inland infrastructure works to reflect the scope of the development and the potential levels of business and traffic. This includes works on the A13, Junction 30 of M25, and rail freight links that are to be undertaken when specified threshold levels of port development, and for the associated logistics park, are reached.

It is not necessarily the case that the transfer of one contract from Tilbury to London Gateway will affect the overall balance of containers currently sent by rail and road. Like Tilbury, London Gateway is served by rail as well as road. The DfT is supporting financially some rail freight flows from Tilbury and London Gateway in recognition of non-commercialised benefits, such as for the environment, from using rail rather than road for freight.

There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two.

Network Rail’s Freight Market Study, published in 2013, forecasts significant growth in the intermodal market, which is likely to benefit each of Felixstowe, London Gateway and Tilbury ports; however, the choice of port for freight deliveries is a commercial matter for the shipping companies.

On that basis, I have no current plans to meet trades unions to discuss this issue.

The Department made no specific assessment of these commercial, operational decisions.

The impact on local road and rail network will have been assessed as part of the planning process. The London Gateway planning consents require various inland infrastructure works to reflect the scope of the development and the potential levels of business and traffic. This includes works on the A13, Junction 30 of M25, and rail freight links that are to be undertaken when specified threshold levels of port development, and for the associated logistics park, are reached.

It is not necessarily the case that the transfer of one contract from Tilbury to London Gateway will affect the overall balance of containers currently sent by rail and road. Like Tilbury, London Gateway is served by rail as well as road. The DfT is supporting financially some rail freight flows from Tilbury and London Gateway in recognition of non-commercialised benefits, such as for the environment, from using rail rather than road for freight.

I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave my Hon Friend, the Hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) on 4 March 2015, UIN 225506.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons&uin=225506

Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.

Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.

Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.

Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.

Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.

Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.

Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.

Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.

Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.

Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.

Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.

Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.

Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.

Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.

Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.

Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.

Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.

Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.

Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.

Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.

Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.

Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.

Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.

Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.

Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.

Since 2007 the Government has invested around £500 million specifically in improvements to rail freight infrastructure, and we have committed a further £200 million over the next five years. The amount of freight moved on our railways has almost doubled since 1994.

The only railway infrastructure in Britain that can accommodate lorry trailers on trains is HS1 between the Channel Tunnel and Barking, which can carry the standard international 4 metre semi-trailer. It represents 0.75% per cent of Britain's rail route mileage.

Around 80% of the UK domestic semi-trailer fleet has a height of 4.25 metres or greater. These cannot be accommodated on trains in Britain.

The Government confirmed its support for the principle of further decentralisation of rail franchises in its July 2013 response to the Brown Review of rail franchising. Two propositions from English regions are currently being developed (West Midland Rail) or taken forward (with the Rail North consortium). We are examining the scope for further devolution of rail responsibilities in Wales. The Scottish Ministers already have substantial executive devolved powers in relation to the railways in Scotland.

Staffing levels and the roles to which staff are allocated are matters for the train operator, as long as they continue to deliver the services that meet the requirements of the Franchise Agreement.

Train operating companies do sometimes inform us of staff restructuring; for example as was explained in the answer to the hon. member for Coventry South on 17 June 2014 [Official Report, column 530W].

The Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) in the north of England are represented in discussions on this matter through the Rail North consortium of 30 local authorities. The Secretary of State and Rail North Leaders agreed the principles of an initial partnership for the procurement and management of the next Trans Pennine Express and Northern franchises at a meeting on 24 January. Officials – including a number from the PTEs - are working closely together on its implementation. Details of the partnership can be found at

http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Developing-the-Rail-North-Partnership.pdf.

The Department is in regular discussion with West Midlands Rail (WMR), a consortium of local authorities led by Centro, on their development of a proposition for devolution of local rail services in the West Midlands. The proposition is expected to be submitted to the Department by the end of July. WMR is meeting the Secretary of State early in July to discuss its proposals.

The Department does not hold this information.

We have received no recent representations from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system.

The Department for Transport have received no recent representations from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system, nor regarding the future sharing of ticket revenue from passenger journeys from and to stations on the London Midland line.

Staffing levels are a matter for the train operator, as long as they continue to deliver services that meet the requirements of the Franchise Agreement. The 7-period extension announced on 9 June was a priced option in the current Franchise Agreement.

Any existing ticket revenue sharing arrangements continue through the extension. Although preliminary negotiations have taken place with regard to a Direct Award to run services from April 2016, no timetable for formal negotiations is yet in place, and formal negotiations are yet to take place.

On 9 June we signed the 7-period extension to the London Midland contract as permitted in the franchise agreement. This extends the current franchise until April 2016. Although preliminary negotiations have taken place with regard to a Direct Award to run services from April 2016, no timetable for formal negotiations is yet in place. As announced by the Secretary of State, the new franchising programme will provide a more sustainable schedule for rail franchising and the planned competition for the West Midland franchise should see the successful operator providing services from June 2017.

Although preliminary negotiations have taken place with regard to a Direct Award to run services from April 2016, formal negotiations are yet to take place.

However, we do not anticipate that the operator will be entitled to any revenue support throughout the period of the Direct Award.

The Government is committed to the principle of devolving responsibility for a range of its activities to the most appropriate level of local government, where it is sensible to do so.

A proposition is being drafted by West Midlands Rail body (WMR) which is expected to be received by the end of July. WMR is meeting with Secretary of State early in July to discuss devolution.

Following receipt of the proposition, the Secretary of State will decide whether to agree to the proposition in principle. If this is the case, detailed negotiations on the financial and contractual elements will then follow.