My Lords, I understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, namely that the mayor and TfL should have greater control over London’s commuter rail franchises, given their wider transport responsibilities. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said in her letter following the Committee stage, TfL already plays an important role in relation to London’s commuter rail services. It already has, as pointed out by my noble friend, effectively full franchising powers over the London Underground concession, covering a number of key routes across London. It works closely with the Department for Transport in the development of other rail franchises affecting London, with the mayor having the ability to pay for outputs over and above those that the DfT specifies. By the way, I undertake to look up in the dictionary the definition of ““decrement””.
The devolution of other London commuter rail franchises to the mayor and TfL is not a straightforward matter. The geography of London’s commuter rail network does not sit well with London’s administrative boundaries, with many lines extending well into neighbouring counties, as pointed out by many noble Lords. Furthermore, capacity on much of the London commuter network is limited, and there are inherent conflicts between London-area and non-London services that need to be balanced in the best interests of all users, and to keep overall costs down.
I am afraid my noble friend did not satisfy me in how the balance would be struck between the needs of commuters who live in London, and who elect the mayor and the Assembly, and those living in Luton, Brighton and Woking, who do not. There is a real question of a democratic accountability deficit if other London commuter rail services were devolved to the mayor, as many commuters do not live in London so do not have the opportunity to participate in the elections.
Nevertheless, the Department for Transport is happy to engage TfL further about the devolution of local rail services, in the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study on rail value for money earlier this year. This study suggested that more local control of rail services could contribute to the development of lower-cost regional railways and, in line with the Government’s localism agenda, we are considering options for more local control of some rail services in other parts of England. We will also continue to encourage operators to work more closely with TfL. The new working arrangements, put in place for the South Central franchise which was let in 2009, appear to be working well.
On this basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Attlee
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c543-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:19:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768603
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768603
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768603