The Department for Transport took a tough line in negotiating with the owner of the InterCity East Coast franchise, National Express, before terminating the franchise agreement in 2009. The Department avoided disruption to passenger services and protected the taxpayer, securing overall value for money. In awarding the contract to National Express in 2007, the Department had applied lessons learnt from the failure of the previous franchisee, Great North Eastern Railway, and got a good deal. Adequate protections for the taxpayer had been included in the contract if the franchisee got into financial difficulties. The Department did not consider it necessary to stress test bids for deliverability should there be an economic downturn. By January 2009, however, the Department considered that the franchise was at high risk of failure. It refused to renegotiate the terms of the contract and the contract was subsequently terminated. Termination was the best way of protecting the taxpayer. If other franchises, which were seen as at high risk, had sought to renegotiate their contracts, the Department may have had to support them at an estimated cost of £200 million to £450 million. The costs of setting up East Coast, the new publicly owned company to run the franchise, and its eventual return to the private sector are expected to be £15 million. National Express paid the Department of Transport £31 million on the termination of its contract. However, the final cost to the taxpayer will not be clear until the franchise has been re-let in 2012.

In June 2003 the Strategic Rail Authority announced that it would be terminating the Connex South Eastern franchise for passenger rail services in Kent, parts of Sussex and South East London; the first, and so far only, instance where a train operating company's franchise has been terminated early. Following on from a National Audit Office report (HCP 457, session 2005-06; ISBN 0102936498) published in December 2005, the Committee's report examines why the franchise experienced difficulties; why the contract was terminated, and the impact on the interests of the taxpayer. The report sets out a number of conclusions and recommendations on the lessons to be learned in order to reduce the risk of future franchise failures.

Examines the termination of Connex South Eastern's franchise for providing passenger rail services in Kent, parts of Sussex and South East London.

It is thirteen years since the Railways Act 1993 started the process of privatising British Rail, replacing it with one company owning and managing the infrastructure, an open-access system for freight services and a series of twenty-five passenger franchises let to private companies for a specified period of time. This period has seen almost continuous change, and there is now a new 'triumvirate' framework with the Department for Transport, the Office of Rail Regulation and Network Rail in place, with the third generation of franchises in the process of being let and the number being reduced to nineteen. The Committee's report examines the current franchising system, focusing on the coherence of its objectives, the effectiveness of the process for awarding franchises and the management of franchise agreements, and whether more competition and vertical integration is needed. Findings include that the current system represents a policy muddle which lacks a coherent framework for the development of good services and delivery of value for money for passengers and taxpayers. The only way the Government can increase capacity and improve services for the long-term is to drop the dogmatic pursuit of competition in its decision-making as to what the private and public sectors can and should do in future. The Government's forthcoming long-term strategy for the railways will need to address these issues, and to set out a structure and a strategy capable of securing quality passenger rail services to meet demand over the next half a century.

The last time we discussed rail franchising was in 2012, in the wake of the collapsed competition for the InterCity West Coast franchise. We are encouraged that, since then, the Department for Transport has strengthened its capability to let franchises, but there are still gaps in its ability to then manage the contracts effectively. The Department's increased focus on the passenger experience is also welcome, but it is unclear when passengers themselves will actually see the benefits. Furthermore, the Department has not yet developed the partnerships with operators that are required to support innovation, improve efficiency and improve services for passengers. Successful rail franchising depends on strong interest from the market and effective competition but there are barriers to entry to the UK market and the possibility that current participants in the market may drop out. Any reduction to the current level of competition is a major risk to securing value for money for the taxpayer. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Department is to manage the complex interdependencies between passenger rail franchises, the infrastructure that train services run on and the introduction of new fleets of trains to the network. Uncertainty about infrastructure work has resulted in delays to franchise competitions and the Department will have to rely on potentially expensive changes to franchises during the life of contracts. The Department's role is to provide a strategic lead for the complex rail system but it has not yet shown that it has embraced this role. It needs to provide a coherent strategic vision and stronger leadership to ensure that the investment decisions it makes now do not result in increased costs in the long term.

The competition held by the Department for Transport to award a new InterCity West Coast franchise in 2012 was intended to be the first in the most extensive programme of franchising since privatisation. Significant errors were made by the Department during the competition, which not only caused the cancellation of that franchise award at considerable public expense but also called into question the remaining franchising programme. This report is the second of two independent reviews commissioned by the Government, by Richard Brown, the Chairman of Eurostar. It concludes that franchising is a fundamentally sound approach for securing the passenger railway services on which so many people rely. His recommendations include: that the franchising programme should be restarted as soon as possible, but at a pace that both the department and the industry can sustain; that franchise terms should be determined by the circumstances and size of each individual franchise; proposals to strengthen and simplify the bidding and evaluation process for each franchise; proposals for the financial and contractual structure of future franchises, including in relation to risk allocation and capital requirements; and that the government should plan to devolve responsibility for further English franchises to the relevant authorities. Mr Brown also makes recommendations on how to strengthen the department's capability to manage the future franchising programme, echoing the findings of Sam Laidlaw's independent inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from the InterCity West Coast competition. The review also recommends that the Government should determine, by February, plans for the three franchise competitions which were put on hold

This report examines experience to date from around the world in competitively tendering rail services. It seeks to draw lessons for effective design of concessions and regulation from both the successful and less successful cases examined.

Network Rail owns most of Britain's 2507 stations and is responsible for their structural repair and renewal. It also operates and manages 17 large stations, known as managed stations. It leases the remainder, known as franchised stations, to 22 Train Operating Companies (TOCs) responsible for station maintenance, cleaning and operations. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) sets minimum standards, including facilities and services required at franchised stations, monitors TOCs' compliance with requirements and helps fund stations' operation and improvement. In this report, NAO examines whether passengers are satisfied with station facilities and services and whether station requirements are being met, the barriers to station improvement and what is being done to overcome them. There has been a little improvement in passengers' satisfaction over recent years. National Passenger Survey data show that satisfaction increased from 59 per cent to 63 per cent between 1999 and 2005, but the greatest levels of dissatisfaction are with the more than 2000 small and medium-sized stations which are unstaffed, or staffed for only part of the day, and which have few facilities. But there is a gap between rising passenger expectations on the one hand, and value for money and what the government and the industry can afford to spend on the other. Funding constraints constitute the biggest barrier to further improvement. Having originally envisaged spending £225 million on new facilities at 980 stations in its Modern Facilities at Stations programme, the SRA shrank the programme to £25 million and 68 stations to match the amount of money the Department for Transport made available.

This NAO report (HC 1047, session 2007-09), examines rail franchises and the impact they have had on franchises competition; the taxpayer; the passenger and the approach to managing rail franchises in general. Passenger rail services are provided by train operating companies under franchise agreements which generally run 7-10 years. Whilst responsibility for the operation and condition of the track rests with Network Rail, the Department of Transport has ultimate responsibility where it affects passengers and has taken oversight responsibility for passenger rail franchising following the abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority in 2005. The National Audit Office has set out the following recommendations in respect of rail franchises, including: on letting franchises, regional decision making bodies, should have greater involvement; where bids for rail franchises occur, alternative options should be taken into consideration, such as value for money and affordability; that there should be transparency on financial support for franchises with information on how fares cover the overall costs of passenger rail services and the extent of Government support; that there should also be greater transparency on service quality standards; the Government, when negotiating extra passenger capacity, needs to adjust the contract revenue target where appropriate, so that it can better engage in commercial negotiations; also the Department should staff the National Networks Group adequately and not rely unduly on agency staff, given the strategic importance of rail franchising and the potential to reduce direct subsidies.