Labour's shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle was measured in her response to the McNulty "value for money" report on the railways.

She went into detail on the failures of privatisation and concluding by saying: “The public wants to see a simplified industry and one where the driving force is less about maximising profit, and squeezing every last penny out of the fare payer and the tax payer, and more about the delivery of a world-class service.  

"That is why I have committed Labour’s policy review to look at alternative models, including not-for-profit models, for the future of the rail industry."

She said: "We should reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry. We need to be clear why that subsidy exists if we are to address it. It is the result of the enormous structural fragmentation within the industry.  Let us be clear – that fragmentation is the legacy of the botched privatisation carried out in the dying days of the last Tory government.

"Transport Secretary Philip Hammond should have apologised for the shambles of that privatisation and the staggering sums of money wasted as a result. Unlike him, I take our share of the responsibility for being too timid about addressing that fragmentation during our time in government.

"Closer working between train operators and Network Rail makes sense and I support the internal reorganisation going on at Network Rail and many of the proposals made to ensure costs of removed through greater partnership.

"I am pleased that he appears to have stepped back from his earlier plans for wholesale break-up our rail infrastructure which would have been a costly mistake and added yet more fragmentation to the industry.

"Can he confirm that he does not intend to proceed with an experiment of handing over track to train operating companies within any of the franchise areas? Previously there has been briefing that the East Anglia franchise would be used for this experiment. Can he now reassure us that this is no longer his plan?

"I welcome his decision to establish a proper review of fares. Despite the efforts we made, the current system is too complex and leaves passengers frustrated. However, does he understand why passengers will have very little faith that he does not intend to impose yet further hikes in ticket prices?

"At a time when families are feeling the squeeze on their household budgets, he has imposed fare rises of over 30% across the next three years. I believe he was wrong to give back to train companies the right to average out the cap across their fares, rather than apply it to each fare individually as we insisted when in government.

"He was wrong to increase the cap on regulated fares from 1% to 3% above inflation.  In opposition, Theresa Villiers (Tory MP, now a transport minister) said fare rises of this level would 'price people off the railways'.

"Norman Baker (Lib Dem MP, now a transport minster) promised below-inflation farer rises. More broken promises from the two parties opposite.

"Will Mr Hammond reject proposals to give the train operating companies greater freedoms to set the level of fares? Will he listen to his own consumer watchdog, Passenger Focus, who have today described the suggestion of reducing regulation on off-peak tickets as a “leap in the dark”?

"Does he share their concern, as I do, that we cannot end up with affordable, flexible travel for longer journeys being confined to a brief window in the middle of the day?

"Will Mr Hammond also reject the suggestion to remove any role for politicians from the setting of fares which effectively removes any public accountability through the ballot box for fares? The link between the fare box and the ballot box should not be broken.

"Can I also urge Mr Hammond to approach reform to levels of staffing and pay and conditions within the rail industry in a spirit of partnership not confrontation – something we have not seen in the language and tone of briefings from his department in recent days?

"I urge the trade unions to work with the Government as they look to carry out reforms within the industry. But will Mr Hammond ensure that he includes those who represent staff on the high level group that he is establishing to take forward these reforms?

"As he looks at staffing, will Mr Hammond understand the value that passengers place on staffed trains and open ticket offices? Women in particularly feel safer with properly staffed stations, particularly later at night.

"We have also heard today the extent to which Mr Hammond's policy on rail franchising has descended into chaos and confusion, with his decision to delay the awarding of the West Coast franchise.

"Can he confirm that FirstGroup is also to hand back its Great Western franchise three years ahead of schedule? Can he confirm if the reason they have given him for that decision is, as reported in the press, because they have calculated they will make losses in the final years of the franchise period? Does he agree that this is unacceptable?

"Will he confirm that there is now a possibility that the East Coast main line, the West Coast main line and the Great Western franchises may all now be run by the Government while he gets his franchising policy sorted? Does this not just make a mockery of the whole franchising system?

"Does he understand why commuters in East Anglia are dismayed at the cost and chaos of his decision to award a contract for less than two years, risking three owners in as many years – with the only people benefiting being the companies that supply the paint to redo the liveries.

"Is not the future of franchising, the massive public subsidies that go to the private train operating companies and the vast sums that leave the industry in profits the big missing piece of this attempt to look at costs in the industry?

"I welcome his decision to replace the current ‘cap and collar’ revenue sharing system. But will he now agree with me that we will not get the costs of the industry under control until we look seriously at its structure and the future of franchising itself?”

This is a slightly edited version of Maria Eagle's statement to the House of Commons on 19 May 2011 following the publication of the McNulty report. The national press which is largely controlled by pro-Government "oligarchs" did not report it.

Information from Paul Salveson