CAF donations to the Conservative Party

[Sorcerer]

Considering that the original subject relating to CAF donations to the Conservative Party was the awarding of an LNER contract for new trains, I think people actually overestimate how much the donations had an effect. The donations to the Conservatives didn't seem to get CAF the award for the HS2 rolling stock contract which instead went to Alstom-Hitachi in 2021. I'm open to having my mind changed but it does otherwise raise the question why CAF would actually make donations to the Tories given how they have worsened our relations with the continent and by extension their potential UK-EU business.

 

[skyhigh]

It sounds as if insinuations are being made that CAF got the order because of these donations.

Whereas in reality, it's been said by people in the know (e.g. Tony Miles) that it's unlikely there will be any further orders of 80x given the price Hitachi are now looking for. These new units are directly replacing the 91+Mk4s based at Neville Hill which already has a CAF presence. Given that Hitachi was out, CAF seems like the expected option?

 

[Purple Train]

The donation from Hitachi to Plaid appears to be from one of their other business sectors rather than Hitachi Rail.

I wondered, given Anglesey (where the MS in question has his constituency) isn't exactly known for its railways, unless you consider Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch's nameboard!

 

[Busaholic]

I think you'll find it would take more than 25k to secure millions.

How many more would it take, then?

 

[The_Train]

Again, hate to be "that guy", but donations to the Government (read "bribes") would be illegal by definition, where donations to a political party are questionable at best.

It really doesn't matter how you want to fluff this up, it's there for all to see. CAF have donated to the political party governing the UK, the same party that runs the TOC that these trains have been purchased for, and the same party who has a department which signs off these deals, and have then magically won a contract which makes little sense considering it leaves LNER with a very small fleet of CAF units to manage alongside their larger Hitachi fleet.

It stinks but then everything the Tories do these days stinks!

I think you'll find it would take more than 25k to secure millions.

I think you underestimate how hungry Tories are for any extra cash they can get their hands on and how they would sell their souls (if they had them) for a fiver

 

[skyhigh]

and have then magically won a contract which makes little sense considering it leaves LNER with a very small fleet of CAF units

Does it?

As above, Hitachi have reportedly priced themselves out of the market. Neville Hill already has a CAF support presence and according to another thread on here the only other bidder was CRRC. On that basis, it would appear CAF would be the obvious choice?

 

[najaB]

It stinks but then everything the Tories do these days stinks!

I agree. However there is an important legal distinction between saying that something stinks and accusing people of committing actual crimes.

 

[WelshBluebird]

it doesn't matter if the donations were actually immaterial to the decision. It looks dodgy as hell. Certainly where I work, a large amount of the anti bribary training isn't about bribes that would actually make any material difference but how to avoid giving the impression of wrongdoing and damaging the companies reputation.

 

[The_Train]

If a customer of the company I work for sent me a £50 donation and the next time they wanted to purchase a product of ours, I gave them a £500 discount I'd certainly be looking at a disciplinary, if not dismissal for god knows how many compliance breaches (I can't tell you how many as I've never stayed awake to the end of a compliance course ) if I was caught.

Providing the conversation I'd had with the customer before they donated the £50 to me was never along the lines of "I'll send you £50 if you knock me money off my next order", then my company could never conclusively prove that the 2 things were connected but they'd still discipline me because of how it looks on the face of it.

Why can't I accept £50 (or less) but the Government can get away with it on a much larger scale? The dust is yet to settle on the absolute scandals with contracts handed out to every man and his dog (as long as they had a blue rosette on) and yet we still have people happy to defend what's clearly happening with CAF. This is why they keep doing it and why they keep getting away with it, because there's enough people willing to defend it. Bizarre, truly bizarre!!!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If a customer of the company I work for sent me a £50 donation and the next time they wanted to purchase a product of ours, I gave them a £500 discount I'd certainly be looking at a disciplinary, if not dismissal for god knows how many compliance breaches (I can't tell you how many as I've never stayed awake to the end of a compliance course ) if I was caught.

But in the scenario you suggest, it would be clear that corruption has happened: There's basically no plausible reason for a customer to give money to an employee of a company they want a contract with, other than in order to secure the contract. Plus if it's the very same person taking the money and awarding the contract, then there's an obvious link.

That's not at all clear with CAF and LNER: In the first place, it's not uncommon for people or companies to want to donate to political parties - usually because they agree with the policy aims of those parties - so there is a plausible non-corrupt motivation for a donation. Indeed, donations to political parties are an essential part of how our democracy functions. And in the second place CAF donated to a political party, but the subsequent contract would presumably have been assessed by LNER employees and/or civil servants - completely different people unconnected with the donations. So that looks to me reasonably innocent. I think if you want to make a serious allegation of corruption, you'd need to show first some evidence of a more specific link between the donation and the employees who would have dealt with the CAF contracts. Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Purple Train]

But in the scenario you suggest, it would be clear that corruption has happened: There's basically no plausible reason for a customer to give money to an employee of a company they want a contract with, other than in order to secure the contract. Plus if it's the very same person taking the money and awarding the contract, then there's an obvious link.

That's not at all clear with CAF and LNER: In the first place, it's not uncommon for people or companies to want to donate to political parties - usually because they agree with the policy aims of those parties - so there is a plausible non-corrupt motivation for a donation.

Why, then, do you suggest that CAF have donated over 30 times as much as their competitors, who clearly feel no need to?

And in the second place CAF donated to a political party, but the subsequent contract would presumably have been assessed by LNER employees and/or civil servants - completely different people unconnected with the donations. So that looks to me reasonably innocent.

Given how tightly everything is micro-managed, I would suspect ministerial involvement on some level, although my understanding of how these decisions are made is limited to information gleaned from Yes Minister.

 

[najaB]

Why, then, do you suggest that CAF have donated over 30 times as much as their competitors, who clearly feel no need to?

It could be because Hitachi, et al. have no love of conservative politics.

 

[Purple Train]

It could be because Hitachi, et al. have no love of conservative politics.

Not that I was specifically mentioning donations to the Tories (Hitachi donated £5000 to Labour) but simply the sums of money concerned.

Maybe CAF would have less money left over for donations to political parties if they didn't build cheapskate trains

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why, then, do you suggest that CAF have donated over 30 times as much as their competitors, who clearly feel no need to?

You seem to be implying there's some kind of problem with one company donating money when others don't. But I don't see what the problem with different companies having different behaviours in this regard is. Why does - say - one person donate a few hundred pounds a year to the Labour party - while his/her neighbour on one side thinks they're all as bad as each other and his neighbour on the other side is a Tory party member? Answer: Because people are different and have different opinions! Same thing with people who happen to be company directors and decide company strategy. Plus different companies in the same field have different corporate cultures and make different decisions about how they want to operate etc.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Considering that the original subject relating to CAF donations to the Conservative Party was the awarding of an LNER contract for new trains, I think people actually overestimate how much the donations had an effect. The donations to the Conservatives didn't seem to get CAF the award for the HS2 rolling stock contract which instead went to Alstom-Hitachi in 2021. I'm open to having my mind changed but it does otherwise raise the question why CAF would actually make donations to the Tories given how they have worsened our relations with the continent and by extension their potential UK-EU business.

Who was in charge of awarding that contract?

 

[Sorcerer]

Who was in charge of awarding that contract?

HS2 Ltd claims that they themselves awarded the contract but the government website itself just says the government itself did.

HS2 Ltd today confirmed that a Hitachi/Alstom JV has been awarded the contracts to build Britain’s next generation of high speed trains at their factories in Derby and County Durham in a major deal set to support 2,500 jobs across the UK.

Announced today (9 December 2021) by the government, the state-of-the-art high-speed trains will be built by Hitachi/Alstom JV at their factories in Derby, Crewe and County Durham in a major deal set to support 2,500 jobs across the UK.

It should be noted that HS2 Ltd is sponsored by the Department for Transport, and the Transport Secretary at the time made a statement about the contract award, so it's safe to say that the government was in charge of awarding the contract. Even without this in mind I still don't think there is much to be said in the way of CAF's donations to the Conservatives having an effect on rolling stock orders otherwise I feel like we'd have seen a lot more of them.

 

[gabrielhj07]

HS2 Ltd claims that they themselves awarded the contract but the government website itself just says the government itself did.


It should be noted that HS2 Ltd is sponsored by the Department for Transport, and the Transport Secretary at the time made a statement about the contract award, so it's safe to say that the government was in charge of awarding the contract. Even without this in mind I still don't think there is much to be said in the way of CAF's donations to the Conservatives having an effect on rolling stock orders otherwise I feel like we'd have seen a lot more of them.

Interesting. It certainly puts some distance between CAF’s donations and government decisions.

 

[Purple Train]

You seem to be implying there's some kind of problem with one company donating money when others don't. But I don't see what the problem with different companies having different behaviours in this regard is. Why does - say - one person donate a few hundred pounds a year to the Labour party - while his/her neighbour on one side thinks they're all as bad as each other and his neighbour on the other side is a Tory party member? Answer: Because people are different and have different opinions! Same thing with people who happen to be company directors and decide company strategy. Plus different companies in the same field have different corporate cultures and make different decisions about how they want to operate etc.

I would argue that using the example of individuals donating some of their disposable income a year isn't an effective parallel, because the vast majority of individuals will not be in a position to gain multi-million pound contracts from a government controlled by the party they donate to. And that same majority will not be treated any better or worse by that organisation - it largely depends on which box they put a cross in come the next general election (with extra brownie points for being a government-held marginal, of course).

 

[3141]

That's not at all clear with CAF and LNER: In the first place, it's not uncommon for people or companies to want to donate to political parties - usually because they agree with the policy aims of those parties - so there is a plausible non-corrupt motivation for a donation. Indeed, donations to political parties are an essential part of how our democracy functions. And in the second place CAF donated to a political party, but the subsequent contract would presumably have been assessed by LNER employees and/or civil servants - completely different people unconnected with the donations. So that looks to me reasonably innocent. I think if you want to make a serious allegation of corruption, you'd need to show first some evidence of a more specific link between the donation and the employees who would have dealt with the CAF contracts. Is there any evidence of that?

I think you've put that very clearly. But there are some people who want to believe that donating an extra £25,000 on top of the money they've given previously given to the Conservative Party enabled CAF to get a contract for new trains that's probably worth around £200,000,000 (plus more for long-term maintenance). Nothing is going to make them understand there's a difference between the Conservative Party and the Government, or between the CP and LNER. They brush aside the idea that LNER might have thought the CAF offer was better overall than the one from Hitachi.

Of course the donation last year and the contract award this year might be connected, and none of us can prove that it definitely wasn't. But it's worrying that there are people so bigoted that if an opportunity arises to wonder whether a donation to the Conservatives might have influenced a commercial decision, they leap to the conclusion that it did, and then refuse to accept facts that say they might be letting their imaginations run away with them.

 

[skyhigh]

I think you've put that very clearly. But there are some people who want to believe that donating an extra £25,000 on top of the money they've given previously given to the Conservative Party enabled CAF to get a contract for new trains that's probably worth around £200,000,000 (plus more for long-term maintenance). Nothing is going to make them understand there's a difference between the Conservative Party and the Government, or between the CP and LNER. They brush aside the idea that LNER might have thought the CAF offer was better overall than the one from Hitachi.

Of course the donation last year and the contract award this year might be connected, and none of us can prove that it definitely wasn't. But it's worrying that there are people so bigoted that if an opportunity arises to wonder whether a donation to the Conservatives might have influenced a commercial decision, they leap to the conclusion that it did, and then refuse to accept facts that say they might be letting their imaginations run away with them.

This would probably be my view.

Yes, there might be something dodgy going on. But given the reported issues with Hitachi's pricing, the build/reliability, how difficult they are to deal with, space at Doncaster for maintenance it seems that Hitachi were not far and away the obvious choice for new units. Don't forget that Hitachi have a share in the HS2 fleet and

Historically rolling stock manufacturers have been fairly litigious when they feel something improper has happened. As this was a competitive tender, there will have been quantitative measures of how well the bids have met the standards and feedback will have been shared with the losing bidders. If they felt that CAF had been chosen through dodgy antics they wouldn't have simply rolled over and left it.

And don't forget that these donations took place over the 2019-22 period. If these were "backhanders" for a contract, surely CAF would have wanted the HS2 contract which was awarded in December 2021 - in comparison a fleet of 10 units is small fish.

 

[DelW]

Of course the donation last year and the contract award this year might be connected, and none of us can prove that it definitely wasn't. But it's worrying that there are people so bigoted that if an opportunity arises to wonder whether a donation to the Conservatives might have influenced a commercial decision, they leap to the conclusion that it did, and then refuse to accept facts that say they might be letting their imaginations run away with them.

Again I will point out that it's now widely known that three years ago, ludicrously profitable PPE contracts were dished out by this government, spending vast amounts of public money, almost exclusively to some of them to well-rewarded Tory donors and cronies. When they behave like that once (in fact many times), it's hardly surprising that people believe the worst of them, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

(Edit: retracting an overstatement)

 

[TAS]

I've not had a chance to look closely at all these donations, but it's worth noting that what is classed as a donation is quite broad. To give one example, I was recently surprised to see that a local art gallery had apparently made a donation to my MP according to some data highlighted by the press. However, digging into his parliamentary register of interests, he had actually run a community jobs fair at the centre and they had provided the space free of charge, which was counted as a donation in kind. A worthwhile cause, and, to my mind, nothing improper about them offering the space for free.

Similarly, I looked at the Siemens donations to Michelle Donelan MP mentioned upthread, as the register for MPs is more detailed and fairly quick to check. They relate to the Wiltshire Festival of Engineering and Manufacturing, which she organised in 2016 and 2017, rather than being contributions to her re-election fund or similar. Were Siemens donating to the Festival to curry favour with her? Possibly. Were they donating because they saw it as a recruitment/publicity/community relations opportunity (they have a facility in her constituency) and would have done so even if it had been organised by someone else? Possibly. From the data you can't tell, and both are plausible reasons (and, of course, not at all incompatible).

 

[The_Train]

But in the scenario you suggest, it would be clear that corruption has happened: There's basically no plausible reason for a customer to give money to an employee of a company they want a contract with, other than in order to secure the contract. Plus if it's the very same person taking the money and awarding the contract, then there's an obvious link.

That's not at all clear with CAF and LNER: In the first place, it's not uncommon for people or companies to want to donate to political parties - usually because they agree with the policy aims of those parties - so there is a plausible non-corrupt motivation for a donation. Indeed, donations to political parties are an essential part of how our democracy functions. And in the second place CAF donated to a political party, but the subsequent contract would presumably have been assessed by LNER employees and/or civil servants - completely different people unconnected with the donations. So that looks to me reasonably innocent. I think if you want to make a serious allegation of corruption, you'd need to show first some evidence of a more specific link between the donation and the employees who would have dealt with the CAF contracts. Is there any evidence of that?

And there is no plausible reason for a Spanish train manufacturer to donate large sums of money to a UK political party!

Could you show me some evidence, in my hypothetical scenario, of where there is a link between me taking £50 as a donation from a customer and them receiving a large discount from me?

Of course the donation last year and the contract award this year might be connected, and none of us can prove that it definitely wasn't. But it's worrying that there are people so bigoted that if an opportunity arises to wonder whether a donation to the Conservatives might have influenced a commercial decision, they leap to the conclusion that it did, and then refuse to accept facts that say they might be letting their imaginations run away with them.

And it's worrying that so many people refuse to accept that this Tory party are very capable of such behaviour, as proven by the covid PPE scandals, and that any money is good money to them so all this talk of the contract being worth much more than the donations made is not relevant. These scumbags would do favours for a fiver!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Again I will point out that it's now widely known that three years ago, ludicrously profitable PPE contracts were dished out by this government, spending vast amounts of public money, almost exclusively to Tory donors and cronies. When they behave like that once (in fact many times), it's hardly surprising that people believe the worst of them, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

But there were rather obvious and very well known exceptional circumstances around those PPE contracts: Namely, the sheer unbelievable urgency with which they had to be put in place, making it impossible to go through normal procurement channels. An analogy might be: If you want a new kitchen, you may well spend a month or two investigating the options, including getting estimates from a couple of builders in order to secure the best deal from someone qualified. On the other hand, if your bathroom floods and collapses the kitchen ceiling below it, it's more likely that (ignoring insurance issues) you'll just grab the first person who claims to be able to start work on fixing it all tomorrow, even if that leads to the cost being much higher.

Without wanting to get into a discussion about what actually happened with the PPE contracts, and whether the urgency and resultant failure to follow processes lead to fraud (it's very possible it did, with companies taking advantage of the rushed contracts), you can't deduce much from that about what goes on with railway contracts which are being put out for tender in very different circumstances.

 

[The_Train]

But there were rather obvious and very well known exceptional circumstances around those PPE contracts: Namely, the sheer unbelievable urgency with which they had to be put in place, making it impossible to go through normal procurement channels. An analogy might be: If you want a new kitchen, you may well spend a month or two investigating the options, including getting estimates from a couple of builders in order to secure the best deal from someone qualified. On the other hand, if your bathroom floods and collapses the kitchen ceiling below it, it's more likely that (ignoring insurance issues) you'll just grab the first person who claims to be able to start work on fixing it all tomorrow, even if that leads to the cost being much higher.

Without wanting to get into a discussion about what actually happened with the PPE contracts, and whether the urgency and resultant failure to follow processes lead to fraud (it's very possible it did, with companies taking advantage of the rushed contracts), you can't deduce much from that about what goes on with railway contracts which are being put out for tender in very different circumstances.

Are you actually defending them for the PPE scandal, despite what has now come out about it? Contracts for equipment designed to protect health workers being handed out to organisations that had no experience in that line of work, and in some cases companies that had suddenly sprung up in the aftermath of covid entering our lives. One was Matt Hancock's local pub landlord for christ sake - how do you actually have the gall to defend this?

This is why we end up with the Tories for so long, dragging the country into the gutter, because some people simply refuse to acknowledge the damage these toffs have done to the lives of hard working, ordinary folk just trying to get by. I genuinely hate this country!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And there is no plausible reason for a Spanish train manufacturer to donate large sums of money to a UK political party!

A little digging reveals that the donation was made by CAF Rail UK Limited, which is a UK-registered company (albeit a subsidiary of the Spanish company). My understanding is that it would not be possible for a Spanish company to legally donate to a UK political party.

 

[najaB]

And it's worrying that so many people refuse to accept that this Tory party are very capable of such behaviour, as proven by the covid PPE scandals, and that any money is good money to them so all this talk of the contract being worth much more than the donations made is not relevant. These scumbags would do favours for a fiver!

I 100% believe that they are capable of such. My only concern is that people are exposing themselves to the (admittedly slight) risk that comes with stating that crimes were committed, as opposed to saying that there was dodgy behaviour.

 

[MotCO]

When I was involved in tendering in the public sector (non-railway), we looked at all the criteria set out in advance and marked each bid against that criteria. When the successful bid was awarded, if it wasn't the highest scoring bid, then reasons for not accepting that bid needed to be set out and other bidders would be told the reasons why they were not successful. A large number of people were involved in assessing the bids - the accountants would look at the costs, the technical staff would look at the technical aspects etc, all overseen by a procurement team who had no role in the scoring.

I'm not naive to think that some 'wrong-doing' cannot take place, but there are a lot of checks and balances in the system. If the Government overruled the assessment panel because the ruling party received some donations, they would need to explain to the losing bidders why the assessment process was overruled, and lay themselves open to a review.


With regards as to why a company would want to donate to the Conservatives, it may be to gain access to some Ministers to get some advance notice of likely future tenders, or find out what exactly what the tender is looking for so they can adust their submission accordingly. Neither of which is illegal, but it may give them the edge, and there is nothing to stop other companies doing likewise.

 

[3141]

Again I will point out that it's now widely known that three years ago, ludicrously profitable PPE contracts were dished out by this government, spending vast amounts of public money, almost exclusively to Tory donors and cronies. When they behave like that once (in fact many times), it's hardly surprising that people believe the worst of them, and they have only themselves to blame for that.

No, it isn't surprising, but it doesn't justify insisting that there must have been dishonest dealing in the case of this CAF contract, in the face of information provided by other posters as to why that is very unlikely.

 

[DanNCL]

No, it isn't surprising, but it doesn't justify insisting that there must have been dishonest dealing in the case of this CAF contract, in the face of information provided by other posters as to why that is very unlikely.

Nobody on this thread has directly accused any of the DFT, LNER or CAF of wrongdoing. We're all well aware that there's a high likelihood that this was a standard award and that the donations CAF made to the Tory party were coincidental and unrelated. What some (including myself) have done is point out that it doesn't look good regardless what really happened and that with this current government you really can't rule out anything untoward.