• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Government 'should give up its control' of £1bn Crossrail deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

allticketspls

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
174
Location
Enfield, Middlesex
From: Derby Telegraph

Labour MPs last night called for the Government to hand over control of plans to buy £1 billion worth of trains to another organisation.

Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle made the demand while giving her speech to her party's annual conference in Liverpool.

She argued that the Government had shown it could not be trusted to ensure British firms – like Derby trainmaker Bombardier – had a fair chance of winning state contracts.

Her comments came a day after Labour gave an award to campaigners from Derby, who are fighting to get the Government to change its decision to hand a £1.4 billion Thameslink contract to German firm Siemens, instead of Bombardier.

After the move was taken, the Litchurch Lane firm announced it would review its UK operations, raising the prospect of 1,400 job losses.

Now the Government is drawing up plans for its next big train order, Crossrail, valued at about £1 billion.

Ms Eagle told conference delegates: "I say to (Transport Secretary) Philip Hammond – there is no faith that your department will give British manufacturing a fair chance. So hand over responsibility for ordering the new Crossrail trains to Transport for London, which – thanks to Labour – has a track record of buying British."

Ms Eagle pointed out that Prime Minister David Cameron had promised to support business when he took his Cabinet to Derby, shortly before naming Siemens as the preferred bidder for Thameslink.

Ministers have consistently said the way the tender for Thameslink was designed by the previous Labour administration meant they could only have given the contract to Siemens. They claim it would have been breaking EU law to do otherwise.

Ms Eagle called that "a lie" and said the Government could have scrapped the tender process and started again with one that gave the Derby firm a better chance of winning. She urged campaigners to keep fighting to get the Government to change its mind.

Last night ministers were defiant. Mr Hammond warned the consequences of further delaying Thameslink would be too severe for taxpayers to bear and said: "The project is already 16 years behind schedule – in its original iteration it was known as Thameslink 2000. It has already had very large amounts of capital investment sunk into it," he said.

He argued that 3,000 construction jobs depending on the project moving forward could be put at risk if it was delayed.

On the Crossrail issue, a Government spokesman pointed out that it was Labour that had set up Crossrail Ltd – an arms-length body – to deliver the scheme, overseen by the Government and Transport for London. He said: "Is Labour seriously saying taxpayers in the rest of the country, outside London, should have no control over the billions of pounds they are putting into Crossrail?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It really beggars belief what Labour will do these days. Not only did they make TfL buy British, but they also award the people protesting about a loss of work in Derby, that the partys own ineptitude in developing the procurement process caused in the first place.

Maria Eagle would of course have backed the Government if they had scrapped the procurement process to give Bombardier a chance.

The above article also once again fails to mention that Bombardier were already considering up to 1200 job losses regardless of the Thameslink deal.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
So what other organisation is qualified to make such a decision? Any commercial organisation will make the decision based wholly on commercial factors, geopolitical and macroeconomic factors would be completely ignored.

Also, "Derby trainmaker Bombardier"!? It's a Canadian company, with the transportation division headquarters in Germany. It's not from Derby. It's not even British.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,439
She's talking rubbish as usual - the Crossrail order is already the responsibility of TfL. Soundbite politics which the audience would expect/hope to hear...

DfT are paying a hugh proportion of Crossrail though, so they'll have an oversight of TfL.
 

mailman

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2011
Messages
127
Maybe Government should just get out of rail full stop?

Regards

Mailman
 

mailman

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2011
Messages
127
Is that because the Government has already killed the other half? :D

Regards

Mailman
 

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
369
Her hypocracy is breathtaking.

She is cheerleading rather than considering facts.

Having been involved in many OJEU procurement exercises the selection criteria must be established at the beginning of the processes otherwise there are inevitably legal complications.

What would be more effective would be intense lobbying of the preferred bidder (Siemens) to move some or all assembly to the UK.

Finally Siemens did well enough under Labour. There were many orders that went to them that could have gone to Metro Cammell (Alstom) or Bombardier and possibly have saved production sites.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Bye bye to half the network then...
The network could be deregulated like the buses were. Companies could simply bid directly for paths. The government could then have very little to do with the day to day running of services.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
This is not my opinion but elsewhere when the issue was discussed I was told that the railways should not be subsidized and that they should be funded entirely by the fare payer. If a service is not profitible then there is no market for it and so should not run. I was told basically leave it to supply and demand.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
This is not my opinion but elsewhere when the issue was discussed I was told that the railways should not be subsidized and that they should be funded entirely by the fare payer. If a service is not profitible then there is no market for it and so should not run. I was told basically leave it to supply and demand.

There are, of course, some people who hold such bizarre views. Fortunately, they are in the minority. Expressing their opinion, though, certianly doesn't mean that it is correct, and that no one else has the right to say anything different!
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
There are, of course, some people who hold such bizarre views. Fortunately, they are in the minority. Expressing their opinion, though, certianly doesn't mean that it is correct, and that no one else has the right to say anything different!
The question here though is what's the point of privatization if you are not going to leave it to the free market?
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
This is not my opinion but elsewhere when the issue was discussed I was told that the railways should not be subsidized and that they should be funded entirely by the fare payer. If a service is not profitible then there is no market for it and so should not run. I was told basically leave it to supply and demand.

That's one opinion. It was basically that sort of thinking that brought about the Beeching cuts.

The competing opinion is that even those who don't use the railways do benefit from their existence (through less road congestion, lower house prices because of larger commute areas, larger market for products because of easier and cheaper long-distance travel, various social benefits, etc.) and that therefore everyone should contribute to their costs and even unprofitable services are beneficial enough to keep running.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
The question here though is what's the point of privatization if you are not going to leave it to the free market?

Precisely. That forms the basis of my opposition to privatisation in it's current form! It is pointless!
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,336
The only services that should be privatised are self-contained ones that can turn a profit - for instance, excursions and charters, or Airport express services. But then that profit could be used to cross-subsidise other services.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
My view is that not everything is suitable to be privatised or left to market forces. Certain things are essential public services, and I would include energy, water, railways, security, education and health as industries that should be controlled by the citizens of our country!
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
My view is that not everything is suitable to be privatised or left to market forces. Certain things are essential public services, and I would include energy, water, railways, security, education and health as industries that should be controlled by the citizens of our country!

I agree. Private companies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the essential parts of life. I would add basic foodstuffs to that list for much the same reason.

For those who support privatisation I suggest looking at the energy industry. If you think that is just then you should be forced to live on state benefits until you see it as unjust.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
For those who support privatisation I suggest looking at the energy industry. If you think that is just then you should be forced to live on state benefits until you see it as unjust.
In the case of water you can't even choose your supplier.
 

mailman

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2011
Messages
127
Who would pay the subsidy to the TOCs and NR then?

Presumably they should get out of Health, Education, Social Services, and Defence too.

Given the governments serial mismanagement of all of the sectors you mentioned, perhaps yes, we all would be better off with less government interference?

Mailman
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Given the governments serial mismanagement of all of the sectors you mentioned, perhaps yes, we all would be better off with less government interference?

Mailman

So no healthcare or education for anyone except the rich then? And no social services or defence whatsoever. Hope you've been brushing up on your languages!
 

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
369
Avoiding the philosophical debate on whether there should be private or state ownership, a balance or whatever the main issue with privatisation that have not succeded is that there are issues with how it has been done and the controls that have been put in place to manage it.

Where something is being delivered by the private sector there needs to be a greater level of profit than the company providing the service would get by simply investing the working capital required to deliver in a bank account.

There should also be open book on profit so levels should be understood and super profits not allowed to be obtained and unsustainable losses identified so a good service is obtained for a fair return.

There alslo needs to be incentivisation for genuine investment that delivers quantifiable savings or other benefits. In these cases extra profit is reasonable but the saving must be real and not just a specification reduction which is not a saving at all.

Where PFIs have failed it is often because the focus has been on the shiny new facility rather than the boring long term operating costs which were almost always more significant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top