|
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
In article , Dave Arquati
writes I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should have been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section 34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way (theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services. Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. So it will all be perfectly legal. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... In article , Dave Arquati writes although the Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section 34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way (theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services. Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
John Rowland wrote: "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Arquati writes although the Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section 34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way (theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services. Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? The Crossrail Bill does not exempt a named company - it exempts "the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement for one or more Crossrail passenger services." |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
"umpston" wrote in message
oups.com... John Rowland wrote: But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? The Crossrail Bill does not exempt a named company - it exempts "the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement for one or more Crossrail passenger services." That seems like a moot point.. a bit like claiming that a law which exempts "fast food companies based in the forecourt of East Finchley Station" is not specifically exempting McDonalds. But IANAL. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
"Michael Parry" wrote in message
... 17000 pages in all according to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4289139.stm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/062/2005062.htm http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk And if you get the hard copies, it's one hell of an enormous box :-) and a dent in someone's wallet! Some real issues in terms of the proposals and the impact on property with Crossrail looking to take the freehold of a number of prime central London properties - likely to be some very tough petitioning going on in the next few weeks. And it's not just the properties over which the freehold is sought that are raising issues; the owners and occupiers of Hanover Square look like they are going to be up in arms over the construction site. Interesting times ahead! |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message oups.com... John Rowland wrote: But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? The Crossrail Bill does not exempt a named company - it exempts "the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement for one or more Crossrail passenger services." That seems like a moot point.. a bit like claiming that a law which exempts "fast food companies based in the forecourt of East Finchley Station" is not specifically exempting McDonalds. But IANAL. I don't know East Finchley Station but if they later redeveloped the site and made room for more than one fast food operator in that forecourt then wouldn't they be exempt too? I'm not a lawyer either but if I was McDonalds, their competitor, or a property developer the point wouldn't seem moot to me. Since the government hasn't yet decided who will operate Crossrail this wording leaves their options open. The Bill, if passed, allows the railway to be built and then operated by any organisation(s) capable of the task. The government can decide later who will operate this new railway, without having to pass further legislation through parliament. The reason for not naming the exempt public bodies is much the same as the reason for not naming private companies in the legislation. If, for example, the Bill specifically exempted "Transport for London" then this might complicate any later legislation to abolish, break up, enlarge, privatise or rename TfL (none of these currently likely but who could guarantee they won't be on the table by the time Crossrail opens?). |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Arquati writes although the Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section 34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way (theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services. Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? Parliament could make a named company exempt from a law if it wanted to. Indeed there have been several Acts of Parliament that have only affected one company, eg Barclays Group Reorganisation Act 2002, HSBC Investment Banking Act 2002, Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury PLC (Transfer) Act 2001. Peter Smyth |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article , Dave Arquati writes I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should have been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section 34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way (theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services. Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. So it will all be perfectly legal. ....except the European Communities Act 1972, if constitutional theorists are to be believed, but this isn't really the right newsgroup for a discussion of Diceyan theory... |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
In message
"John Rowland" wrote: "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Arquati writes although the Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section 34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way (theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services. Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? They pass an Act that says they can. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
In article , John Rowland
writes Parliament cannot bind its successors: *any* Act can override any provision of previous legislation. But Parliament can not make a named company exempt from some law, Of course it can. Most railway companies were created by specific Acts which overrode previous generic Acts and Common Law. For example, by creating Compulsory Purchase powers. As another example, several people have had special Acts passed to allow them to marry when they would otherwise be forbidden as being too closely related. so how can Crossrail be made exempt from the Railways Act? By writing it into the Crossrail Act. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk