|
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
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 -- Michael Parry 'The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret' (Terry Pratchett, The Truth) |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
"Michael Parry" wrote in message
... 17000 pages in all according to the BBC That's why I gave up reading that stuff... Enjoy, Dave! -- 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:
"Michael Parry" wrote in message ... 17000 pages in all according to the BBC That's why I gave up reading that stuff... Enjoy, Dave! 17000 pages... ****! 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. Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too. Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed something important. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
Dave Arquati wrote: 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. Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too. Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed something important. Just semantics really. I've not read the Railways Act 1993 but if it prohibits public-sector bodies from being franchisees this may not necessarily prevent them from being appointed as an operator in some other way - outside the franchising process. There may also be provisions in the Transport Act 2000, which established the Strategic Rail Authority. Although SET is (temporarily) a public-sector operator it is not a franchisee. It is directly owned by the SRA (the franchisor) but there has been no franchise, as such, since Connex South-East surrendered it. The privatisation process had built in safeguards to allow the government to continue services where the franchisee had failed, as in this case. But in 1993 the government did not want to allow councils, just for example, to bid for franchises in competition with the private sector - otherwise Ken would be doing it now! |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
umpston wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: 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. Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too. Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed something important. Just semantics really. I've not read the Railways Act 1993 but if it prohibits public-sector bodies from being franchisees this may not necessarily prevent them from being appointed as an operator in some other way - outside the franchising process. There may also be provisions in the Transport Act 2000, which established the Strategic Rail Authority. Although SET is (temporarily) a public-sector operator it is not a franchisee. It is directly owned by the SRA (the franchisor) but there has been no franchise, as such, since Connex South-East surrendered it. The privatisation process had built in safeguards to allow the government to continue services where the franchisee had failed, as in this case. But in 1993 the government did not want to allow councils, just for example, to bid for franchises in competition with the private sector - otherwise Ken would be doing it now! Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call that competition! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
In message , Dave Arquati
writes Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call that competition! The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public and carries on as usual. -- Paul Terry |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:06:38 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote: In message , Dave Arquati writes Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call that competition! It may be competition but can it shown to be fair? If a bid was allowed then in the bid evaluation process you would need to weight the public sector bid to reflect the lack of risk transfer (see points made by Mr Terry below). This is what happens with PFI contract evaluation and I say that with a decent amount of experience of the process. The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public and carries on as usual. I would agree that is certainly the theoretical position concerning where the risk sits. However there is ample experience from the National Rail industry that the public purse usually has to make some contribution as well when private companies suffer "a problem". -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati writes Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call that competition! The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public and carries on as usual. Doesn't that happen with the private TOCs anyway? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati writes Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call that competition! The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public and carries on as usual. There are these people called 'voters'. Point taken, though - there probably isn't enough accountability in the public sector to make this work. Although, as has been pointed out, it's not clear that there is in the private sector, either ... tom -- He's taking towel fandom to a whole other bad level. -- applez, of coalescent |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:06:38 +0000, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati writes Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call that competition! The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public and carries on as usual. And how is this different from a 'private' operator who finds their shareholders are not happy and then manages to extract more money out of the government. ? As well, most of the staff on the ground know the service has to run no matter what state the 'company' is and and rest easy knowing they will have a job even when the company goes under and walks out, as the trains have to still run. |
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: |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
In article , Peter Smyth
writes 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. How about (on topic) the Railways Act 1921, which was very specific about the companies it affected. -- 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 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. Crossrail won't be exempt from the Railways Act. But the Crossrail Bill proposes to exempt any franchisees of Crossrail services from the prohibition, in the Railways Act 1993, forbidding public bodies being rail franchisees. This means TfL could be a Crossrail franchisee or so could any other rail operator, public or private. Isn't this where we started? |
Crossrail Bill and Documents Published
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , John Rowland writes Most railway companies were created by specific Acts which overrode previous generic Acts and Common Law. For example, by creating Compulsory Purchase powers. (snip) IIRC, the current Severn Valley Railway used powers from the original 19th. c. Act only a few years ago, to gain access over a neighbour's land PH |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk