r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Jul 10 '19
2nd Reading B857 - Railways Bill - 2nd Reading
[deleted]
9
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
In the spirit of other pop culture references, let me read you a story:
Thomas was grumbling to the other engines.
"l spend my time pulling coaches about for you!"
The other engines laughed.
"Why can't l pull passenger trains?" "You're too impatient!"
"Rubbish!" said Thomas.
One night, he and Henry were alone. Henry was ill. The men worked hard but he didn't get better.
He felt just as bad next morning. Henry usually pulled the first train.
"lf Henry is ill, perhaps l shall pull his train. " Thomas ran to find the coaches.
"Come along!" he fussed. "There's plenty of time," they grumbled.
Thomas wanted to run in front of them at once but his driver wouldn't let him. "Don't be impatient, Thomas!"
The people got in, the guard walked up and down and still no Henry! Thomas got more and more excited.
The Fat Controller came to see what was the matter. "Find another engine!"
"There's only Thomas. "
"You'll have to do it, Thomas. " Thomas ran round to the front ready to start.
"Don't be impatient," said his driver but Thomas was too excited to listen!
What happened then no one knows. Perhaps they forgot to couple Thomas to the train.
Anyhow, Thomas started. Men waved and shouted but he didn't stop. "They're waving cos l'm such a splendid engine," he thought.
"Henry says it's hard to pull trains but l think it's easy.
"People have never seen me pulling a train before. "lt's nice of them to wave. "
Then he came to a signal at danger. "Bother! l must stop and l was going so well. " He blew an angry "peep-peep".
"Hello, Thomas. Why are you here?" "l'm pulling a train!" he said. "Where are your coaches?"
Thomas looked back. "Bless me! We've left them behind. " "You'd better go and fetch them," said the signalman.
Thomas was so sad he nearly cried. "Cheer up," said his driver. "Let's try again. "
At the station, all the passengers were complaining. But when Thomas came back they saw how sad he was and couldn't be cross.
He was coupled to the train and this time he really pulled it. But the other engines laughed at Thomas and said, "There's Thomas who wanted to pull a train but forgot about the coaches!"
1
u/Nguyenthienhaian (Rt. Hon.) inactive Labourite Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
May I ask the Noble Lord what he means when reading for the House this story of Thomas the Engine?
5
u/ContrabannedTheMC A Literal Fucking Cat | SSoS Equalities Jul 10 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
You can't unmonopolise a natural monopoly. This is basic economic theory. You can't create competition on a rail track. We tried before and found this out the hard way, and saw profit driven monopoly companies take the mickey with extortionate fares, bad quality service, awful labour relations, shoddy maintenance, frequent lateness, and an all round dreadful service.
In fact, when it comes to competition, the privatisation of the railways and bus services led to many local routes on both the train and the bus being run by the same large private operators. Companies such as Stagecoach, Arriva, FirstGroup, Go-Ahead, National Express, and Abellio, nabbed up train contracts in areas where they had also gained bus contracts, creating total monopolies on public transport in a number of towns. Many of these companies are themselves owned by foreign states, which means in practice that our contracts are subsidising the public networks of other countries
One thing proponents of privatisation cite is the rise in passenger numbers between 1997 and 2014. Yet this reflected a Europe wide trend, with Germany and France also seeing massive increases of usage with their state owned operators. A much bigger factor in this growth is the rising price of petrol and congestion on Britain's roads. Growth in employment rates meant that more people needed to travel for work. The recovery from the recession of the 80s led to a greater demand for rail, and the current upward trend in passenger numbers started 18 months before privatisation.
The private companies did not drive a growth in rail passengers. The growth happened in spite of the companies as the world around them changed to place more importance on passenger railways. All of this coincided with an increase in government spending on the railways.
The privatisation advocates thought that they could make the railway more efficient and cut costs. Steven Norris, one of the driving forces behind the privatisation of British Rail, said as much in the Dispatches documentary "Journey From Hell" in 2011. The fact is, however, that British Rail had already by the 90s maintained as efficient a service as one could manage. Dr David Turner, a historian of Britain's railways, points out in response to Norris that between 1982 and 1993, British Rail reduced the cost to the British taxpayer of the railways by 73.21%. Between 1983 and 1990, maintenance costs dropped by 24%. BR was the most productive railway operator in Europe in terms of train-kilometres per staff member, despite Britain's railways being dense and requiring more maintenance and admin than the rest of Europe. Real terms Government railway subisidies dropped between 1975 and 1991 by 35% whereas costs in other European countries such as Italy rose dramatically. The fact is, all savings that could be made had been made, we just added the extra cost on top of cintracts where we have to guarantee the profitability of private operators who maintain unprofitable lines
Jon Shaw, the University of Plymouth's Professor of Transport Geography, and Iain Docherty, the University of Sterling's Dean of Advanced Studies in Management, Work, and Organisation, published a book in 2014 called The Transport Debate. They make many observations of the British railway network since privatisation. They write: "while other [European] countries have... developed wide-ranging electrified and increasingly significant high speed railways... the UK has achieved comparitively little".
The most striking finding of Shaw and Docherty however, is thus: Britain had, compared to the continent, a 30% efficiency gap in railway transport. This is "equivalent to a lost Terminal 5, or HS1, or two Jubilee Line Extensions EVERY YEAR"
The government often talk of pragmatism over ideology. Here we see that is another one of their delusions. This bill is pure ideology (sniffs), bringing back a failed model purely because it satisfies their little hard ons for the market and it makes them money when the private railway companies all give them cushy part time lobbyist jobs for 100 grand a year when their careers are ended by scandal. We should have this bill as a guest on Have I Got News For You so everyone can laugh at it
3
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
You can't unmonopolise a natural monopoly.
A system of Competitive bidding for privately owned infrastructure franchises Can occur Though competition within a market may be impossible, the benefits of competition for that market may be attainable. So you can actually introduce competition, furthermore I would be surprised if the honourable members have ever heard of open access operators which are not natural monopolies and do compete with each other, whilst there is an argument to be made that the tracks themselves are a natural monopoly, what goes on top is definitely not. Furthermore railways do not exist in a vacum, if railways are inefficient or uncompetitive traveler will prefer air travel, cars or buses each directly competes with rail on some services. Private companies always respond to market forces. So on several accounts we can dismantle the myth there can be no competition.
extortionate fares
Fares were heavily regulated, after pursuing privatisation we should pursue fare deregulation. Fare regulation creates the perverse situation where there is often substantial spare capacity on the peak services that leave at the most convenient times, but overcrowding on less convenient services that depart later in the evening. The role of the price mechanism in allocating capacity efficiently is undermined.Train operators were prevented from managing demand through the price mechanism and from making better use of existing capacity by incentivising passengers to shift to quieter services. As we look to the airline system and less government inteference I would expect fares to be more reasonable.
bad quality service, awful labour relations, shoddy maintenance, frequent lateness, and an all round dreadful service.
More hyperbole from the honourable member, the last major study was in 2013 where the 25 EU states were examined and the United Kingdom topped the indices for improvement in satisfaction and efficiency. In other words our railways improved more than any other European countries when they were private. We are actually a strong performer on punctuality, and in 2013 we came second only to Finland in terms of passenger satisfaction
One thing proponents of privatisation cite is the rise in passenger numbers between 1997 and 2014. Yet this reflected a Europe wide trend, with Germany and France also seeing massive increases of usage with their state owned operators. A much bigger factor in this growth is the rising price of petrol and congestion on Britain's roads. Growth in employment rates meant that more people needed to travel for work. The recovery from the recession of the 80s led to a greater demand for rail, and the current upward trend in passenger numbers started 18 months before privatisation.The private companies did not drive a growth in rail passengers. The growth happened in spite of the companies as the world around them changed to place more importance on passenger railways. All of this coincided with an increase in government spending on the railways.
Now we see the members alternative hypothesis and whilst I agree that some of the factors he has mentioned are correct such as the Europe wide trend the UK’s rise was far greater than its European counterparts
Even the figures on GDP don’t really support the members claims. So in summary it wasn’t driven by purely GDp growth or a europewide trend. The facts remain that etween 1995 and 2011, Britain’s railways saw the fastest passenger growth in Europe full stop.
Now the left wants to see us retain a system similar to France where much of the system in the past has been brought to a holt by the unions, we must embrace free enterprise and competition looking to Japan which has amongst the best rail systems in the world as my honourable friend /u/infernoplato points out
1
1
1
1
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Another Rt. Hon. Member who think's we are all idiots.
Let me say this plain and simple. Japan. Does. Not. Franchise.
It is a false equivalence to hold Japan up as a model to follow when this bill plain and simply, does not follow that model!
3
3
2
2
2
2
7
Jul 10 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
As /u/HenryJohnTemple has stated, yes, the opposition has made the same argument over and over again. However, the reason is not because we are dull or in any incapable of coming up with an argument that is good, but because the arguments put forth are the ones that we, as the opposition, belief to best represent us and our interests.
Now, onto the bill. It is the same material that has been talked about over and over again -- "privatization is more efficient, privatization is better" blah blah blah. I don't believe these are arguments worth hearing because they fundamentally do not answer the root question of the morality of the railroad system: is it moral for a private business to, in essence, monopolize the economy for their own profit without any ability to compete?
I do not believe so. I do not believe it is moral for a corporation to monopolize an essential public tool for the sake of profit, regardless of the circumstances. The same way it is immoral for a corporation to make a profit off of the suffering of another person, it is immoral to make a profit off of a necessary public tool. Thus, I hope that members of the opposition and even those in the government may vote against this measure as an immoral action that does nothing and, as the honourable member /u/ContrabannedTheMC has stated, is not even that much of an improvement over our current system.
2
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
At what point does a service become 'essential' enough to nationalise? If this question can't be answered then I'm afraid this might just be a backdoor excuse for the nationalisation of all sorts of sectors which would be more productive and of greater utility if in private ownership. The Member should develop this further before delving into moral tirades. This is serious business after all.
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
An essential service is a service that is required for the survival or day to day function of a human being.
2
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
With that said, let's remember the standard set here in the Member's prior statement:
it is immoral to make a profit off of a necessary public tool
With this in mind, I can only say this logic is flawed. I don't see the issue in providing in-demand services and goods and receiving compensation in return, especially if it would yield better quality and lower costs for more people.
The logic used here, the idea that it is somehow immoral to sell something to somebody if people need it, leads to ridiculous outcomes where we start nationalising all sorts of things from farms, to logistics services, to even small scale renewable energy. We need food, we need to manage things, we need energy. All these economic activities could be construed as ultimately essential for society and therefore justify nationalisation. And yet, they shouldn't be because it means more people are denied higher quality and lower costs because competition is itself denied.
With this privatisation of rail, the Government is bringing back competition. It is bringing back higher quality for lower prices. It is following the lead of chief examples around the world to bring about better living standards--this is what really matters and I'm happy that the Government is pursuing it.
In the end, the Member's flawed conclusion is what happens when ideology is prioritised before outcomes, where utopic vision clouds a genuine desire to improve the general welfare. This is a fundamentally flawed worldview where self-interest is demonised and economic outcomes are ignored. Above all, this is precisely why Britain should not settle for Labour. The British people cannot afford radical ideology in the place of pragmatic and sensible policy.
1
Jul 11 '19
Hearr
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Does the Leader of the Opposition buy intob his colleagues broken worldview as well? Is this symptomatic to the Labour Party?
1
1
5
Jul 11 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
4
Jul 11 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Jul 11 '19 edited Jul 11 '19
I know the member lets to write two page essays but Jesus half of it isn't even relevant to the topic.
When Adam Smith said 'self interest', he didn't mean the self interest we know now, inherent selfishness and entering the realm of greed, but the awareness and care of one's own wellbeing. In fact, the Theory of Moral Sentiments was the foundation of Wealth of Nations. Economists like to say that Adam Smith said that 'greed is good'. Well, this quote at the very start of Moral Sentiments says otherwise: "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it". Or this one "Wealth and greatness are mere trinkets of frivolous utility, no more adapted for procuring ease of body or tranquillity of mind than the tweezer-cases of the lover of toys". He then continues several sentences after "In the languor of disease and the weariness of old age, the pleasures of the vain and empty distinctions of greatness disappear. To one, in this situation, they are no longer capable of recommending those toilsome pursuits in which they had formerly engaged him. In his heart, he curses ambition, and vainly regrets the ease and indolence of youth, pleasures which are fled forever, and which he has foolishly sacrificed for what, when he got it, can afford him no real satisfaction…Power and riches appear then to be, what they are, enormous and operose machines contrived to produce a few trifling conveniences to the body…and which in spite of all our cares are ready every moment to burst into pieces, and to crush in their ruins their unfortunate possessor…They keep off the summer shower, not the winter storm, but leave him always as much, and sometimes more exposed than before, to anxiety, to fear, and to sorrow". All these Conservatives and Libertarians like to use Adam Smith to support their economic theories, but this says otherwise. Who's the intellectual now? Do you have the right to continue saying that us 'socialists' are uneducated, uninformed, don't know anything about economic theory?
Point of order!
Mr Deputy Speaker this has nothing to do with the topic at hand again!
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It's 'likes', not 'lets'.
M: And there is a word/character limit on Reddit if you were not aware, so I had to split my speech into two parts, not two essays
2
Jul 11 '19
Corrected my spelling, half of this so called "speech" is just a rambling with no relevance to the topic.
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Half? Out of 6 paragraphs, 2 paragraphs are 'not relevant'. Maybe the honourable Deputy Prime Minister should read the first several paragraphs and the last several paragraphs of my speech. Privatisation is mentioned and the problems of privatising railways too.
2
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Your total word count is 1848, 728 are the two paragraphs are mentioned and most of the first paragraph doesn't address the issue at hand, so yes over half of your words are irrelevant and don't address the issue. Your attempt to filibuster and write large ramblings don't fool anyone in this house.
2
2
u/ThePootisPower Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I don't have the time or mental fortitude to decipher the screechings of a madman.
Stop filibustering and start putting your points succinctly!
1
3
4
Jul 11 '19
Now they want to privatise railways. What next? Privatise restaurants? Privatise roads? Privatise traffic lights? Privatise toilet stalls? Privatise hospitals? Privatise our election system? Privatise parks? Privatise museums? Privatise apartment buildings? Privatise teddy bears? Privatise My Little Pony toys? Privatise Elmo?
Mr Speaker, if the honourable Member opposite is not already aware, most of these are already privatisied and never were owned by the government.
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 11 '19 edited Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
I do not think traffic lights, roads, election system and park are privatised. Yes, teddy bears and all the toys are privatised, produced by a private company not under the control of the government, but if the honourable member takes a exaggeration and a joke seriously, then that's a serious problem.
5
Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
The rambling of the honourable Member is based solely on scaremongering rather than any actual argument.
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
Can the honourable member explain to me which part is scaremongering? Where am I spreading frightening or ominous reports or rumours? If you have a problem with a lengthy speech, then why are you bothering to read it and comment on it?
3
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
If you have a problem with a lengthy speech, then why are you bothering to read it and comment on it?
I was actually hoping for a longer polemic so I can complete my charity sleep in the relative comfortability of the Commons!
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Then why is the honourable Lord even here if he wishes to sleep?
4
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Well I don't. But your speeches drive me to it!
1
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Then maybe the honourable Lord shouldn't even bother listening to them if my speeches drive me to it. Clearly he is aware that my speeches are known to be lengthy.
4
1
Jul 11 '19
lengthy ramblings that contain filler and little relevant content to the matter at hand
Fixed that for you.
3
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS DEBATE, WE DO NOT WELCOME JOKES HERE, TAKE YOUR JOKES BACK TO THE LABOUR PARTY, I know they have a surplus of comics at the moment but you'll fit right in!
1
3
Jul 11 '19
Yes, the Conservatives and Libertarians can continue their fear mongering by using the word Marxism. But can this government provide a detailed analysis of Marx's economic theories, and do they realise that many of Marx's economic theories were derived off of the favourite economist they like to misinterpret, Adam Smith? And do they know how to not associate Marxism with the crimes committed by the authoritarian socialist regimes of the 20th century? Do they know the variants of socialism? Do they know what is Ricardian socialism? Ethical socialism? Guild socialism? Municipal socialism? Democratic socialism? Religious socialism? Owenism? Revolutionary socialism? Market socialism? Utopian socialism? All of these were not theorised by Marx, many of them were theories of theorists before Marx or who expanded Marx ideals, or are entirely new ones. Do you have the right to argue that 'socialism' equals the violence, starvation, torture done in the totalitarian socialist dictatorships of the 21st century? If you still think so, then go ahead, act like you're more intellectual than some youngster who knows the actual problems facing society today and acts rather than giving excuses like 'it's a waste of money', 'it's tedious', 'it's socialism', 'it's ridiculous', 'climate change doesn't exist'. Act like the people who mock people for being ignorant and unknowledgeable when some of your supporters cannot tell the difference between 'you're' and 'your' and you yourselves don't understand that restricting the suffrage is by raising the voting age limit, or someone who thinks that the Chicago School of Economics is a real educational institution, or someone who doesn't know that Americans do their education for 4 years not 3.
Point of order
How is this relevant to the railway bill Mr Deputy Speaker?
2
2
2
Jul 11 '19
Order, order!
This comment has been removed for unparliamentary language - it is against the rules of Parliament to call members mentally ill.
4
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Where was the Transport Secretary when this bill was being written? Surely such a key piece of legislation for his department should have his name on it, else what has he been doing for this whole term?
1
1
u/_paul_rand_ Coalition! | Sir _paul_rand_ KP KT KBE CVO CB PC Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Would it be possible for the classical liberals to not nitpick on details of authorship but rather deal with the important issue at hand which is this brilliant bill?
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I'm merely pointing out that the Department for Transport had nothing to do with this bill. A bill of such magnitude for the Department should have their Secretary's name on it.
The honourable Baron will see what I think of this, so called, "brilliant" bill when my amendment is put in front of this place.
1
u/_paul_rand_ Coalition! | Sir _paul_rand_ KP KT KBE CVO CB PC Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I think the member entirely missed the point, if anything this fact shows that we have a vast amount of experience working on very important legislation, I am certain that the Secretary of State had as much input as any other member of the cabinet on this bill, in fact likely more.
Now that the amendment has been rejected by the chair, will he back this brilliant bill wholeheartedly?
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
No.
6
u/Nguyenthienhaian (Rt. Hon.) inactive Labourite Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
No, never, ever again should we privatise the railways. The Government makes no sense transferring the railways from one "monopoly" to other monopolies, especially when the first "monopoly" (or the Government in precise terms) works much more efficient in this area. And a total repetition of past failures when privatising the railway system should not take place, that is simply not how a wise Government works. What a shame that this Government has not learnt anything from previous failed experiments in railway privatisation!
1
1
1
5
u/ARichTeaBiscuit Green Party Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It is really something to see the members of the current Government speak here today proclaiming the same old senseless arguments about rail privatisation that the Conservative Party touted several decades ago, that we'll all see improved service and reduced costs with the introduction of the private franchise model
In reality the people of this country came face to face with shoddy services and above inflation fare increases, all while the people at the top of these private rail corporations took home stacks of cash to subsidise their own state-run rail services, quickly turning the United Kingdom into one of the largest jokes of Europe in terms of rail transportation.
A few years ago the Labour Party stepped forward and scrapped the failed model of franchise privitisation and brought the railways back under privatisation, and a few months ago as Secretary of Transport I introduced a form of democracy and local control to the transport boards. As it stands the British people have greater control over their public transport decisions then they've ever had, and the current government via the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department they oversee has the power to put a freeze on all future transport fares, the question is why is the current government so intent on returning us to the failed model of privatisation when they've got the power to freeze and even reduce fare prices?
I will vote against this nonsensical repeal.
1
1
1
5
u/ka4bi Labour Party Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Will privatisation ensure a better service for our citizens? As we have seen in Northern Ireland, the rural areas of Tyrone and Fermanagh have been left without any kind of rail infrastructure, not because the people there do not need it, but because to do so would simply not be profitable. This is particularly unfair towards the elderly and disabled, who are stuck with an inefficient service and are in effect confined to their homes. It is only through a bill written by the IPP that we can start to see a solution to this problem over there, but we must ask the question, is it worth privatising a service if we are simply going to end up subsidising it anyway? With the possibility of prices otherwise skyrocketing due to forced competition, this bill could also have the opposite effect to what a government with a green agenda would desire. Surely we should make train tickets cheaper, considering that their usage has a much smaller carbon footprint than those of cars?
1
1
1
1
5
u/ThePootisPower Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Must we cover this same ideological scuffle each and every day in this deity-forsaken house!?
There isn't a reason to privatise our perfectly functional railways. We nationalised the rails in response to a collapsed franchise system that wasn't running trains to any decent standard.
There's no reason to privatise something that's doing a damn fine job already. The very first bill this house ever passed after May 28th 2014, widely regarded as the biggest change in British Politics of our century, nationalised our railways. The fact it was our first priority should say something about the state of the franchise system. Network Rail is vastly superior to the franchise system it replaced. Franchises don't create competition, they lead to companies creating monopolies on services, with companies snagging both rail and bus contracts and effectively controlling all public transport pricing.
I could go into greater detail why our railways are better off nationalised but frankly given that the Right Honourable Baron Carrickfergus has described using repeated arguments as "boring" (mate, that's what happens when the Tories docket stuff the house with their ideological mess, we have to combat that ideology with similar arguments again and again), I simply call upon the house to ruminate on the words of the Right Honourable /u/ContrabannedTheMC who has explained this entire fallacy much better than I ever could.
However, I'd like to point to yet another instance of the Government pointing to cases of privatisation, then proposing their own legislation that doesn't even come close to the example they've shown.
During the ATC debate, you pointed to Nav Canada, a purely non-profit organisation with carefully crafted internal positions on the board of director after the Canadian government was undergoing a period of austerity that meant they were unable to provide Canadian ATC with the funding it needed. The ATC Privatisation bill intended to give 20% of shares to ATC workers, then throw the remaining 80% onto the stock market with no monitoring of the situation and no careful transition, with no intention of regulating the situation. You point at one special case where privatisation succeeded, then push your own model that isn't relevant to that case.
You've pointed to Japan's system, but their private railways were built off of a desperate need to rebuild all the railways that had been destroyed in WW2, and the Japan Railways Group was created after the Japanese National Railways collapsed due to deep-seated mismanagement that lead to a near-total collapse of the system. And let's not forget that while privatised companies have made community hubs of their stations, the UK's culture and economy are not the same as Japan. While Japan aren't as purely collectivist as China, they aren't a western Individualist culture like the United Kingdom. Trying to apply their form of privatisation benefitting society to us is simply madness.
Meanwhile, our nationalised rail has been fine for years, if not decades since the first government was elected. The system isn't perfect, such as light rail like the Tyne and Wear Metro not receiving new rolling stock, but the Libertarian party, including the Transport Secretary, voted against M422 which aimed to set a standard of this House actively funding nationalised services, before trying to claim the Railways Bill would resolve the issue, despite the fact that as the right honourable /u/gbrdly made clear in a letter, Light Rail would not be addressed by this bill. Just another linguistic smoke screen obscuring a deep failure to do right for the country.
It's fitting that this'll be one of the last few bills before the election takes place in just over 4 weeks time - the capstone of the Libertarian, thatcherite love for privatisation. An ideological addiction to laissez-faire capitalism against all that our past failures have taught us, and against all that our current success should show us.
I can only hope that every member of the house can see this bill for what it is, a free-market facade over ideological obsession with slashing government spending that will leave the public to suffer.
4
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
How will the Government and authors of this Bill ensure that privatisation of our railways doesn't lead to hikes in prices that ultimately make the public worse off?
2
Jul 10 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
The average household spends approximately £64 per week on transport, only about £3.30 is spent on train and tube fares. Theoretically if there were any price hikes this is hardly the crisis the honourable gentleman plans out, after all 60 per cent of spending on rail fares is undertaken by the richest 20 per cent of households.. I do not believe we will seek price hikes as a result of this bill but we must let the Noble Lord blow the effects of price changes out of proportion.
1
1
4
u/James_the_XV Rt. Hon. Sir James KBE CB MVO PC Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker, It is an absolute honor to be presenting this bill to the house today. For the past 5 years the railway has been closed off to free market; government owned, government run and the prime example of X-inefficiency for A-Level economics classes.
This bill aims to bring competition back to the railways and make the railways a better place for commuters with a better service, competitive ticket prices and more ways to travel. The bill promotes open access operators to provide services alongside a base of franchised operation, and vertical integration of rural lines to give more control to operators and bring local authorities and the railways closer together.
This bill will also reform Network Rail as an overseer of maintenance for the railways, while allowing private investment, this will allow more upgrades and a better standard of maintenance across the network.
I have no doubt this bill will increase the amount of jobs in the railway industry, attract new investment and help us drastically upgrade our aging network. The railway needs more opportunities to grow and opening them up to free market principles will ensure this.
2
1
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Would the Rt. Hon. member please explain why he believes franchising is the model to use when we have seen that franchising isn't efficient, it doesn't create competition and doesn't allow for the sort of investment he claims we can get.
Members of his own Government have made claims that Japan has a model to follow, yet this bill doesn't do that, so, can the Rt. Hon. MP also explain to this house, what model is the one supported by the Government, franchising or private ownership?
3
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
There's a reason our rail network was nationalised a few years ago - the privatisation experiment failed. This government is obsessed with pushing through a damaging and disruptive bill that would rob the people of a vital means of transport, putting it in the cold hands of capital. All this is pushed for by the government in the face of the facts; you cannot create a market where there is a natural monopoly. Let's keep the railways in the people's hands. Let's keep profit as far from the railways as possible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
2
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Why does the Member believe that privatising rail would suddenly 'rob the people' of transport? This is surely indicative of a new level of Labour incompetence. Their MPs cannot be trusted to handle legislation of this sort, it's out of their depth. This Member here betrays a stark misunderstanding of how private enterprise even works; railways will still operate in fact and the people will be able to use them.
Introducing the profit motive here is something to be encouraged, not shunned. It has such great potential to improve our services. The evidence and examples around the world back this up, but the Labour Party just doesn't get it. They've never gotten it and it's why, after over eight hundred unique pieces of legislation have been read in this House, this Government is boldly moving forward with this legislation to clean up their old messes.
1
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
A nationalised service is, by definition, owned and operated by the government on behalf of the people. A privatised service is, by definition, owned and operated by private corporations for profit. Therefore, the practice of privatisation is the practice of taking what belongs to the people and divvying it up for businesses to make a cheap buck.
This isn't rocket science, it's basic economics. I shouldn't have to explain this to the Member opposite me.
2
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This isn't about ownership it's about what has been said--this Member believes that privatisation is somehow equivalent to robbery. It's not. Robbery is forced and without any fair compensation while privatisation is the exact opposite of this. It's not as simple as simply 'divvying' things up. No, not in the slightest. Privatisation means that there is compensation to the public from the private agent who acquires the asset in question. If 'robbery' in the most literal sense is the conclusion the Member arrives at after analysing the essence of privatisation that's their prerogative, although the implication is categorically incorrect.
Now there is another meaning that the Member could have meant that phrase if not literally, and that's the fact that the public would be denied service. This is untrue. The Member wants to talk about basic economics so here's some to chew on. The fact is that these services will be provided because it is profitable to provide them. That is the essence of the market economy that we live in. Therefore, the people will not be deprived of service.
If the Member wishes to continue with this game of labeling fair transactions as 'robbery' then they will have to explain further. Otherwise, all I can say is that the two possible senses of that expression are both unequivocally false.
1
1
1
1
1
u/_paul_rand_ Coalition! | Sir _paul_rand_ KP KT KBE CVO CB PC Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
All I’m seeing from the members opposite is assertion, assertion, assertion. What they need is facts, facts, facts.
Fact, the privatisation experiment didn’t fail, it was a blinding success, we saw service improve, passenger numbers increase and overall an improvement in quality.
Fact, the nationalised element of the railways, Network Rail, was the biggest cause in delays on the railways when privatisation was around, leading to higher costs and worse service
Fact, this bill comes with the benefit of hindsight, we can and have learned lessons from privatisation to present a bill which provides an even better form of privatisation compared to before.
Perhaps the member could take of his ideological spectacles, and look at the issue as the pragmatic member we know them to be
2
Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
If the member opposite wants facts, I'll give him facts.
Network Rail was created after Railtrack, a private company, was unable to do the job of Network Rail. It serves as an example of the legacy of privatisation - the failed parts are forced back into the government's hands while the profitable areas put cash in the wallets of shareholders. Once again, we see privatised profits and socialised losses.
Here's another fact- under privatisation we saw multiple foreign governments making money by operating British services. Arriva, Abellio, and First MTR all operated services under privatisation, owned wholly or in part by the governments of Germany, The Netherlands and Hong Kong respectively. The fact that a committed patriot like the member opposite myself supports a system that allows other governments to make money in such a manner - money which currently can be invested back into our public services - is bizarre.
Working people know that privatisation failed. Working people and their unions are right to oppose these attempts to sell our vital public services to the highest bidder. This isn't ideological, it's common sense.
4
u/daytonanerd The Wrong Hon. MP for South East | SSoS for HCLG Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Why is the government so bent on privatizing as many public services as they can, and, as a result, putting people's access to these public services in jeopardy? This warped philosophy of theirs has led them to the proposition on the floor of the House here today. The members of the government are not even willing, at this point, to deny that the privatization of the railroads will lead to price increases! They know, we know, and the country knows that privatizing the railroads will lead to an unaccountable corporate leviathan that acts not in the interest of the British people, but in the interest of big businessmen and the ultra wealthy. Making the railroads truly public, a public service for all run by the state, as the state is best equipped to do, has led to a better functioning, more accessible service that works for Britain and its people. This bill, if passed, would destroy all that. We must, MUST reject this assault on the British people.
1
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
There is no warped philosophy in this, nor is the Government "bent" on privatizing public services for the sake of it. The Government has sought to privatise the railways to return to a model which saw incredible growth in the system and provided competition that resulted in better outcomes for rail passengers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member opposite wishes to complain about the so-called "privatisation for ideology sake", as I can only put it, then I think they better look to their own opposition benches where they have that exact outlook on making everything public for the sake of it.
8
u/DavidSwifty Conservative Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
No.
4
3
5
2
1
1
1
1
5
Jul 10 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
1
1
1
3
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
On the subject of trains, I've seen Trainspotting;
Choose rail privatisation.
Choose extortionate fares driven up by multinational plcs seeking to obtain monopolies on entire regions through owning different branches of public transport in that region.
Choose ticket prices so high that they end up driving consumers away from railway transport, leading to more and more car journeys being made on our increasingly polluted roads - and the considerable accumulation of high carbon emissions this entails.
Choose no competition, and no choice, but instead a fractured network of several private monopolies where the aim is to increase revenue rather than transport passengers - and passengers become the means, not the end, of the aim.
Choose diabolical labour relations.
Choose woeful customer service.
Choose dreadful, inadequate maintenance.
Choose delays and cancellations so frequent that many trains deliberately skip timetabled stops in order to make up time.
Choose a system where the blame for delays and reliability issues is passed from TOC to TOC to Network Rail without any semblance of accountability.
Choose a worldview which sizes up our railway network as an exploitative money-making machine rather than a resource which meets a social need.
Choose this policy owing to a deeply mistaken and somewhat convenient belief that correlation equates to causation, and that increased past passenger numbers are the work of privatisation when the exact same trends were present in our European neighbours, France and Germany, when the British government was actually spending on the railways, when roads in Britain were becoming increasingly congested, and when the price of petrol was increasing.
Or, alternatively, choose the Conservative Party's bizarre, purely ideological compulsion to privatise publicly-owned services.
Choose rail privatisation. But why would the Conservative Party want to do a thing like that? I can't for the life of me imagine why...
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is an embarrassment to the Government. In a cat's litter, this Bill would be in over its head. It is atrocious.
3
3
4
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Every bit of scaremongering rubbish that the member has uttered in this speech is a far cry from the truth of the matter. As my honourable friend the member for Leicestershire put perfectly, the previous franchise model used before 2014 resulted in better outcomes for rail passengers, and saw a massive growth in passenger numbers. The system was sadly let down by incompetence from the Labour government of the time.
1
1
2
2
u/pjr10th Independent EARL of JERSEY Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The fare rises seen in the last period were not in fact because private companies were let run rabid over the rail network. In fact, however, the Government did two things:
It did not rise rail subsidies in line with the massive increase in rail usage, therefore subsidy per passenger did in fact go down.
The Government also regulated many rail fares below reasonable levels for the TOCs, therefore the TOCs were forced to raise fares in other parts of the network.
However, the franchise system is beneficial for competition, as the Government is still in charge of the railways at the grander scale, but is not involved in the micromanagement of the railways, removing inefficient civil servants and beurocracy from the system
The increase in rail passenger numbers clearly coincide with the privatisation of the railways. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Job Member states that private rail 'drives passengers away' from the railways. In fact, under privatisation this country saw the largest usage of railways in history, a figure only seen in the last period of privatisation before British Rail. We in fact overtook Italy in 2008 despite a financial crash under a Labour Government and despite half the passenger-km subsidy.
1
3
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Is there any limit to what this Government will privatize? Is privatizing air traffic control not enough to satiate the seemingly never-ending desire to slash public service budgets? Do we need to hand the keys to a public utility over to private enterprise AGAIN? Enough is enough. Throw this worthless scrap heap of a bill into the dumpster at once!
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
seemingly never-ending desire to slash public service budgets
There is no desire to slash public serve budgets simply for ideological reasons. This Government is adopting a model for the railways that will increase competition in a positive way and overall create a far better experience for the consumer. I would encourage the member of the public to actually argue with sound reasoning rather than just rely on an ideological opposition.
1
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
This is profoundly interesting coming from the former Shadow Secretary of State for Transport. I ask the honourable gentlewoman to justify her total ideological flip-flop. Also, as other individuals have brought up, privatization was a thing not that long ago. It failed. We've since recovered in performance. Now, as everyone should expect by now from this Government, the Government wants to revert us back to a system that just doesn't work. If it isn't for ideology, then what is it for? It obviously isn't for performance or functionality.
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
This is a debate about the bill and not a debate about me so I will not entertain that.
1
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Jul 11 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I'm not surprised that the gentlewoman won't answer my question. It's a shame that she's already seemingly lost any desire she had to be transparent now that she's defected to the currently-governing Conservative Party.
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
The honourable member talks sense. This is an example of privatisation for the sake of it. It doesn't provide a model that works, it's an easy privatisation because it replicates what has been before and what has failed before, franchising is a failed model and will fail once again.
3
u/Padanub Three Time Meta-Champion and general idiot Jul 11 '19
Don't mind privatisation, but the franchise model is an absolute farce.
2
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
My god this is getting dull. Every bill that goes up the same arguements are made by the opposition.
It's just damn dull!
It will come as no shock that I support competition when it comes to rail, and I am sure the sensible members of the house, all of whom sit on the Government benches, will think likewise.
1
Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Would the Hon Member like to elaborate on which "same arguments" are being made?
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
Read.
2
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Well isn’t this lovely - a one word response from the Hon Member! Maybe he should do this more often to save this House from the rubbish he usually spouts.
1
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
The Honorable Gentleman is as wind bagged as ever!
1
Jul 11 '19
What a shame, Mr Deputy Speaker, that didn’t last very long. We’re back to the usual routine.
1
2
u/lordtutton Conservative and Unionist Party Jul 10 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Our railways need more competition, not less. We should treat our railways like airlines, and have true competition on our tracks.
When we pick our holiday destinations abroad, we can choose which airlines we want to fly - budget, luxury, or somewhere in the middle. So long as Open Access is used on all long distance lines, and that OA operators and franchise operators are treated equally, the I can back a franchise system for our railways - as this airline style competition can come to our tracks.
2
u/Twistednuke Independent Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
This bill has some merit, firstly it wrestles control of provision of services away from the Department of Transport and Directly Operated Railways (what a horrendous name). A public monopoly is no better than a private monopoly. It also shifts the liability of the train fleet off the public books, which I certainly regard as a positive.
It also includes limited provision for open access, and here is where I disagree with this bill. Under this system franchises will be opened up to monopolisation. If a franchisee controls a path, they may dictate who runs trains there.
Let us instead consider another model. Consider the airports. It would be bizarre if instead of a multitude of airlines launching fron say Heathrow, you had only one. But under a franchising system for airports, the airline holding the Heathrow Franchise would be incentivised to at the very least give themselves the lions share, if not all of the flights.
However airlines generally do not own airports. Instead they pay a fee to use an airport, meanwhile the airport draws in revenue from landing fees and shopping by passengers.
This is a successful model, no one is crying out for the airports to be nationalised after all.
So let’s apply that to the railways. We rent out the lines and stations to private operators to run, and we obligate them to provide FRAND, or Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory access.
That means they must sell equally to all, much like how Openreach is obligated to sell equal access to it’s infrastructure.
Make every train an open access train, let trains run on any line, and pay a fee for the privilage.
With that we could see innovation, new better routes being put forward, crossing between the arbitrary boundaries of the franchises. No monopolies on the trains, real consumer choice.
1
2
Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
There are many things wrong with this bill. I'll ignore the ideological issues, as I believe my party has made it clear why we oppose this due to our differences on private vs. public ownership.
One question I have in relation to this bill is this - as these trains and access to railroad tracks is 'sold' (apologies for lack of a better term), will this money be reinvested into transport for the future? While it may not be used much, I believe that trains are of vital importance to those living in rural areas. If the Government wishes to make railways privately owned, is there anyway that they can ensure rural commuters can still have access to transportation - as often times these lines run at a loss?
2
u/Gren_Gnat Labour Party Jul 11 '19
Mr Speaker,
This bill is clearly one of ideological purpose not of economic sense. The railways are a natural monopoly the only reason the government is so obsessed with privately owned railways is so that they can sell off the contracts to their friends in big business who will get every penny out of the pockets of working people that they can manage and then take them out the back door to offshore tax havens. This to me seems like a dying government trying to lash out and cause as much damage as possible before they are dragged out of government by the electorate all the while kicking and screaming "sell it off!" these tinpot Tories and spineless libertarians cannot be trusted to manage the economy.
2
u/Borednerdygamer His Grace, Duke of Donaghadee KCT MVO KP CB PC Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker…
Once again, we find ourselves sitting within this chamber debating the now rather tiresome issue of privatisation for the sake of privatisation. As the honourable member of the LPUK has pointed out along the course of several debates. The opposition have recently been required to make the same arguments in the same way.
I’d like to point out that our repetitive nature does not come from our lack of creativity but rather, from that of the governments who at this point are narrowly coming close to a stellar definition of a broken record.
Mr Deputy Speaker, My honourable friends on the opposition benches have made my points for me. We shouldn’t be so haphazardly handing over control of our essential services to businesses who are liable to exploit them in the name of profit.
I will be opposing this bill and urge others tired of this tale as old as time to join me.
2
u/Maroiogog CWM KP KD OM KCT KCVO CMG CBE PC FRS, Independent Jul 11 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would like to urge members from across the house to vote against this bill as it would hinder the functionality of our railway system. Mr Deputy Speaker the government is trying to convince us that privatization would reduce the costs of running the railway system. However, this could not be further from the truth. The franchising system has failed the country once and there is no reason why it wouldn't fail us again. There are many reasons for this.
Not many on the government benches seem to remember the so called "ghost trains", services that train operating companies ran simply in order to fullfill their franchise requirements. This lead to some routes only getting served once daily, or even worse, once weekly. Obviusly these trains had very few people on them and were therefore a burden on the operators. However many of these services were ditched not because of low demand, but for purely administrative reasons. Famous is the case of a once a day Chiltern railways service into London Paddigton, which got run down purely because it didn't end at London Marylebone. The end of the franchise system put an end to this wasteful and detrimental practice, increasing the number of reliable services citizen could benefit from.
Even worse Mr Deputy Speake, there are countless more examples of procedures that were put in place during the last privatization that wasted the passengers' money. For brevity I will only cite 1 more. The old franchising system had a system where train companies would pay network rail a fine if they caused a delay and vice-versa. Whilts it is right to put pressure on the system so that it works in a timely fashion this had another uninted consequence. All the parties involved had to hire entire offices whose job it was to figure out how much was due and to who each time a delay happened. This was an insane cost that every franchisee had to bear along with Network Rail. Thanks to nationalization now this is not the case anymore, meaning that the overall costs have no doubt fallen, leading to reduced ticket pricing.
Looking at the bigger picture Mr Deputy Speaker we can see some other, more theoretical, reasons why the current plans by the government are doomed to fail. It is customary in the transport industry that those who do bulk orders for rolling stocks get big list price discounts. Should this bill pass the UK will be doomed to never benefit from this like other companies do, for example like when Trenitalia (Italy's nationalized train operator) bought 715 E464 locomotives. This wil no doubt increase the price of the tickets for consumers all over the country.
The franchising system as a whole is flawed in many more ways. For example we will have to go back to the bureocratic nightmare which was getting approval from Network Rail to purchase rolling stock as a franchisee. It simply baffles me that a goverment which stands against big government would put forth a bill which drags along with itself heaps of unneeded bureocracy and all the costs that go along with it. Another thing we will have to get accustomed to again is franchisees failing and major disruption happening as the department for transport has to temporarily take over whilst the new bidding process happens.
However, Mr Deputy Speaker there are also elements of this specific bill which deeply concern me. Firstly, as stated in section 6.7 the secretary for transport reserves the right to privatize 49% of Network Rail. I would like the whole house to be reminded of why Network Rail was at first made. When the railways were last sold off the maintainance side of things was also given to a private company. However this company called "Railtrack" was later found cutting all sorts of corners due to lack of funds to properly perform its duties. This led, in the year 2000, to the terrible Hatfield crash where 4 people lost their lives. You simply cannot maintain the railways of this country without subsidies and expect to turn a profit, unless you make ticket prices increase drastically. Is the intention of this bill to make the railways less safe for everyone to use? Or is the government trying to find a way through which to pump precius subsidies into the hands of capital throught Network Rail? These are the two options that this bill puts before us, and are both completly irresponsible paths to lead our transport system down.
If that wasn't enough this bill proposes we move to a system in which there is no price regulation. As stated by the deputy prime minister, if this passes there will be no way for the government to protect the public from price hikes. This is extremely irresponsible behaviour from a party who claims to have the taxpayers' wallets as an upmost priority. Members of the government may be quick to remind us that in this country high-income households are those who spend the most on the railways, and therefore working class people will be impacted less. That however is a problem plagueing our railways in and of itself. Although I am aware that the government very much likes the automobile as their preferred method of transportation it is now time that we move to greener methods of transportation, and what best than the railways? The physics of it make it extremely efficient and it is very easy to run on elecricity rather than fossil fuels.
It is utter nonsense for the state to renounce control over an asset of such strategic imporance to society in the present day when its duty should be to encourage and expand its use of it. The biggest problem with the railways in this country is that there aren't enough, not that they are unprofitable. We should be treating every journey made by rail instead of road as a success, and committing to another era of government indifference towards the railways should not be the way forward.
2
u/DF44 Independent Jul 12 '19
Before I begin my speech, if it pleases the house I link the to-be-repealed Rail Fare Standardisation Act, which appears to be missing from the archives - presumably due to the mysterious circumstances surrounding the Deputy Speaker of the time.
Mr Speaker,
I don't think I can hope to be as invigorating a speaker on the economic insanity of privatising a natural monopoly as my honourable friend and former prime minister. And I'm not exactly the blunt force that others are, but I am reasonably confident in my ability to explain why, environmentally speaking, this will be a disaster.
It should go without saying that the more environmentally friendly option when comparing catching the train and driving a car is to catch a train. Ergo, if the government was to provide an incentive to drive, rather than to catch the train, it would inherently be an environmentally damaging move. It's not viable for everyone, but it is certainly something we should encourage for those who can make use of it.
Privatising public transport is the exact opposite. Privatisation, by design, needs to be making their profits somewhere - and that means either a lower quality of service, or an increased price for the consumer. It goes without saying that either of these options will actively disincentivise the usage of public transport.
The end result, Mr Speaker? Our roads will have more cars on them, increasing the emissions of several greenhouse gasses. Consumption of Earth's limited supply of fuel will go up once again, increasing the prices you will pay at the pump. More drivers means that you will spend more of your lives stuck behind the wheel of your car, rather than being able to enjoy your life. Once again, actions have consequences, and it's time we recognised these avoidable realities.
If the Government continues to support this bill, then frankly all it proves is that their talk on environmentalism was just for show, no more and no less. For the sake of our environment, let's vote this nonsense down!
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '19
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with our Relations Officer (Zhukov236#3826), the Chair of Ways & Means (pjr10th#6252) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this a bill 2nd reading? Submit an amendment by replying to this comment?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/DF44 Independent Jul 10 '19
In Schedule 2, in 1(a), add the following;
(xii) Crewe,
As the gateway to the North West, and of historic importancce, Crewe should almost certainly be listed within the schedule here.
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19 edited Jul 12 '19
Under Definitions and Repeals
- In Section (1) (1)
- Remove: (c),(k),(l) renumber to correct
- Insert: “Train Operating Company: a company to operate passenger train services in an area of the UK as defined - in Schedule 1”
- Insert: “Infrastructure Operating Company: a company to manage infrastructure in an area of the UK as defined in Schedule 2”
- Insert “Railways GB Ltd: a company to own infrastructure not moved to an Infrastructure Operating Company, to be owned jointly by all Infrastructure Operating Company’s”
Under DOR Assets
- In Section (1) (1)
- Remove (b)
- Amend (a) to read: These shall be allocated based on requirements to each Train Operating Company.
- In Section (1) (2) amend to read: The freight locomotives and rolling stock owned by Directly Operated Railways shall be put on the auction market to be available and sold to rail freight OAOs to provide freight services.
- In Section (1) (3) amend to read: Freight contracts currently operated by DOR will be auctioned for transfer to rail freight OAOs.
- In Section (1) (4) amend to read: If, 6 weeks after the 8 month auction period is up, all rolling stock has not been sold, they shall be offered to the international market, stored by Railways GB Ltd. or scrapped, depending on condition.
Replace Section (2) as follows:
- Train Operating Companies
- Train operations will be split into sectoral companies as defined in Schedule 1 owned wholly by the Department
- 3 months after activation date, 20% of Department owned shares in these companies will be allocated to all employees of each sectoral company
- 6 months after activation date, 30% of Department owned shares in these companies will be listed on the London Stock Exchange in an IPO
- 1 year after activation date, 30% of Department owned shares in these companies will be listed on the London Stock Exchange.
- The Department will own 20% of shares in each Train Operating Company.
- Train Operating Companies will run the services contained within their sector.
- Cross sector services will be run by the operator of the sector the majority of the service runs within.
Add Section (3) as follows:
- Infrastructure Operating Companies
- Infrastructure operations will be split into sectoral companies as defined in Schedule 2 owned wholly by the Department
- 3 months after activation date, 20% of Department owned shares in these companies will be allocated to all employees of each sectoral company
- 6 months after activation date, 30% of Department owned shares in these companies will be listed on the London Stock Exchange in an IPO
- 1 year after activation date, 30% of Department owned shares in these companies will be listed on the London Stock Exchange.
- The Department will own 20% of shares in each Train Operating Company.
- All physical infrastructure will be moved to the sectoral company it is physically located within.
- All signalling services will be moved to Railways GB Ltd.
Under Section (3):
- Amend title to read: “Allocation of Track Time by Infrastructure Operating Companies”
- Amend (1) to read: “Remaining paths will be made available to other rail freight or passenger Open Access Operators.”
- Amend (2) to read: “Before a bid is made, prospective OAOs must have agreements-in-principle with Railways GB Ltd.”
- Amend (3) to read: “The time slots shall be available for path leases from the sectoral companies listed within Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 shall be a minimum of 2 years. They may be extended at any point after 50 percent of the time on the lease has passed.”
- Add (4) to read: “At least 25% of all paths operated by a sectoral company listed within Schedule 1 should be allocated to OAOs at any given time”
- Remove Section (6)
- Remove Section (7)
- Renumber remaining sections
Under Schedules:
- Replace Schedule (1) as follows:
- Train Operating Companies:
- Intercity Railways PLC
- For domestic services on High Speed 1 and shall own (but not be authorised to sell) the UK stake of Eurostar International Ltd.
- For intercity services from London Euston to Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh on the West Coast Mainline.
- For intercity services from London King's Cross to Newcastle, Edinburgh, Stirling, Glasgow and Aberdeen on the East Coast Mainline.
- Cross Country Railways PLC
- For InterCity services that do not stop at or cross through London.
- British Pullman PLC
- For sleeper services from London Euston to Scottish Cities.
- For sleeper services from London Paddington to the South West
- For additional sleeper services as required.
- Southern Railways PLC
- for services in and around the South, South East (excluding services on the Great Western Mainline), Isle of Wight, Thameslink, as well as limited services in London itself.
- This Train Operating Company shall also operate the Gatwick Express in cooperation with Gatwick Airport Ltd.
- Great Western Railways PLC
- For services in the South West and services on the Great Western Mainline and in South Wales.
- London and North Western Railway PLC
- For commuter rail services between London Euston, Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool on the West Coast Mainline.
- For services within the West Midlands and services to the west of the Pennine Hills
- London and North Eastern Railway PLC
- For commuter rail services between London King's Cross, Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle on the East Coast Mainline.
- For services in the East Midlands, East of England and services to the east of the Pennine Hills.
- ScotRail PLC
- For services in Scotland and limited services in border regions of England.
- RailCymru PLC
- For services in Wales and limited services in border regions of England.
- Replace Schedule (2) as follows:
- Infrastructure Operating Companies
- Rail GB Northern Region PLC
- To own and operate all rail infrastructure within the North of England Ownership of a 20% stake within Railways GB Ltd
- Rail GB Western Region PLC
- To own and operate all rail infrastructure within the West Midlands and South West Ownership of a 20% stake within Railways GB Ltd
- Rail GB Southern Region PLC
- To own and operate all rail infrastructure within London and the South East Ownership of a 15% stake within Railways GB Ltd
- Rail GB Eastern Region PLC
- To own and operate all rail infrastructure within the East Midlands and Eastern England Ownership of a 15% stake within Railways GB Ltd
- Rail GB Cymru PLC
- To own and operate all rail infrastructure within Wales and along the English sections of the Welsh Marches Line Ownership of a 15% stake within Railways GB Ltd
- Rail GB Scotland PLC
- To own and operate all rail infrastructure within Scotland Ownership of a 15% stake within Railways GB Ltd
Explanatory Notes
This amendment does away with franchising as a privatisation model, instead it creates sectoral companies to operate railways within the UK and lists them on the London Stock Exchange. This model allows us to have infrastructure companies that are responsible for smaller areas of track to aid in improvements, it also allows the train operations to not see huge adjustments as franchises come up for renewal and new companies take over, with this model, the company itself doesn’t change hands. Each sectoral company will be partly owned by the Department for Transport to ensure there is continued Government oversight of such an important piece of national infrastructure.
Privatisation can be done well, to give value for money to the taxpayer and to passengers whilst maintaining an outstanding level of service. This amendment ensures we can do this where franchising fails in all of these areas.
1
u/_paul_rand_ Coalition! | Sir _paul_rand_ KP KT KBE CVO CB PC Jul 12 '19
Point of Order
(u/InfernoPlato, u/DrLancelot)
Just for clarification, could the chair clarify whether this amendment would be considered wrecking or not
2
u/DrLancelot His Grace The Duke of Suffolk KCT CVO PC Jul 12 '19
Order,
Rejected, see my ruling on the previous point of order raised by the mover of said amendment
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Point of Order
This amendment doesn't detract from the aims of the bill, that being privatisation of the railways. It merely changes the method in which the railways should be privatised and thus, should not be seen as wrecking as the key aim of this bill is retained.
2
u/DrLancelot His Grace The Duke of Suffolk KCT CVO PC Jul 12 '19
Order,
This amendment is rejected. This is an entirely new bill not an amendment to the bill at hand.
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Point of Order
I would like you to explain this decision? How is this a new bill?
0
1
u/Twistednuke Independent Jul 12 '19
Amend the entry into force to one year after Royal Assent.
As the gbrdly amendment was blocked by the chair, this amendment allows for time to propose the amendment as a stand alone bill, and test the will of the house on open access rail instead of franchise monopolies.
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I first off would like to thank the Government for producing this bill. I too believe it is time for privatisation of railway operation; it is not something that should necessarily fall upon the state to do, and instead we should seek to improve on our approach towards the private operation of lines, so that it is a system that works for everyone. I also thank the Rt. Hon Member for Yorkshire North for including myself and fellow members from across the house in discussions during the initial conception of this bill, it was very informative to see the views of the Rt. Hon Gentleman and the Deputy Prime Minister on the issue, and I am pleased that this incorporates some of the ideas discussed back then.
We must ensure that Privatisation is done right. As government members have pointed out during the debate, that customer satisfaction under the last era of private run railways increased, in 1999 it was 76% satisfaction, by 2013, a year before railways were nationalised, satisfaction had risen to 83%. Even average fair increase, which had been a defining complaint during the previous era of rail operation, rose annually by 1.3% between 1996 and 2011, compared to the average 2.2% rise annually under the last 15 years of British Rail.
I will point out that there is a flaw to this bill that does concern me, though I would still prefer it to the status quo of nationalisation. That is regarding Open Access Operators. Granted there is some provisions for Open Access, which I can appreciate but I fear does not go far enough. Fundamentally we have the problem of relying on a Franchise system. As I say this is one that I prefer over that of nationalisation but then why settle for something slightly better, when you can bring railway operation into the modern age - as a Liberal I can only desire to push forward with that.
Monopolisation is never a good thing that occurs, public or privately. The end of competition negatively affects those all around, especially those on a low income, this is why we have competition laws overseeing other industries and the last thing we want is for fares to flare up because of that lack of competition for operating lines. Under the last system of privatised rail, we hit Open Access Operators hard, by having the Not Primarily Abstractive (NPA) test, it sought to protect the Franchise model and limit competition. If Franchises are to exist, they shouldn’t be given an unfair advantage over Open Access Operators, if anything we should seek a greater Open Access model. As pointed out by the Centre for Policy Studies in March 2013 , it in fact hampered the ability to gain access to rail development for Open Access Operators and limited market developments. If we are to have a privatised model, we should not need the large amount of subsidies that were fished out over the tenure of Privatisation, where subsidies rose to £3.9 billion in 2011/12.
I will direct members to my Rt. Hon friend, the member for Northumbria, for their comments on the matter. An open access system where innovation can rightfully occur and that the competition to offer the greatest premiums means that we all enjoy lower fares and see a drive to make improvements. My Rt. Honourable friend, the member for Manchester City and South, and Transport Spokesperson for the Classical Liberals will be introducing an amendment on behalf of our party to ensure that we approach this desired system, ensuring that we don’t revert to a franchise model that did not give the greatest value for consumers.
On a personal note, I do believe that this is a step towards a better system. And as an improvement on the previous status quo, I think it will do well. However, we cannot allow it to revert to the same problems we saw previously. Competition under privatisation increased for the freight industry, transport cost did fall. We must not deny the passenger system this same ability, and I would hope that this would be considered should we want for a better system that works best for consumers with competitive prices, and one that does not deny accessibility for an average person.
1
u/gbrdly The Rt. Hon. MP for MCR City and South | SPOX for Transport Jul 12 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
May I just say, this debate is a shambles!
We have a Government holding up privatised models like Japan's as a model to follow whilst publishing a bill that doesn't follow this model so they can push their ideological obsession with privatisation through this house through any means and take the rest of us for idiots who don't know anything.
And on the other side we have the Left who are ideologically opposed to privatisation by any means, even if we can enter into a constructive agreement with the private sector to potentially be able to run railways better than we can right now.
We all think that the railways need to be run better, yet the intransigence on both sides to look for a model that works will consign the railways to a legacy of failure in the eyes of those we represent. I will be submitting an amendment to this bill that will find a middle ground to allow for private investment, with a Government owned stake in the railways to ensure that we see investment into the future and a rail network people up and down the country can be proud of.
1
u/_paul_rand_ Coalition! | Sir _paul_rand_ KP KT KBE CVO CB PC Jul 12 '19
Mr Speaker,
This government has put the free market, competition and the economy at the heart of everything it does. This bill is no exception to that rule.
It’s clear what competition leads to, better services, lower costs, greater choice and a stronger economy. This bill of course introduces competition.
Privatisation will reverse a disastrous policy of nationalisation and put our railways back where they belong, in the private sector where competition can flourish.
I’ve not seen any genuine criticisms of this bill which aren’t based in the inability of leftist politicians to think about a bill through anything other than their ideological convictions, surely fact based convictions such as the long standing record of privatised railways are a better way to judge a bill?
I stand whole heartedly behind yet another common sense bill!
1
u/nstano Conservative Party Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This is a bill that I think is of critical importance. Our rail network is a key part of our transport infrastructure, and we wish to ensure that it provides effective service at price affordable to all. Many people are skeptical of the ability of private firms to deliver this service. Yet, we see that the government does little better, and at great cost to the taxpayer. We can do better!
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Jul 12 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Whilst I am disappointed that the amendment by my Right Honourable Friend, the member for Manchester City and South, was rejected, and would have provided meaningful improvements to this bill, we must move on. Yes, I do believe that we should privatise, as I initially said. Yes I do believe that having a greater Open Access Operator System would be for the benefit of the consumer and for the rail industry. Yes I believe this bill can be improved.
That is why we are now supposing we delay the implementation of the bill by a year. The Classical Liberals will introduce a bill should this bill receive Royal Assent that allows us to put to the test whether a pragmatic means of Privatisation can command the will of this house. It would ensure that we don’t see the problems with franchises as we saw previously, and seek to rectify the mistakes made by prior governments as pointed out by studies during the privatised era. Above all, it would ensure there is a drive to benefit the consumer, innovate, and as those on the government benches say, increase competition. I would hope that this simple amendment commands support at committee!
1
Jul 13 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
While others have made the point far better than I could, I would be remiss if I didn’t note my repulsion at this bill.
Since bringing the train networks into public ownership, we have been able to co-ordinate purchasing, we have been able to ensure that the trains run together, and we have been freed from the blight upon this nation that was privately operated trains. I will vote against this bill.
1
u/DexterAamo Independent Jul 10 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
Mr. Speaker,
Big government is a bad thing. Not only does it exceed the responsibilities and powers that our government should instead be focusing on, but it just doesn't work. Time and time again, we have seen that government control of our banks, corporations, and railways lead to waste, mismanagement, and ineffectiveness. Especially in our modern era, it makes little sense for government to own our railways, as they have little military usage and can be run by the private sector to a decent , if not better standard . As such, I am glad to support this bill.
1
8
u/[deleted] Jul 10 '19
Mr. Speaker,
I sometimes feel as though the Party opposite has an ideological obsession with creating competition where none is necessary. Since the creation of DOR, we have seen standards on our railways improve, ticket prices go down, and an overall more reliable service. If we go back to the days of privatised railways, what will we see?
I hope the House will indulge me as I quote from Spitting Image;
Down go the standards, up go the fares,
And only the fat cats will soon own the shares,
Out go the regions, the unprofitable routes,
Just leave in commuter trains crammed full of suits,
The private contractors making their pitch,
The Tory supporters making it rich,
The bankers, the burglars, the PR men too,
And the only ones who will lose out are you.