Posted 7th April 2014 | 7 Comments
Unions mount challenge to East Coast plans
Rail unions have launched an application for a judicial review of the government's plans to reprivatise the East Coast franchise, and also the current DfT policy of making direct awards to get the franchising timetable back on track.
East Coast has moved to the Invitation to Tender stage, and there are three shortlisted bidders. The new franchise is set to start early next year, before the General Election in May. Several direct awards have been made or are in the pipeline. The latest to be confirmed is an extension of Northern's contract, while talks are in progress with FirstGroup over a possible five-year extension on Great Western.
ASLEF, RMT and TSSA said they had agreed 'a united approach because they believe that their members’ jobs and conditions, as well as the interests of passengers and taxpayers, are threatened by the Government’s failure to adequately consult over the future of East Coast.
They have 'significant concerns that despite the Brown review of rail franchising recommending that the procurement for rail franchise should take place over a minimum of 24 months, the Government is rushing through the privatisation of East Coast over a 15 month period to be concluded by February 2015.
'In its haste to push services back into the private sector the Government has cut corners, including breaching its own commitment to proper consultation of stakeholders, including passenger groups and the rail unions.'
ASLEF general secretary Mick Whelan said: “It is imperative that we raise the genuine concerns of all stakeholders but, especially, the employees before this is rushed through. We cannot, in good conscience, allow the mistakes of the past to happen again.”
RMT acting general secretary Mick Cash said: “After the scandal of this Government robbing the British taxpayer of a billion pounds in the scramble to privatise the Post Office it is shocking that they are engaging in the same tactics to try and hand the East Coast Mainline back to their friends in big business.
“The British public have a right to openness and transparency when it comes to the ideologically-driven attempt to sell off Britain’s most successful rail-route to the speculators and chancers after two previous private sector failures on the same line.”
TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes added: “The Tory led coalition knows only too well that rail franchising is not fit for purpose. They continue to ignore the recommendations of the Brown review which they commissioned following the West Coast debacle. Rail workers are at a loss to understand why the government insists on going forward with a broken system which threatens the interests of passengers and taxpayers. We can only conclude that the ideology which saw Royal Mail flogged off on the cheap continues to thrive.”
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
"The unions are not trying to change the law, they don't believe that the law has been followed correctly"
I'll believe it when I see the case. So far, however, I heard lots of arguments about why privatisation is a Bad Thing, and no arguments about why it's against the law.
I'm happy to listen to the legal argument if anyone wants to go over it, but in my experience, when court cases are driven by ideology, the legal arguments usually turn out to be tenuous.
David, London
The unions are not trying to change the law, they don't believe that the law has been followed correctly, hence they are seeking a judicial review which is the correct response. The government has the same obligation to follow the laws set by Parliament as everyone else.
james Palma, London
If the unions are that concerned, why don't they create their own TOC?
Then they can run it as an essentially nationalised organisation with everyone having a share, decison, funding responsibilities etc., but obviously taking no profit and pumping the money back in to lower fares and train improvements, and of course sorting out the salaries and working conditions of staff to make them more cost efficient...
No? Thought not.
I think the unions would soon see that it is not as simple as they think!
However, from my perspective, I do think it is a shame to get rid of the current East Coast operator as they seem to have done an excellent job, but I only use the service a couple of times a month, so other more regular users may have other ideas.
Lorentz, London
The Unions are only acting in there own self interest; not that of the public, or the tax payers, and most definitely not in the interests of their own members. They are seeking to restore their power base, and take us back to the 60s and 70s when rail services were the pawn in a game of subversion. Those that desire the return of a golden age of state direction of the railways live in a fantasy and have no memory of how dreadful it was. Every enterprise under state control fails; we have see that here a elsewhere, it is dead dogma.
David Cook, Broadstone, Dorset
Seeing as no investment has gone into the East Coast since the government took it back, it's obvious that running it privately makes sense. Living in Dorset, and being a regular customer of FGW and SWT, I have seen such an improvement in service, cleanliness, and punctuality since privatisation, putting the East Coast back into private hands makes sense. The fact that unions are against it just me more determined to see it run privately again anyway.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
The Unions are welcome to put whatever arguments they like against re-privatising East Coast, but what exactly are their grounds for a legal challenge? Parliament sets laws, and as it stands, the law says the Government can do this. If you don't like it, the correct thing to do is lobby MPs to either change the law or overrule the Government's decision to privatise.
Courts are not, never have been and never should be a place for unelected judges to change laws made in Parliament just because a campaigning group disapproves.
Simon Stoddart, St Leonards on Sea
Even after 20 years of this bits and pieces railway created by Major's outfit and then - in contradiction to it's pledges in opposition - left in place by Blair's New Labour (same old Labour - remember the Beeching report, oppose it and then implement it) - even after 20 years there are those who think this quasi privatisation has worked.
It has delivered nothing that the old BR wouldn't have - and what might've been had BR been funded like the private sector, public money recipients were - one can only wonder. New Labour blew a golden 13 year chance to deliver a long term transport policy and we now see with East Coast an incumbent government, just like Major did with the BR break up, rushing through a totally needless return of a succesfull, well run public sector railway to the "innovative" private sector.