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:

"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

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."

"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

"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!

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?).

"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

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...

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

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: