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?).