17000 pages in all according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4289139.stm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/062/2005062.htm

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk

--
Michael Parry
'The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret'
(Terry Pratchett, The Truth)

"Michael Parry" wrote in message
...

17000 pages in all according to the BBC

That's why I gave up reading that stuff... Enjoy, Dave!

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Michael Parry" wrote in message
...

17000 pages in all according to the BBC


That's why I gave up reading that stuff... Enjoy, Dave!

17000 pages...

****!

I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should have
been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the
Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being
franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section
34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way
(theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services.

Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too.

Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed
something important.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should
have
been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the

Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being
franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill
(Section
34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way
(theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services.

Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too.

Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed
something important.

Just semantics really. I've not read the Railways Act 1993 but if it
prohibits public-sector bodies from being franchisees this may not
necessarily prevent them from being appointed as an operator in some
other way - outside the franchising process. There may also be
provisions in the Transport Act 2000, which established the Strategic
Rail Authority. Although SET is (temporarily) a public-sector operator
it is not a franchisee. It is directly owned by the SRA (the
franchisor) but there has been no franchise, as such, since Connex
South-East surrendered it.

The privatisation process had built in safeguards to allow the
government to continue services where the franchisee had failed, as in
this case. But in 1993 the government did not want to allow councils,
just for example, to bid for franchises in competition with the private
sector - otherwise Ken would be doing it now!

umpston wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should

have

been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the


Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being
franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill

(Section

34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way
(theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services.

Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too.

Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed
something important.


Just semantics really. I've not read the Railways Act 1993 but if it
prohibits public-sector bodies from being franchisees this may not
necessarily prevent them from being appointed as an operator in some
other way - outside the franchising process. There may also be
provisions in the Transport Act 2000, which established the Strategic
Rail Authority. Although SET is (temporarily) a public-sector operator
it is not a franchisee. It is directly owned by the SRA (the
franchisor) but there has been no franchise, as such, since Connex
South-East surrendered it.

The privatisation process had built in safeguards to allow the
government to continue services where the franchisee had failed, as in
this case. But in 1993 the government did not want to allow councils,
just for example, to bid for franchises in competition with the private
sector - otherwise Ken would be doing it now!

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service,
then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call
that competition!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value
service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted
competition, I call that competition!

The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders
to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or
liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public
and carries on as usual.

--
Paul Terry

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."

"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