TOC contract expiry dates

[alistairlees]

Nothing much in the way of new information, but an update on the transition of TOCs into public ownership nevertheless: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/our-progress-in-overhauling-the-railways

Some selective examples there to ‘demonstrate’ that public ownership is better.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Some selective examples there to ‘demonstrate’ that public ownership is better.

Mentions of Northern being particularly conspicuous by their absence!

 

[Goldfish62]

Mentions of Northern being particularly conspicuous by their absence!

Er...

tangible impact on reliability on Northern Rail trains.

Thanks to our agreement on rest day working, hundreds more driver shifts have been covered this weekend, cutting cancellations now and in the long run.

 

[vuzzeho]

From Twitter (https://x.com/philatrail/status/1856633281694879788?s=12):

DfT will announce which train operators will be first to be nationalised under new powers when current parliamentary bill receives royal assent, transport secretary reveals.

I don't know much about government. What's the timeline on this looking like? Would it likely be WMT, GA, and OLR operators?

 

[jackdoyle]

The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill has its 3rd reading in the House of Lords today, then it will go back to the Commons to consider amendments between each house. When Commons and Lords both agree in "ping pong", it will go for Royal Assent so shouldn't be much longer.

 

[The exile]

I have never known anyone do other than TUPE across. What’s not to like? Just another logo on your name badge.

As with any company - any change concentrates the mind and is likely to trigger some people from vague thoughts to concrete action - even if effectively nothing will be very different.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From Twitter (https://x.com/philatrail/status/1856633281694879788?s=12):
I don't know much about government. What's the timeline on this looking like? Would it likely be WMT, GA, and OLR operators?

OLR operators are already in the public sector.
It looks like OLR/DOHL will be renamed as the permanent public sector operator when the Passenger Services Bill becomes law.
The timescale for moving contracts into the new OLR will also be published then.

 

[Goldfish62]

The most significant part of the speech was this one sentence:

So, we will soon launch our consultation setting out plans for unification across the railway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The most significant part of the speech was this one sentence:

That in itself means actual changes are many months away.

 

[Goldfish62]

That in itself means actual changes are many months away.

Far, far longer than that! Everyone who understands the task ahead acknowledges that we're likely looking at 10 years plus. It took 10 years to fully sectorise BR and today's railways are starting from a far more dysfunctional position.

 

[En]

I think that referred specifically to drivers who had better job offers elsewhere and could circumvent their usual notice period by 'refusing' TUPE

indeed it seems likely that this may be the case

 

[HerneHill]

From Twitter (https://x.com/philatrail/status/1856633281694879788?s=12):

I don't know much about government. What's the timeline on this looking like? Would it likely be WMT, GA, and OLR operators?

GA isn’t going anywhere soon unless the govt figures out a way to get rid of / get around that pesky amendment by Moylan mandating that nationalisation by break clause can only be done in order of poorest performing operator first!!

 

[Goldfish62]

GA isn’t going anywhere soon unless the govt figures out a way to get rid of / get around that pesky amendment by Moylan mandating that nationalisation by break clause can only be done in order of poorest performing operator first!!

How would "poorest performing" be defined though? I imagine this clause won't last any scrutiny on this specific basis.

Moylan's proposed ammendment has some logic to it, but because it's him I strongly suspect he's tabled it purely as a spoiler rather than any genuine attempt to improve the Bill.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The amendment is going to be swiftly dealt with, now that the Bill has received its final reading in the Lords. That means the Commons will debate the amendments and this one will, from the very recent comments of both Hendy and Haigh in their respective Houses of Parliament, be swiftly discarded.

Then the “Ping Pong” will start before the issues are settled between the two houses and it goes for Royal Assent. The Lords act rather like Sgt.Wilson in Dad’s Army - “are you sure this is wise?” They don’t ultimately like to prolong the process of re proposing amendments and sending them back as they feel this as subverting the will of the elected House, which is not their role.

The only question for me is whether WM or GA will be first to get their notice, or will they do both at once?

 

[norbitonflyer]

GA isn’t going anywhere soon unless the govt figures out a way to get rid of / get around that pesky amendment by Moylan mandating that nationalisation by break clause can only be done in order of poorest performing operator first!!

Almost a wrecking amendment - it means that no operator, however bad, can be nationalised as long as there is another one who is even worse.

An unscrupulous operator with more than one franchise could even game the system by always ensuring that the franchise with the longest term remaining is their worst.

 

[Shrop]

Almost a wrecking amendment - it means that no operator, however bad, can be nationalised as long as there is another one who is even worse.

An unscrupulous operator with more than one franchise could even game the system by always ensuring that the franchise with the longest term remaining is their worst.

A quick question - if Labour wants to re-nationalise the railways, how did they, with such a huge majority, allow such an amendment to be passed?

 

[norbitonflyer]

A quick question - if Labour wants to re-nationalise the railways, how did they, with such a huge majority, allow such an amendment to be passed?

It was passed by the Lords. It has not yet been put before the Commons.

 

[zwk500]

A quick question - if Labour wants to re-nationalise the railways, how did they, with such a huge majority, allow such an amendment to be passed?

Further, the amendment only relates to terminating franchises early, whereas AIUI Labour's plan had always been to just let contracts expire at the end of their term. This is sensible, as it allows for a decent preparation time for the transition and avoids issues of several franchises coming up at once. Labour could still choose to terminate the contracts early under the amendment, they'd just have to go in performance order.

Current version of the bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/56805/documents/5325
Relevant section:

25B Termination of existing franchise agreements​

(1) The Secretary of State must terminate franchise agreements for default in accordance with the terms of the agreement as soon as it is possible to do so.​

​

(2) The Secretary of State must assess and rank existing franchise agreements according to performance criteria established after consultation with relevant stakeholders.​

​

(3) Subject to subsection (1) , the Secretary of State must only terminate a franchise agreement pursuant to a break clause if—​

(a) there are no other franchise agreements which are performing worse under the criteria in the list referenced in subsection (2) , and​

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that provision of the services​

by a public sector company will improve existing service provision.​

​

(4) In this section, “break clause” means a contractual provision in a franchise agreement which entitles the Secretary of State to terminate the franchise agreement before the end of the franchise term by notice without reason.”​

 

[Snow1964]

Further, the amendment only relates to terminating franchises early, whereas AIUI Labour's plan had always been to just let contracts expire at the end of their term. This is sensible, as it allows for a decent preparation time for the transition and avoids issues of several franchises coming up at once. Labour could still choose to terminate the contracts early under the amendment, they'd just have to go in performance order.

There is a staffing risk with both options.

Basically no employee has to accept TUPE, they can choose not to turn up to work on day 1 of new employer and deemed resigning. If a person has got another job elsewhere, they effectively have a choice of a clean break without working out a notice period. So in theory once xyz freight co (or whoever, including open access operators) knows someone else's TUPE date can offer employers to start just after and poach trained staff.

How this transition is managed is yet to be discussed

 

[jackdoyle]

Business for next week in the Commons has just been announced and they will be considering Lords amendments to the Passenger Railway Services Bill on Tuesday.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Which is when they will dispose of the Lords amendment.

There is a bit of confusion about when contracts “end”. There is a full term and a core term. Contracts can be terminated “early” at or after the CTED, at no cost to the Government. The amendment wrecks that process by insisting that they are done in performance order, which could put the start date for giving notice back years.

That is why it will be promptly disposed of by the Commons next week. The Lords could re-introduce it under “Ping Pong” but once the Commons dispose of it again, the Lords usually desist from any further action, for the reasons I gave up thread.

We still seem to be on course for Royal Assent at the end of this month/beginning of next and the first notice(s) issued very shortly after.

 

[HerneHill]

The Lords act rather like Sgt.Wilson in Dad’s Army - “are you sure this is wise?” They don’t ultimately like to prolong the process of re proposing amendments and sending them back as they feel this as subverting the will of the elected House, which is not their role.

You’re most likely right - the Lords *technically* can stalemate things for up to a year until the Parliament Act mandates that the elected Commons would take precedence, but doing so would be very bad form on their part and counter to parliamentary tradition. Of all the possible bills that the Tories might want to expend such serious political capital on, this is probably not it!

 

[Goldfish62]

You’re most likely right - the Lords *technically* can stalemate things for up to a year until the Parliament Act mandates that the elected Commons would take precedence, but doing so would be very bad form on their part and counter to parliamentary tradition. Of all the possible bills that the Tories might want to expend such serious political capital on, this is probably not it!

Indeed. Given the popularity of rail nationalisation and the huge mandate the Labour Party got to carry out the policy they could simply blame the Tories for trying to wreck the whole thing.

 

[Vespa]

Go to meet the friendly, welcoming staff at Blackpool North...

Oh wait...


I think some of their faces might crack if they smiled

I regularly bypass BPN when I visit the town.

 

[Richardr]

You’re most likely right - the Lords *technically* can stalemate things for up to a year until the Parliament Act mandates that the elected Commons would take precedence, but doing so would be very bad form on their part and counter to parliamentary tradition. Of all the possible bills that the Tories might want to expend such serious political capital on, this is probably not it!

There is also the Salisbury Doctrine that the Lord's do not obstruct a manifesto commitment at its second or third reading [albeit a convention rather than a legal requirement].

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbury-doctrine/

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It will be more sensible if they put the shadow GBR structure in place first before just transferring ownership of the operating company across to OLR which is largely staffed by consultants adding little value.

 

[Clarence Yard]

DOHL is not staffed by consultants - they are employees, earning a nice salary too! There are not many on the staff (it has been criticised as being a bit of a closed shop) - usually two of them sit on each OLR TOC Board.

 

[Goldfish62]

DOHL is not staffed by consultants - they are employees,

I've made this point before, but the myth persists.

 

[KNN]

I've made this point before, but the myth persists.

There also seem to be quite a lot of people in the GBR transition team who would logically be moving across too. And it wouldn't be hard to recruit TOC staff if terms carry over, given HQ roles are likely to be reduced as more get absorbed.

 

[lordbusiness]

Interesting article yesterday in the Daily Telegraph along the lines of Hendy admits nationalising the railway will 'probably' add around 15bn to the national debt.