Welsh Government criticises ATW profits

[kieron]

The actual signatures on the transfer agreement were the UK SoS and the Welsh Assembly.

There have certainly been a lot of changes since the W&B franchise was last let. Some people think 15 year franchises are a good idea, though.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As far as I can tell, this isn't historically accurate.

I imagine you're thinking of Kim Howells here, as he was MP for Pontypridd between 1989 and 2010. Unfortunately, Dr. Howells has never held a cabinet position of any sort (although he has been a junior minister in the Transport department), and in those days franchises were agreed with the Strategic Rail Authority rather than the Secretary of State. I'm not sure about this, but I don't think any politician had a formal veto over its franchise awards.

Perhaps you meant something else, though?

Howells was Minister of State with responsibility for railways at the time. He certainly popped up at the RPC offices in Cardiff at the time and made speeches saying the new franchise was great news for Wales I stand corrected if he don't actually sign it.

as I said I was "around" at the time so unless I'm imagining all these Welsh Labour characters claiming they were behind the process.....of course initially the franchise was going to be an investment/ expansion one and folk were queueing up to try and take credit.....

 

[Gareth Marston]

There have certainly been a lot of changes since the W&B franchise was last let. Some people think 15 year franchises are a good idea, though.

IMO it wasn't the length but the terms with W&B. I can understand the crisis SRA were in over costs but locking a no growth franchise for that length of time was criminal. Having a break point after 5 years or a shorter term holding franchise would have been much better.

 

[Llanigraham]

So are we saying the the Welsh Government is encouraging people not to use ATW services?

Sorry, Gareth but you are letting your political bias against the Labour government in Wales cloud your judgement.
No where is there any encouragement as implied above, and no where is there any encouragement for fare dodging.
Your continual repetition of these accusations does you no favours, especially when you act as an agent of ATW.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Sorry, Gareth but you are letting your political bias against the Labour government in Wales cloud your judgement.
No where is there any encouragement as implied above, and no where is there any encouragement for fare dodging.
Your continual repetition of these accusations does you no favours, especially when you act as an agent of ATW.

Neil Wiliams post made the point if you don't like something a company's does you shouldn't use it. Welsh Government by criticising ATW's profits clearly publicly don't like what there doing. If you go back to the Western Mail article so do Plaid Cymru and Railfuture Wales. So do we take it that Welsh Government , Railfuture Wales and Plaid Cymru should boycott ATW services? Is that a realistic response to ATW's profits? It's a fair enough question to ask. You don't think so so far enough.

I'm very sorry if you find comment critical of decisions made by the Welsh Labour upsetting but we're not "internal" on this forum it's a public forum. We can't close ranks and shoot the messenger as a response it's not the local party. You'll find through my previous thousounds of posts I've also been critical of others decisions by other bodies too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's Labour policy (UK-wide) to criticise profits from rail franchises, now nationalisation is in the official manifesto.
Among other things it's designed to scare bidders off so the franchises will fall into government hands.
They used the same tactic in 1996 and the result was the Treasury got less for the sale of franchises, rolling stock and the rest of BR than they should have done ("fire sale", management buyouts etc).
Arriva (any franchisee) needs to make a profit if the owners are to keep investing. Something around 5% is not "excessive".

If the ATW profits are higher than average, that's down to the small print of the franchise agreement, and the W&B one may well have been lax, with DfT/WG locked in for 15 years (by the SRA).
That's not ATW's fault. Franchises have got cleverer since, but also the bidders are more wary.
Next time, expect WG to sign a franchise agreement with a tight operational spec, at least initially.
However the WG wish list is so long, and their plans so vague that there are bound to be areas where the contractor will have a field day on cost recovery (Metro, new trains etc). It's called a "get well" contract.
WG also want to go for a 15-year franchise again, partly to avoid the cost/bother of going through the process again after 7 years.
You get what to asked for...

 

[ivanhoe]

Most people haven't got a clue how rail franchising works but they tend to know if something is working well. Rail users (ATW) will know if the current franchise is fit for purpose by the state of their trains and timetables. U.K. Governments have an atrocious record in areas such as procurement and contractual matters. Companies rarely sign a bad contract but Governments do all the time. It is the job of elected bodies such as the Welsh Government to inform their electors on any issues that are pertinent to their citizens. The Welsh Government have no say in the principle of franchising but they can have opinions of whether ATW is not investing enough in the basics. Arriva Trains is not above criticism. Nobody voted for Rail Franchising as it was probably buried in Majors Manifesto of 1992. As for commercial in confidence, it's usually a term used by so called professionals and bureaucrats when criticism comes their way. I do wish that Joe Public was more vociferous in their views instead of being led up the garden path by politicians and the vague promises of franchise holders. I repeat, ATW is not above criticism and is amply rewarded for its endeavours but would they be missed? I doubt it!