With National Express abandoning a franchise, the system is bankrupt. Railway nationalisation is the only rational solution.
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 July 2009 18.30 BST
The temporary nationalisation of the east coast mainline service should be another nail in the coffin of the privatisation of the railways. It shows once again what a bad deal for taxpayers the privatisation of the railways has turned out to be.
The government says it plans to return the franchise as quickly as possible to a private contractor, but it should instead take the opportunity to retain the line in public hands. Following, as it does, the fiasco of Railtrack, which brought the national rail network to the brink of collapse in 2002, and the collapse of Metronet, in charge of two thirds of the misguided public private partnership (PPP) on the tube, this is the right time to plan returning the entire national rail network to public ownership. If the government tossed aside the ideological blinkers of the Treasury and got that message, they would do themselves a great deal of good among passengers and taxpayers alike.
It is a complete con for the National Express group to walk away from the contract, leaving a gap in the national rail budget, forcing the state to bear the cost while the service is re-franchised – possibly at a lower value than the National Express contract – but insisting on its right to continue to operate other franchises unscathed. National Express says it has received "clear and detailed" legal advice that it does not have to hand back its London to Essex franchise and East Anglia routes. So it wants to run away from a problem on one line and let the rest of us pick up the pieces, while continuing to make profits from other lines.
The attempt of National Express to avoid any consequences for their other franchises from their abandonment of the east coast service is just another example of the privateers trying to take the public sector for a ride. As Lord Adonis says, "It is simply unacceptable to reap the benefits of contracts when times are good, only to walk away from them when times become more challenging."
Time and again, we have seen the nationalisation of losses and the privatisation of profits. It's also the latest demonstration that it is a fairy tale that privatisation means the private sector takes the risk as well as taking its profit. In truth, every time a privatisation of a vital public service fails, the public sector picks up the tab. This culture of parts of the private sector fleecing the taxpayer has to stop.
Part of the problem is that civil servants are taken to the cleaners in the construction of the privatisation contracts by the private companies' sharper legal teams. One of the rationales for the tube's PPP was that it made no sense to hand billions of pounds of public money for tube upgrades over to London Underground management and civil servants who had such a poor record of delivering. Yet, these same civil servants were left to draw up the detail of the PPP contracts. They were completely turned over by the private sector.
But the real issue is that it is inherently wasteful to run these services on privatised lines. The nature of the privatising companies is that a significant proportion of the profits of their activities have to be paid in dividends to shareholders rather than reinvested in the service. This is money wasted. A publicly-owned company would be obliged to reinvest any revenues back into the transport system.
Furthermore, privatisation is justified on the grounds that the private sector is driven, through the rigour of competition, to be more efficient and more responsive to passengers' needs. This is a fiction in the case of a natural monopoly like a railway. Apart from the brief period of competition among bidders for contracts, there is no day-to-day competition at all – no one is going to build a rival railway line and poach passengers from the private franchisee. They are under no pressure from any competition at all. In such circumstances, it is more rational, and makes more sense in terms of sustaining investment, for rail services to be publicly-owned.
Nor is it the case that public ownership of the rail network naturally has to involve poorer management than the private sector.
There are many publicly-owned rail companies all over the world that provide services that British transport users can only envy. The task is to build up good quality management, including the best management from around the world, overseeing real investment that meets the needs of rail travellers.
It shouldn't just be the east coast service that's nationalised and it shouldn't just be temporary. Ultimately, the rail network would
be more rationally run in the public sector.
The government says it plans to return the franchise as quickly as possible to a private contractor, but it should instead take the opportunity to retain the line in public hands. Following, as it does, the fiasco of Railtrack, which brought the national rail network to the brink of collapse in 2002, and the collapse of Metronet, in charge of two thirds of the misguided public private partnership (PPP) on the tube, this is the right time to plan returning the entire national rail network to public ownership. If the government tossed aside the ideological blinkers of the Treasury and got that message, they would do themselves a great deal of good among passengers and taxpayers alike.
It is a complete con for the National Express group to walk away from the contract, leaving a gap in the national rail budget, forcing the state to bear the cost while the service is re-franchised – possibly at a lower value than the National Express contract – but insisting on its right to continue to operate other franchises unscathed. National Express says it has received "clear and detailed" legal advice that it does not have to hand back its London to Essex franchise and East Anglia routes. So it wants to run away from a problem on one line and let the rest of us pick up the pieces, while continuing to make profits from other lines.
The attempt of National Express to avoid any consequences for their other franchises from their abandonment of the east coast service is just another example of the privateers trying to take the public sector for a ride. As Lord Adonis says, "It is simply unacceptable to reap the benefits of contracts when times are good, only to walk away from them when times become more challenging."
Time and again, we have seen the nationalisation of losses and the privatisation of profits. It's also the latest demonstration that it is a fairy tale that privatisation means the private sector takes the risk as well as taking its profit. In truth, every time a privatisation of a vital public service fails, the public sector picks up the tab. This culture of parts of the private sector fleecing the taxpayer has to stop.
Part of the problem is that civil servants are taken to the cleaners in the construction of the privatisation contracts by the private companies' sharper legal teams. One of the rationales for the tube's PPP was that it made no sense to hand billions of pounds of public money for tube upgrades over to London Underground management and civil servants who had such a poor record of delivering. Yet, these same civil servants were left to draw up the detail of the PPP contracts. They were completely turned over by the private sector.
But the real issue is that it is inherently wasteful to run these services on privatised lines. The nature of the privatising companies is that a significant proportion of the profits of their activities have to be paid in dividends to shareholders rather than reinvested in the service. This is money wasted. A publicly-owned company would be obliged to reinvest any revenues back into the transport system.
Furthermore, privatisation is justified on the grounds that the private sector is driven, through the rigour of competition, to be more efficient and more responsive to passengers' needs. This is a fiction in the case of a natural monopoly like a railway. Apart from the brief period of competition among bidders for contracts, there is no day-to-day competition at all – no one is going to build a rival railway line and poach passengers from the private franchisee. They are under no pressure from any competition at all. In such circumstances, it is more rational, and makes more sense in terms of sustaining investment, for rail services to be publicly-owned.
Nor is it the case that public ownership of the rail network naturally has to involve poorer management than the private sector.
There are many publicly-owned rail companies all over the world that provide services that British transport users can only envy. The task is to build up good quality management, including the best management from around the world, overseeing real investment that meets the needs of rail travellers.
It shouldn't just be the east coast service that's nationalised and it shouldn't just be temporary. Ultimately, the rail network would
be more rationally run in the public sector.
Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. Download Now
No comments:
Post a Comment