PARLIAMENTARY COLUMN

The UK rail industry has gone through some turbulent times in recent years. The publication of the McNulty report in May last year saw recommendations aimed at economising the industry and saving vast sums of money which have previously been spent subsidising the railways. The industry has been fragmented for a number of years - a lasting legacy of the botched privatisation carried out in the dying days of the last Tory government. Privatisation has resulted in huge bills being footed by fare payers and tax payers. However, I do not believe the McNulty report addressed these pressing issues or delivered sensible cost-saving options. At a time when families were, and still are, feeling the economic pinch the report recommended a 30 per cent increase in rail fares over three years. This problem has become worse over time and has effectively priced passengers out of rail travel. There is no doubt that changes must be made to our rail system, to reduce passenger fares, secure jobs and alleviate the burden on the taxpayer, but we need government to demonstrate that it values the rail industry before it can be reformed; something it has singularly failed to do. The industry suffered a massive body blow last year when Bombardier, the last remaining UK train manufacturer, lost out on the lucrative Thameslink contract. The loss of the 1,200 carriage contract meant that the Derby plant’s future was in jeopardy. Its future beyond 2014 is still uncertain. I wrote on numerous occasions to the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for the procurement of the contract to no avail. They blankly refused to reopen the tendering process. The Transport Minister, Theresa Villiers, acknowledged “that there would be disappointment in Derby”. She was not wrong. But we continued to fight and marched through the streets of the city with over 10,000 people in support of Bombardier workers. But, still, the government refused to accept the way in which they set out the tendering process was disadvantageous to Bombardier and they failed to take into account the socio-economic impact the tender of the contract would have. The loss of Thameslink had a devastating social and economic impact in Derby with 1,400 skilled workers being thrown out of work and onto the dole queue. After receiving the hardest knock in its history, Bombardier has dusted itself off and applied for the Crossrail contract. Just days ago the shortlist was revealed. Bombardier again finds itself pitched against old German rivals Siemens; also on the shortlist are Japan’s Hitachi and CAF of Spain. The Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening, announced to MPs last week that the government has adopted a new “responsible procurement” policy. She claims the new policy will mean bidders have to outline how they will provide apprenticeships and opportunities for small and medium- sized businesses. The decision made last week by the government to include new procurement rules relating to jobs and training is a welcome move and has justified Labour’s position that the Thameslink procurement could have been restarted all along. A similar clause in the Thameslink procurement may have resulted in the outcome being very different. Although the government has made some amendments to the procurement rules, concerns still remain about the financing arrangements. Chris Williamson Labour MP Derby North DEFEND TRANSPORT MANUFACTURING RMT helpline 0800 376 3706 :: february 2012 :: RMTnews 9 Parliamentary column NO TO ‘DEEP ALLIANCING’ The idea of ‘deep alliances’, as a forerunner to infra-structure privatisation, is already being piloted on a joint operation on South West Trains from April 1, 2012 and has long been demanded by the train operators as a way of seizing complete control of the network and maximizing profits. Kate Hoey MP has tabled Parliamentary Motion 2810 urging the government to ensure that safety and affordable fares are put before commercial considerations on South West Trains. The union has produced postcards in support of the motion to be used by passengers and rail workers alike. It is proposed to decentralise and fragment Network Rail, weaken its ability for national management and remove its responsibility for managing the infrastructure in some areas through granting more concessions across the network. The areas earmarked for this to be initially introduced are Kent, Wessex and Anglia. It is also proposed to give train operating companies a role in enabling, training and licensing staff from the train operator and Network Rail to carry out operational duties on behalf of each other, will often work in the same “integrated control centres”, and to allow train operating companies to have a say in determining where and when engineering works take place. Network Rail’s funding will be delivered locally and indirectly linked to how much profit the local train operating company makes. In contrast to McNulty, the union argues that the government could save 30 per cent of the current rail costs at a stroke by ending the fragmentation and exploitation which is enshrined in privatisation and by returning to a railway run under public ownership as a public service.