I speak to Amendment No. 51. In doing so I want to pass on the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who cannot be here. I do not know what is behind the amendments, except No. 51 to which my name is attached. Therefore I cannot delight the Minister with all the remarks which no doubt the noble Lord would have made.
The purpose of Amendment No. 51 is clear. We believe that anyone operating a railway franchise—it is not stated in the amendment, but it is meant to include the people operating the Docklands Light Railway franchise and those for London bus services—should not be distracted from the responsibility of providing the best possible service for visitors to London coming to enjoy the Olympics by being involved in franchising processes at the same time.
One franchise that has recently been let is the Great Western franchise, which is let for seven years from March and will expire in 2013. The problem is that the bidding process extends over a long period before a franchise is let. Often the best people from a franchise or tender are engaged in the protracted bidding process. The performance of the operator of franchises that have been re-let drops in the immediate two-year run-up period before the franchise is re-let. That is because the best brains in the outfit are directing their attention to the business of winning the tender or franchise for the next period.
There were four bidders for the Great Western franchise. The bidding documents submitted to the department by the successful bidder filled 11 volumes. It is an enormous process involving consultation with a lot of people. It involves consultation between the franchisee and the person who is providing the rolling stock. The bidder must look forward quite a long way in putting together a franchise.
The purpose of the amendment is to create a period in the run-up to and during the games. The best brains available to the operator should be focused on providing the very best service, not distracted by the bidding process. I suggest that the re-bidding process should recommence after the games. That could be dealt with by simply extending some existing franchises and ensuring that competitions are delayed until we are well clear of the games period. London cannot afford to have competent people distracted from providing an excellent transport service.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c99GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:36:38 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296536
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296536
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296536