Labour peer and former transport secretary Andrew Adonis, who renationalised the East Coast Main Line in 2009. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Andrew Adonis: East Coast Main Line could still be saved from privatisation

Former transport secretary says that the "chronic incompetence" of the government means "there’s a very good chance that the contract won’t be let by the election".

When Labour renationalised the East Coast Main Line in November 2009, it did so out of necessity rather than conviction. The private holder of the franchise, National Express, had defaulted on the £1.4bn contract agreed with the government just two years earlier and the then transport secretary, Andrew Adonis, was “not prepared to bail out companies that are unable to meet their commitments”. Adonis, who was nicknamed “the thin controller” by the industry, suggested that the franchise would be “re-let again to a new private operator” by mid-2011.

Three years later, the coalition government is in the process of doing just that but Labour’s voice is raised in protest. East Coast, the publicly owned train operating company established by ministers as an operator of last resort, has proved more successful than almost anyone anticipated. It has cut journey times, carried more than a million extra passengers and achieved the highest customer satisfaction of any rail company. Free of the need to pay dividends to private shareholders, it has also returned £640m to the Treasury to reinvest in the service. In 2012, Virgin Trains received seven times as much in taxpayer subsidy to run the West Coast Main Line.

“There’s a great esprit de corps among management and staff,” Adonis told me when I asked him to explain East Coast’s remarkable performance. “They haven’t had to work to an impossible business plan, which was the big problem with National Express before. All of those factors have contributed to good performance and a strong, self-confident public company.” The Conservatives’ desire to reprivatise the line was, he suggested, based on pure ideology. “They don’t like the concept of a successful state company and they’re keen to kill this idea before it gains traction and might gain other franchises. The other private-sector companies are also very anxious that East Coast is abolished before the election, so that it provides  less competition to them for future franchises.”

But with the government aiming to complete the privatisation by February 2015, Adonis, who is now Labour’s shadow infrastructure minister and is leading the party’s growth review, warned that ministers are short of time.

They’ve got literally only a few weeks of leeway, and given the chronic incompetence of the Department for Transport in letting recent contracts, I think there’s a very good chance that the contract won’t be let by the election. And if East Coast continues to exist as a company at the election then I’m sure Labour would want to keep it in operation as a state company.

Some in Labour have suggested the party could incrementally renationalise  the railways by taking franchises back into public ownership as they come up for renewal (an option supported by 66 per cent of the public according to a YouGov poll last November, with just 23 per cent opposed). “I don’t use the language of renationalisation but of fair competition,” Adonis told me. “My view is that the performance of East Coast as a state company is sufficiently strong that it would stand a good chance of being able to win future franchises on a fair basis. And, of course, because it doesn’t have to pay dividends, it has a substantial financial advantage.”

He concluded: "I would say at the moment, given the catastrophic performance of the government in handling the West Coast franchise, and the fact that the lawyers will be deeply nervous about legal challenges to the franchising process next time round, I think there’s a very good chance that East Coast will still be a public company by the time of the election."

The irony is that a government ostensibly committed to competition is, in this instance, determined  to quash it. But even the Tories’ aversion to public ownership has its limits: one of the three approved bidders is the foreign firm Keolis: 56.7 per cent owned by the French state.

ClarificationVirgin Trains has asked us to clarify that it received no net subsidy for running the West Coast Main Line in 2012 and paid a premium of £168m to the Treasury. The figures cited in the piece, 'seven times as much in taxpayer subsidy to run the West Coast Main Line', referred to the net subsidy paid to Network Rail for maintenance of the rail infrastructure minus the premium generated by Virgin Trains.

____________________________________________

Now listen to George discuss the possibility of renationlising the railways on the NS podcast:

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.