One other point is that there are signalling and electrical power problems. Already there have been line-side fires in the tunnel between Farringdon and City Thameslink. That, I understand, is caused by arcing from the third rails, because the delivery for electricity to those tracks is at one end of that section of track rather than, typically, in the centre, which means that the voltages must be higher to drive the current longer distances.From Mr Hopkins comments, it appears that there is a system problem, making that part of the network prone to fires. I don't know about you, but to me the concept of tunnels, fires and packed commuter trains sounds like a rather dangerous mix.
It is not just that trains have been delivered late; they are not delivering the service they are meant to deliver. I gather that at the moment, First Capital Connect trains, the 377s, are breaking down after every 6,000 miles, compared with Southern, which runs the same trains and seems to keep them running for 22,000 miles before they break down. Surely that is another example of how incompetent the company is.I wasn't aware of the huge difference in the reliability of the same trains on different routes. Why on earth should the trains be nearly 4 times more reliable on the Southern Route? In the same debate, Luton MP Kelvin Hopkins also commented on the apparent ruses used by First Capital Connect to avoid financial penalties. Yet again the commuter is the one to suffer :-
This presumably is why some trains are suddenly run through as fast trains. Yet again, the root cause is that FCC don't want to be penalised financially. Mr Hopkins addedMoreover, we have a delay attribution system. If a First Capital Connect train is late there may be a delay in its connection with an East Midlands train, which then might have a problem connecting with a cross-country route in, say, Sheffield, and people will miss their connections. If the fault is traced back to First Capital Connect, it can be fined. So First Capital Connect goes out of its way to ensure that it is not blamed, because it does not want to be fined, but someone has to pay somewhere.
The former rail regulator, Tom Winsor, said in this building, in my hearing, "When BR handed over the railways to the privateers, they were handed over in good order." He is not a dyed in the wool socialist like me; he is an objective observer who was a regulator. He also said that British Rail worked miracles on a pittance. It was desperately underfunded, but it still managed to run a railway.In other words, dodgy companies like First Capital Connect have transformed a functional system into a shambles. Nadine Dorries, MP for Bedford summed it up :-
Moments before we came into the debate, we received an almost self-congratulatory e-mail from First Capital Connect, which announced that there were only 135 cancellations in the week from 25 toThe bottom line though is that after 2 debates in 2 days, it is clear that the Government couldn't be bothered to do anything. Reading the minister, Chris Mole MP's comments, it is clear to me that he is completely useless. A remedial plan is in place until the next major disaster. It seems that the Government are buying the line that First Capital Connect are doing well now. I suppose if you accept that lineside fires, 135 cancellations a week, timetable manipulation, driver shortages (they still don't have the right number of drivers), passengers packed like sardines have no relevance to the debate they are doing OK. What I found extremely upsetting was the fact that none of the MP's in Barnet, all of who represent passengers who use the line, made any contribution to these debates. During the debates there were great contributions from Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Independent MP's. Sadly those in our Borough couldn't be bothered. Is it because they all have second homes and so never actually use the line? Is that why they don't care.31 January . It is almost as if those cancellations were the only issue, but as my hon. Friend says, they force more people on to fewer trains, making people late and making their journeys incredibly uncomfortable. "This is the best ...performance...since May 2009.".
The second strand relates to streamlining and merging back-office functions of various public sector bodies to cut costs and create "one public sector" or organisation in an area – for example, higher and further education linking with local government and health. Other ideas in this vein include a "common database" on individuals that would prevent people being approached time and time again by "different arms of the stateAs I read this, Barnets Conservatives want a super-database, linking health, tax, police etc. Presumably this means that the Barnet parking warden issueing your parking ticket will be notified that you are overdue a dental appointment. Even more disturbing is the concept that you move to a bigger house, so the police and inland revenue can be tipped off to see if you've got the extra money legally. Given the governments record with implementing "super databases", you'd think Barnets Tories would give such schemes a wide berth. Do you really want your dustman or other Barnet Council employees to know every aspect of your life?
A single point of contact is also envisaged for families with multiple needs, under the banner of "targeted intervention". The council, he says, has 300 families in its area that cost between them £16m a year, have many social issues, and are known not only to the council "but, guess what, they are known to the police or primary care trust as well".You read it right. Barnet Council want to appoint "busybodies" to run the lives of 300 families.It's the old Nanny State knows best philosophy. I'm not quite sure at what point the Conservative Party became Stalinists, wanting to run every aspect of our lives, but it is quite clear that this is there agenda. These 300 "Gatekeepers" will cost how much. Needless to say that once they've sorted out the 300 worst families, they'll move on to the next 300 and before you know it, we'll all have one.
Freer wants each of these families to have a personal adviser – voluntary or paid – to act as a "gatekeeper" who would say to those wanting to help that family, "Why, and what's the outcome?"
What Lynne Hillan neglects to mention is that the Conservatives took over at Barnet Council in 2003. Then the council tax was lower than the National Average and much lower than Brent Council next door. This year it is higher than the National Average and Higher than Brent Council. What is the difference between Brent Council & Barnet Council. Well for a start the Leader of Brent Council is a Liberal Democrat called Paul Lorber and the Lib Dems control the Council.Keeping council tax downSIR – As leaders of Conservative local authorities, we are sick of hearing Labour ministers crowing about how they have helped keep council tax down this year.Readers should be aware that we have managed to keep taxes low in our authorities despite the efforts of John Denham and his department.Labour red tape has led to the unprecedented council tax increases since 1997.The average increase is so low this year through a combination of two factors. First, Conservative authorities have been committed, as always, to efficient and low-cost public services. Second, with every passing year, more high-tax Labour councils are failing at the ballot box.
| Band | Brent | Barnet | Difference |
| A | £912.51 | £948.84 | £36.33 |
| B | £1,064.59 | £1,106.79 | £42.20 |
| C | £1,216.68 | £1,264.91 | £48.23 |
| D | £1,368.76 | £1,423.02 | £54.26 |
| E | £1,672.93 | £1,739.25 | £66.32 |
| F | £1,977.10 | £2,055.48 | £78.38 |
| G | £2,281.27 | £2,371.70 | £90.43 |
| H | £2,737.52 | £2,846.04 | £108.52 |
