Great Western Coffee Shop

I just picked up this from Herald Scotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18780028.nearly-150-scots-jobs-planned-progress-rail-services-steel-foundry-closure/)


which leads to me to wonder something I have not really wondered about before - where do Network Rail's various supplies come from?  As a government agency, is there purchasing co-ordinated with the government economic policy to skew towards job provision in the United Kingdom, and how does any skew change with the redrawing of the political map of Europe, with the economic jolt of the pandemic, and with the ongoing need for climate friendly production and transportation, especially of heavy materials across the world?

Network Rail procurement and supply chain information can be found here https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/supply-chain/

The current rules for government procurement are the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, and the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, all of which are in line with the EU single market's principles. Outside the EU, there is a WTO agreement, which applies to a narrower range of contracts.

All of this is generally in line with the long-standing anti-protectionist philosophy of Conservative economic policy. The exceptions are limited to things like national defence and security, though I think some other local objectives may have sneaked in, at least for smaller suppliers (but small contracts are an exception anyway). No doubt changes are in the legislative pipeline.

One of the ironies of Brexit has been its proponents promising to bring back national preference while not admitting they have abandoned that open-market philosophy. At the same time, much of Europe (well, only politicians really) thinks this aspect of the single market was forced on them (i.e. a generally protectionist Europe) by Margaret Thatcher when she (and Cockfield) created it, so see it as gross hypocrisy.

It would in my view be preferable to use UK suppliers, even at an extra cost, for several reasons.

Firstly, buying from UK suppliers will increase employment/reduce unemployment thereby reducing both the direct financial costs of unemployment benefits, and the human costs. A man earning say ?400 a week in a factory making railway equipment will have more money to spend on goods and services than the same man on benefits of less than ?100 a week. 
So creating say 1,000 jobs in the railway supply chain will also create new jobs or save existing jobs in the businesses in which the wages are spent.

Secondly, UK production will keep expertise and experienced workers available in the UK, perhaps increasing future opportunities for related UK based manufacturing.

Also, there is likely to be an enviromental gain from UK manufacture. Less fuel used in transport. Almost all manufacturing uses electricity, which is "greener" in the UK than in many other places.

Unfortunately most commuters do not see like you do and currently the UK Government do not either.

NR has to get the most economic price also it has to have supply chain reliability; it is I suspect in the case of rail supply reliability is a key factor. 

The steel industry in in the UK is a victim of market forces due to it being a private sector and in the last 10 years the UK Government not willing support the industry, hiding behind government intervention would be against EU Law