Peter, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - merged posts, ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Minister faces claims he threatened firm in old job



The appointment of Lord Hendy as a transport minister is being questioned over claims about his conduct in a previous role as chairman of Network Rail.

Lord Hendy is accused of threatening to withhold public contracts from an engineering firm, Systra, after one of their senior engineers spoke to the press about safety concerns at Euston Station.

Shadow transport secretary Helen Whately said the situation raised "serious" questions for both Lord Hendy and the Labour Party.

Gareth Dennis, who was sacked by Systra following Lord Hendy’s complaint, had told the Independent in April that levels of overcrowding in Euston Station were sometimes "unsafe".

Mr Dennis said his remarks were evidenced by a safety improvement notice that had been served by the rail regulator in October 2023. Network Rail says it resolved the issues raised by December 2023.

In May, Lord Hendy wrote a letter to the chief executive of Systra, Nick Salt, asking for evidence to substantiate the allegation, or alternatively, details of any action being taken against Mr Dennis for his remarks.

In the letter, first reported by the Politico news website, external and seen by the BBC, he reminded Mr Salt that "finding a potential supplier criticising a possible client reflects adversely on your likelihood of doing business with us or our supply chain".

Mr Salt responded with an apology about any "alarm" caused by the press comments, while also stressing that Mr Dennis’ publicly expressed views do not reflect those of the company.

Lord Hendy, dissatisfied with the response, suggested that further action was needed, while offering to escalate his concerns to the firm’s shareholders and head office.

Mr Dennis was suspended by his employer several days later, which cited Lord Hendy’s complaint as the reason behind this.

He told the BBC that he was offered an employment reference and a lump sum in return for leaving the company voluntarily and signing a confidentiality agreement, which he declined.

Following a disciplinary process he was dismissed in July with four weeks’ notice for allegedly bringing both his employer and Network Rail into disrepute.

Mr Dennis, who won the Young Rail Professional Distinguished Service Award 2024, said he had been left with depression and anxiety as a result. "It’s been an awful three months… an industry I care deeply about has chewed me up and spat me out," he added.

Mr Dennis also argued that Lord Hendy should resign from the government because "someone who responds so vindictively… to safety concerns should not be in charge of shaping the rail industry".

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, shadow transport secretary Helen Whately said: "The way to handle whistleblowers is to investigate their concerns. Threatening their employer and getting them sacked is the last thing a government minister should do."

Ms Whately has written to the Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden to ask further questions about the vetting process for the minister and his suitability for public office, in light of the claims.

The Department for Transport did not provide a statement but advised that the minister would not be available for interview.

The Labour Party has been approached for comment.

A Network Rail spokesperson said: "The rail regulator’s concerns raised in September 2023 about passenger congestion at Euston station were addressed and put to bed in December 2023, months before the Independent piece was published. Decisions on how employee conduct is handled is a matter for employers – in this case, Systra."

A spokesperson for Systra Ltd said: "We are unable to comment on individual staff matters other than to confirm that a thorough investigation was carried out."

[grahame]

One of the things that I am reminded of by this story is the very fine line between industry partners in telling the real situation and stepping in to protect and support one another.

It is my personal view that a lot of the daily operation problems, with shortages of staff and trains reducing timetables at short notice in a way that disturbs passengers, emanates from the Department for Transport's policy on stock allocation and pay levels / budgets which they impose on the Train operating companies who, however, they request and require to carry the can.    This "you take the blame for the consequences of our decisions" is enforced by "you took on the contract / franchise which requires you to take the blame" and "if you tell, what change do you think you have of renewal of more contracts?"

There is a need in public transport contracts run by private / commercial firms for them to consider their owners income which on occasions is at odds with the good of the passenger base, but we have seen sucha xatternbin such issues that - I suggest - we should look to the common element which is the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and its Treasury and Downing Street masters.

So this is not really a new situation ... just that, perhaps, it's the first time that such a bullying of contractor - by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) or by the DfT - has made the headlines in this way.   I sort of tacitly accepted that previous SoS's had a hold over the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) who sometimes knew better but could not say.   

I wondered if we are in for an "end of system" year where the remaining contracts are not expected to be renewed and so "what have the companies that own the TOCs got to lose?".  But actually they have a lot to lose; they are also bus operators under contracts, they are looking for crumbs (that may turn out to be much more than crumbs) in open access operation, and I would not put it past the DfT to pay an experienced management team to manage and run some train services.

[TaplowGreen]

One of the things that I am reminded of by this story is the very fine line between industry partners in telling the real situation and stepping in to protect and support one another.

It is my personal view that a lot of the daily operation problems, with shortages of staff and trains reducing timetables at short notice in a way that disturbs passengers, emanates from the Department for Transport's policy on stock allocation and pay levels / budgets which they impose on the Train operating companies who, however, they request and require to carry the can.    This "you take the blame for the consequences of our decisions" is enforced by "you took on the contract / franchise which requires you to take the blame" and "if you tell, what change do you think you have of renewal of more contracts?"

There is a need in public transport contracts run by private / commercial firms for them to consider their owners income which on occasions is at odds with the good of the passenger base, but we have seen sucha xatternbin such issues that - I suggest - we should look to the common element which is the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and its Treasury and Downing Street masters.

So this is not really a new situation ... just that, perhaps, it's the first time that such a bullying of contractor - by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) or by the DfT - has made the headlines in this way.   I sort of tacitly accepted that previous SoS's had a hold over the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) who sometimes knew better but could not say.   

I wondered if we are in for an "end of system" year where the remaining contracts are not expected to be renewed and so "what have the companies that own the TOCs got to lose?".  But actually they have a lot to lose; they are also bus operators under contracts, they are looking for crumbs (that may turn out to be much more than crumbs) in open access operation, and I would not put it past the DfT to pay an experienced management team to manage and run some train services.

No. This is a completely different and clearly defined scenario.

This is straightforwardly about a powerful individual at the head of a public company abusing his power in a flagrant attempt to bully, silence and shut down an individual who is highlighting legitimate, but inconvenient concerns about safety, and the craven nature of that individual's manager being sufficiently intimidated to go along with it.

We are often told by the experts on this forum that absolutely nothing trumps safety on the railway, so shutting down expert whistleblowers is a perilous way to proceed.

Your final paragraph however, yes. TOCs have little to lose now that "nationalisation" is approaching. They will keep the lights on, little more as has been suggested elsewhere.

As to your final suggestion, if all we have to look forward to is the current management teams in a GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) rather than a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) tie then God help us.

[ellendune]

As to your final suggestion, if all we have to look forward to is the current management teams in a GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) rather than a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) tie then God help us.

If that were case then I would agree.  But other proposed changes are much more far reaching such as an end to the Treasury micro managing costs without a thought to the revenue to one where managers get to manage the services as a business where they can manage both income and expenditure creatively to achieve an agreed bottom line is a major change.  And no I don't mean just putting up fares, but genuinely growing the business. 

[eightonedee]

Two observations-

1 - Even before the pandemic, there was clearly a growing reluctance in the private sector to take on new franchises, with former major players like Stagecoach and National Express leaving the market, and the difficulty that HMG was having obtaining bids in the light of the requirement to take on historic pension liabilities.

2 - I think it is naive to think that the Treasury will not continue to be the real controllers behind the scenes. This will translate into DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) being required to keep a strict eye on what GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) spends, which in turn will mean a great risk of the kind of nonsense micro-management that I have largely found out about from membership of this forum. The main benefit should be that there will be more flexibility in not having the operational elements of the system broken down into units that are independent operating companies - the problems from the collapse of the Crewkerne tunnel with running trains west of it should  be easier to resolve, and hopefully there will be no more procurement of new trains to replace recent ones on some lines while others struggle on with 35 year old stock. BUT - he who pays the piper calls the tune. There will have to be some kind of sectorial or regional operating structure, and some kind of financial control that reflects this, and if old habits die hard it's sadly not difficult to see a world in which we still see pointless micro-management in GBR.

Let's keep our fingers crossed. But what we do not want is a bullying culture from a would-be "strong man" at the helm. Remember Fred Goodwin at Royal Bank of Scotland? He famously flew into a rage because someone did not arrange the two different colours of chairs around a table in the correct order. Look where that ended.

[ellendune]

2 - I think it is naive to think that the Treasury will not continue to be the real controllers behind the scenes.

I am sure they will control capital - but they need to get back to 5 year control periods for improvements. 

However if they can control profit/loss rather than expenditure that would be the revolution.

[ChrisB]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, shadow transport secretary Helen Whately said: "The way to handle whistleblowers is to investigate their concerns. Threatening their employer and getting them sacked is the last thing a government minister should do."

Helen Whately can't really comment as the events being discussed all took part under her party's watch - pre the election!!!
Also, Gareth himself has agreed that he wasn't whistleblowing - as the info was in the public domain. So the laws on that don't apply re job security.

[TaplowGreen]

Two observations-

1 - Even before the pandemic, there was clearly a growing reluctance in the private sector to take on new franchises, with former major players like Stagecoach and National Express leaving the market, and the difficulty that HMG was having obtaining bids in the light of the requirement to take on historic pension liabilities.

2 - I think it is naive to think that the Treasury will not continue to be the real controllers behind the scenes. This will translate into DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) being required to keep a strict eye on what GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) spends, which in turn will mean a great risk of the kind of nonsense micro-management that I have largely found out about from membership of this forum. The main benefit should be that there will be more flexibility in not having the operational elements of the system broken down into units that are independent operating companies - the problems from the collapse of the Crewkerne tunnel with running trains west of it should  be easier to resolve, and hopefully there will be no more procurement of new trains to replace recent ones on some lines while others struggle on with 35 year old stock. BUT - he who pays the piper calls the tune. There will have to be some kind of sectorial or regional operating structure, and some kind of financial control that reflects this, and if old habits die hard it's sadly not difficult to see a world in which we still see pointless micro-management in GBR.

Let's keep our fingers crossed. But what we do not want is a bullying culture from a would-be "strong man" at the helm. Remember Fred Goodwin at Royal Bank of Scotland? He famously flew into a rage because someone did not arrange the two different colours of chairs around a table in the correct order. Look where that ended.

(Applause) Two very astute observations in my opinion.

[anthony215]

Has someone reinstalled the revolving door entrance at DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) Great Minster House? It was to be hoped that the new government might hold on to rail ministers a little longer than the former administration.

I think Peter Hendy might not be long for the job.

My money is him being gone by Friday. Think our PM had better get on the phone to Lord Adonis

[bradshaw]

William Barter posts about it on Twitter are worth reading
He has a great deal if experience as his cv shows

http://www.williambarter.co.uk/expertise-and-credentials.html

[ChrisB]

Agreed - he's talked a lot of sense about this.

Interesting that Nigel Harris has stayed completely out of making any comment.

[Mark A]

For a perspective that presumably has some input from 'Nigel Harris' as well as one other, it's worth looking out the @greensignallers account though.

Mark

[ChrisB]

Yep, nothing there yet. Waiting for their next podcast....

[Western Pathfinder]

Both Nigel and Richard know better than most of us,let's see what comes of Thursdays next edition
Nigel especially knows Gareth of old having had him as a regular contributor when he was at the helm of Rail.

[Mark A]

... but then there's the aphorism bequeathed to the railway by the second of that pair, which I won't repeat here as it's a bit sweary**.

When this broke it gave me an immediate bad taste in my mouth. Something that has not gone away.

Mark

** a lot sweary.