
Labour blunder will cost taxpayers £250m extra to nationalise rail firm
Labour's nationalisation of a major train company will cost taxpayers an extra £250 million after a blunder by civil servants, The Telegraph can reveal.
South Western Railway (SWR), which serves London and a large swathe of southern England, will be operated by the Government from May 25.
However, a negotiating error by the Department for Transport (DfT) means taxpayers must spend an extra £50 million a year to lease SWR trains after that date.
Passengers could be told to pay higher ticket prices to offset some of the increased cost, even though public subsidy for the railways stood at £12.5 billion last year.
At the centre of the blunder is the fact that, as is the case with almost all government-franchised operators, SWR does not own its trains. All its rolling stock is leased from companies known as Roscos.
Operators preparing to take over a rail franchise typically start negotiating with Roscos over prices for trains about 18 months in advance of their start date, said industry sources.
Even though DfT itself set SWR's franchise end date as May 25 and published this on its government website, civil servants did not start negotiating with SWR's Roscos until Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, announced in December that the operation would be nationalised.
This decision to leave talks to the last-minute meant that DfT gave itself just a third of the normal time needed to put together a deal.
The result of DfT's short-notice negotiation, together with civil servants' insistence that the lease could only last for five years, was an extra £50 million a year on the price of the trains, totalling £250 million.
'One-sided offer'
Angel Trains, Porterbrook and Rock Rail – the Roscos supplying SWR – each raised their prices by between 10 and 20 per cent as a result of the increased risk from an unusually short contract, insiders said.
'There's sod all, basically, that the Government can do about that because it's now far too late to do anything different,' one added.
The one-sided offer came about because DfT had forgotten that it could not simply roll over SWR's existing contracts, an insider claimed – although a Government source insisted that civil servants could not start negotiating until the rail nationalisation bill received Royal Assent in December.
Previously, DfT has taken over failing private rail operators such as Northern and LNER. All of those takeovers occurred in the middle of the franchise, meaning existing deals stayed in place.
Britain is already tightening its belt because of Donald Trump's trade tariffs, which threaten the spending plans of Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, and could potentially trigger further tax rises.
Amid the global economic uncertainty, the Tories warned that the taxpayer could not afford Labour's flagship rail nationalisation plans, with another nine train companies set to follow SWR into state ownership over the next three years.
Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative shadow transport minister, said: 'Labour's pandering to the rail unions' demand for full nationalisation is already costing the taxpayer dear.
'The Government was warned that their plans were wrong-headed but they refused to listen to anyone but their union funders.'
Labour promised in its general election manifesto that it could nationalise train companies 'without costing taxpayers a penny in compensation'.
Competition investigation
In March the Office of Rail and Road said it was reopening a 2020 investigation into choice and competition in the rolling stock market, over fears that Roscos were charging too much and failing to compete properly against each other.
Rock Rail, which owns the controversial £1 billion Arterio train fleet, whose entry into SWR service has been delayed partly because of trade union objections to the size of its windscreen wiper, did not respond to a request for comment.
Angel Trains, owner of the 750-carriage Siemens Desiro fleet operated by SWR, declined to comment and said its negotiations with DfT were commercially confidential.
Porterbrook, which owns a minority of SWR's trains, declined to comment for the same reason.
A government source said: 'This Government is taking the railways back into public ownership at the lowest reasonable cost to the taxpayer, so we can get on with making the long-overdue improvements needed to make day-to-day journeys easier.
'Negotiations like these take two and a half years on average, and so should have been started by the previous Conservative government in 2023, whether the railways were being taken into public ownership or not.
'This is the long tail of Tory incompetence, which continues to fail passengers, even when they are not in power.
They added: 'The only alternative available to this Government would have been to buy the current operator out of the contract, a few months before it lapsed anyway – but this would have incurred the same rolling stock renewal costs next month, in addition to millions of pounds worth of compensation paid to the outgoing operator.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
12 minutes ago
- Sky News
FTSE 100 hits record high on back of US-Iran tensions
Why you can trust Sky News The FTSE 100 has secured a new record closing high after riding out a US trade war-linked slump. The index of London's leading shares gained 20 points to hit 8,884, surpassing the 3 March peak of 8,771 and leaving its value more than 8.6% up in the year to date. It was achieved despite gloomy official figures covering April - when the impact of the US trade war started to be felt, household bills spiked and budget tax and wage rises hit employers for the first time. The Office for National Statistics reported that the . The FTSE 100 tumbled early in the spring when Donald Trump 's protectionist agenda gathered steam through a series of on-off tariffs against global trading partners, later exacerbated by his "liberation day" escalation. Stock market values were hit worldwide as the consequences for domestic economies - and global activity - were digested amid a slew of output downgrades by respected international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund. But the suspension or reductions of many trade tariffs, coupled with select deals to end hostilities with nations such as the UK, has helped values climb back since last month. 2:42 A new high for the UK's top flight shares was almost achieved on Wednesday, as a limited trade truce between the US and China was on the table following talks in London. But market analysts said on Thursday that the optimism was overtaken by nerves on whether the progress could be maintained and a surge, of up to 4%, in global oil prices due to growing tensions between the US and Iran. Mr Trump has repeatedly warned the country it is at risk of airstrikes by the US and Israel if it is found not to be complying with its nuclear obligations. A United Nations report has made such a finding - and some US personnel have been evacuated from the Middle East region as a result. The spike in oil costs late on Wednesday, which took the Brent crude international benchmark to a two-month high, lifted the values of energy-linked shares including those of BP and Shell early on Thursday. Precious metal miners were also doing well. Tesco was among the winners too, gaining almost 2%, thanks to a solid set of first quarter results. Weaker than expected US inflation figures yesterday, which kept the prospect for a summer interest rate hike by the Federal Reserve intact despite the continuing trade war, also helped prop up sentiment internationally. The outlook for UK and global stock market values, however, is very uncertain. FTSE 100 firms make the bulk of their earnings overseas so a deep-seated trade spat between the world's two largest economies is particularly damaging.


Daily Mirror
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Alarm as Donald Trump 'throws a grenade' at crucial defence deal with UK
The future of the crucial AUKUS deal - which sees the UK work with the US and Australia on nuclear submarines - has been thrown into doubt by the White House Donald Trump has sparked fears he could pull out of a crucial defence deal with the UK and Australia. The unpredictable US President is understood to have ordered a review into an agreement to build a new generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines. It will be headed by defence official Elbridge Colby, who has previously described himself as "sceptical" of the AUKUS partnership. The trio of nations reached the agreement in 2021, saying they would work together on advanced defence technology. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds branded it a "first class" partnership. He told a press gallery lunch in Westminster: "The US is reviewing a lot of its international relationships, whether those are with multilateral bodies or agreements like that. "AUKUS is, on both the defence and industrial level, a genuinely first class agreement of how we treat each other's suppliers and the supply chain, and what outcome we're seeking to do and the level of collaboration. "So I would have a lot of confidence in anyone looking at the various bits of that agreement and saying that it is an incredibly strong and important agreement for the future. "So US colleagues want to look at it? Okay, that's their right to do so. "I think it is an incredibly compelling and strong agreement. When they look at it, I'm pretty certain they'll be in agreement." A No10 spokesman played down the likelihood of US withdrawal, branding AUKUS "one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades". He added: "It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year. "The UK will continue to work closely with the US and Australia at all levels to maximise the benefits and opportunities which AUKUS presents for our three nations." The Liberal Democrats said the US' decision to launch a review had "thrown another grenade into our security partnership" and urged the PM to "develop contingency plans". Helen Maguire, the party's defence spokeswoman, said: "Even in the face of an imperial Putin and the rising threat posed by China, this White House simply can't be relied upon to support our collective defence. Our national security demands that we ramp up talks with our Commonwealth friends and work to plug the gap that the US is threatening to leave in European and global security."


Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
ICE raids and riots leave young white Americans mocked for their dramatic take on protests
Social media influencers have been roasted for their eerily similar responses to the LA riots and immigration raids. Anti-ICE protests have swept the nation since agents first conducted raids in Los Angeles on Friday, sparking viral clashes between officers in riot gear and protesters who set vehicles on fire. Critics blasted the dozens of young Americans who posted messages shamming those who have not spoken out against the issue and called others who support Donald Trump or ICE 'bad people.' 'If you're white and see an ICE raid happening and you don't get involved, I think you're a p***y, and I don't respect you at all,' one influencer said. 'If you support ICE, if you support this current administration, if you think anything that's going on in the U.S. is good for the country, I don't think you're very pretty, and I don't think you're very smart,' said Miami influencer Sydney Michelle. One woman even said she was ashamed to have purchased a shirt with an American flag on it. 'I accidentally bought an American flag shirt today, and I'm gonna go return it because I wasn't even thinking,' she said. 'With what's going on in our country right now... trash... I'm not wearing that. People are literally getting seized and deported without the freaking due process.' Others have compared being an illegal immigrant in the United States to a minor traffic offense. 'Being undocumented is not a criminal offense; it's a civil one, and if you've ever jaywalked, congratulations, you've also committed a civil offense,' mommy influencer Allison Kuch said. Another influencer almost parroted that message, saying, 'Being in a country that you're in illegally is a civil offense, not a criminal one. You know what else is a civil offense, jaywalking.' Critics were quick to blast the influencers for posting their dramatic takes and pointed out their messages are all suspiciously similar. 'Morons on TikTok,' one person said. 'They're like all manure,' said another. 'I miss the days when not everyone had an internet connection,' a third person said. 'I always love their false equivalencies,' said a fourth. 'Thank you for repeating the same falsehood-laden NGO statements we've seen from dozens and dozens of other social media accounts. Yawn,' a fifth person said. 'The best immigration policy is articulated from the front seat of your car into your camera phone for online attention,' a sixth person said. 'Struggle session. It reminds me of the "Imagine" celebrities during COVID,' said another. 'This is when you think you're a trailblazer and on the cutting edge when you're really just another follower,' a seventh person said. While physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, entering the country illegally is a federal criminal offense, according to the American Immigration Council. Illegal entry includes crossing the border at a time or place not designated by immigration officers, eluding inspection by officers, or entering with false information such as fake documents. Title 8 of the U.S. Code states that the first offense of illegally entering the country is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. Illegally re-entering the country after previously being deported is a felony with a maximum sentence of up to two years.