TWO views of railway privatisation have been given this week, and are
not so far apart as they may seem at first glance. Sir Bob Reid, the
chairman of British Rail, said in an interview with The Herald that
privatisation would enhance the prospects for the railways by providing
an injection of new ideas and funds. The Commons Select Committee on
Transport took a bleaker view. Since the Government's approach is
entirely experimental, the committee's report warns, ''something could
go badly wrong''. Among the things that might go wrong are line
closures, higher fares, increased costs, and the loss of network
benefits such as national timetables, while safety standards could be
maintained only at a cost in manpower and resources. The committee does
qualify this by saying that if all the Government's assumptions prove to
be right and the level of investment is substantially increased ''there
may be the potential for an improved railway system''. This is really
more or less what Sir Bob is saying, only the other way round. Just as
the committee adds a rider to its criticisms, so Sir Bob adds a caveat
to his rosier scenario. The prospects for the railways will be enhanced,
he maintains, and rural lines will survive -- ''provided there's a
social commitment to that''.
Given Sir Bob's previous remarks about rail privatisation, which
suggested that he was less than totally convinced about the soundness of
the Government's plans, one may doubt whether he is any more confident
than the transport committee that this social commitment will become a
reality. At any rate, while expressing confidence that the Highland
lines will survive despite their dependence on subsidy, he feels it
necessary to emphasise that it is up to the public and MPs to remind the
Government of their social importance. Ultimately, he argues, the
survival of the public service ethos within the railways will depend on
the bodies established by the Government to oversee their operations.
These, in his opinion, have the necessary powers to protect the public
interest but need
sufficiently clear guidelines. The fact that Sir Bob feels the need to
make this point indicates, in however coded a
way, the extent of his concern about whether the Government can be
trusted to promote this concept of the rail
ways.
Its record of underinvestment underscores these doubts. So does the
transport committee's report, with its catalogue of things that could go
wrong. Mr MacGregor's assurances that subsidies will continue for a
while have not removed the fears for unprofitable rural lines. It was a
supporter of earlier privatisations who remarked that the railway system
couldn't be profitable in the conventional sense but the indirect
benefits, economic as well as social, were potentially huge. Many people
would agree with Sir Bob Reid that the railways allow an alternative,
rural way of life and that ''it comes down to a very simple word --
civilised''. There is no indication whatever, as he must realise, that
the Government sees the railways in that light. Its plan would fragment
and weaken the system and is inimical to a co-ordinated and
environmentally enlightened transport strategy. Almost nobody likes it,
not even the arch-privatisers of yesteryear. There is no public demand
for removing the railways from public responsibility. All the problems
could be solved within the existing structure -- given the political
will, given the social commitment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article