NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT 
COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND 
THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC 
                          CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY 
 
................................................................................
 
                                 ON THE RECORD 
                             GAVIN STRANG INTERVIEW       
 
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1                                 DATE:   1.2.98 
................................................................................
 
JOHN HUMPHRYS:                         But first, Britain is grinding to a 
halt.  So what's new you say.  If you haven't sat in a traffic jam you 
haven't lived.  But this government says it's going to get us out of our cars 
and into public transport.  It says we shall have an "integrated transport 
system".  The trains really will connect with the buses, the freight really 
will be able to get from A to B on the rail instead of clogging up the 
motorways and so on.  What a lovely thought.  But how is it to be done?  
There's a white paper being published in the Spring but the government already 
has lots of thoughts on the subject and the Transport Minister Gavin Strang is 
in our Edinburgh Studio. 
 
                                       Good afternoon.  
 
GAVIN STRANG:                          Good afternoon.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Now then, you've accepted that this is a 
massive problem, there's going to be, what is it, a forty per cent increase in 
cars on our road over the next twenty years unless we do something about it. 
You have to give us public transport, you have to improve public transport, 
you've got to get us out of our cars.  Are you prepared, both to tax us, to 
persuade us, force us even to get out of our cars and to put the sort of money 
into public transport that is needed. Are you prepared to do both of those 
things to the scale that is going to be needed? 
 
STRANG:                                Yes indeed and as you rightly indicated 
this is a huge challenge facing us.  Absolutely congestion you put at the top 
of the agenda. If we are going to have a modern economy, if we're going to 
compete effectively and get more people to invest in the United Kingdom, we've 
got to reduce congestion. We can't go on the way we're doing, as you say these 
projections are quite unacceptable so it means getting more freight onto rail 
and it means getting the traffic moving on our roads. Now as far as the 
passengers are concerned, obviously crucial. Again, obviously the car is a 
tremendously flexible way of driving about as is the van and the lorry.  But we 
want to encourage more people to walk, if it's practical, sometimes it is, 
sometimes the bicyle. But in the main, of course, as you say, the alternative 
is public transport. So we have to invest more, we need to get better public 
transport services, that's absolutely crucial.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Right, and invest more means the 
government, us, the taxpayer, having to invest more doesn't it. Massive public 
investment is needed. Other countries have acknowledged that. They spend much 
more than we do, are we prepared to do that? 
 
STRANG:                                Yes, in the long run.  But remember, 
it's not public investment only, it's private investment as well.  Take for 
example the London Underground, now that is a key priority.  That will be done 
by a public/private partnership, there will be public money going into there, 
but we intend to establish a framework and I think we will be announcing our 
position on this quite soon, which will enable a major increase in private 
investment into the Underground as well. Take for example the buses, and of 
course for most people up and down the length of the country, where they are 
not near a railway station, they don't have an underground, so the only public 
transport is the bus and a lot of money is being invested already, let's be 
clear about this.  A lot of private companies are investing in buses at the 
present time. We want to encourage that, we want to develop more cooperative
partnerships between local councils and the private bus operators or the 
public bus operators where there are some left.                              
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Let's look at buses then.  
                                                
STRANG:                                Yes, please do.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Since deregulation, as it's now called, 
what is it about twelve years ago. There has been a huge drop in the number of 
bus passengers, thirty per cent, we're talking about outside London - I'll 
look at London in a minute if we have to. But there's been an enormous drop 
and that's partly because fares have gone up.  Now, they used to have more 
subsidies than they now have. Are you prepared to put the money back into the 
buses, and we're talking about public money here, not private investment. As 
you say there has been some but they like the private investors like investing 
in the profitable routes and there are loads of unprofitable routes as well. 
Will more public money go into the buses? 
 
STRANG:                                It's a very good point. I mean first of 
all we need a new framework.  The fact is that deregulation lead to these bus 
wars, it's led to a decline in the number of passengers, as many as you've 
indicated, so we do need to establish a new regulatory framework.  On the one 
hand we've got to encourage good practice.  Let's be clear about this. There is 
some good practice and there are many councils actually, and one that you  
mentioned for example Bristol, indeed Edinburgh, the city I'm in now, which 
have got excellent arrangements which are developing, indeed Brighton very good 
arrangements they have in relation to encouraging the bus services, giving them 
space and that means of course priority lanes, have to be enforced of course. 
I mean there's no point having buses standing in great queues behind cars. So, 
obviously that is nothing to do with public money, that's about regulation and 
local government acting decisively.  But, yes, we do need public money. There's 
no doubt about that. We will have to invest additional money into bus services. 
Indeed, the big question is whether in fact, you know, we can find some money 
to encourage some new services, particularly in rural areas which will not 
operate without a subsidy. So we have to strike a balance between regulation 
and a balance between encouraging private investment which is absolutely 
fundamental, but also you're right we need some more public subsidy.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And public subsidy as you know, has been 
halved over those years that I've been talking about. Are you going to restore 
those cuts and then add some?  
 
STRANG:                                Well I think we shouldn't, you know, go 
into figures, obviously we need to look at a timescale. But the... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Yes, but you're planning to do that. I 
mean there's absolutely no question in your mind that this government has to 
put more public money and I'm talking clearly about public money, into the bus 
system.  
 
STRANG:                                Well let's be clear. In the short run, 
as far as public spending is concerned we have made it absolutely clear that 
our first priority is education, education, education and the health service. 
But after that, I would say certainly transport, there's no question that we 
have to get more public money into public transport. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Yes, but when? 
 
STRANG:                                Well, it's a very good question. Now, 
we're also looking, I mean in your introduction you mentioned stick. Now... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              If I may, I'll come to the stick in a 
moment, but let's just deal with the carrots first of all, improving public 
transport. You want to put more money in, you say it's absolutely clear that 
it's needed, but when.  Every minute that is wasted, as you know better than I, 
the motorways are being clogged up, the cities are being jammed up, the air is 
getting flithier.  It's got to happen now. You say, well actually not just yet? 
 
STRANG:                                No, I'm not saying that and don't 
underestimate what we're doing already. I mean in terms of pollution and we've 
not touched on the environmental issue, the way we're clamping down, a number 
of pilot projects where people are being you know dragged off the road if their 
cars are polluting too  much.  Our cleaner vehicle taskforce, the whole 
question for example, dedicated bus lanes. I opened a priority bus lane, the 
first one on a national motorway only a couple of months ago on the spur road 
into Heathrow Airport. So, I mean we are encouraging these things already 
through public spending by the way.  I mean we've re-jigged our priorities in 
relation to the money going to local councils to encourage you know proper 
transport, proper investment in public transport, not just building more and 
more roads. So we've made a start but, of course,  it is not something we are 
not going to achieve over night.  I mean when we published this White Paper 
which you referred to earlier, it will be the first major statement, the first 
White Paper, as opposed to Green Papers or consultation documents on transport 
for thirty years.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And will it acknowledge, will that White 
Paper acknowledge that fares have to be lower, let's stay with buses just for a 
moment. Bus fares have gone up, where bus fares have gone up, the number of 
passengers has dropped.  In London, interesting, they dropped a little bit, 
the number of passengers has risen.  So, do you acknowledge that bus fares have 
to come down if you are going to persuade people to use the buses.  
 
STRANG:                                Well, coming down, is obviously quite a 
radical proposal and it may be... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But I thought you were going to be 
radical. 
 
STRANG:                                Well we are going to be radical but let 
me just be clear about this.   We certainly have to get a lot more people on 
the buses.  Now, if you talk to the private operators, a lot of them will tell 
you it's more about quality and reliability than price. But I don't agree with 
that, I think there's no question of affordability comes into it and this of 
course is particularly important to us as a Labour Government because we want a 
socially just society, a socially inclusive society, so it's not just about 
providing buses you know for wealthy people who have two cars to leave a car at 
home and get on the bus, it's about a decent bus service for people who need it 
to get to work.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Right, so therefore prices have to come 
down don't they, fares have to come down.  
 
STRANG:                                 We certainly have to stop them going up 
in so far as we can. There's no question of that and obviously we have to get 
better services. I mean what we need is an efficient, reliable, clean, safe, 
affordable service. You focus on fares, fair enough, but it's not the only 
thing.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              No, but I've just given you some figures 
which illustrate very clearly that there is a direct relationship between the 
level of fares and the number of people using them, using the buses. And for 
you to say, well we have to try to stop them going up as much as we can. I mean 
that's a bit lame isn't it.  
 
STRANG:                                No, it's not lame and, frankly, I did 
not get any fare figure from you.  I'm not sure- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              No? Well, what I've told you.  Let me 
give it to you, then.   There has been a drop in the number of bus passengers 
where fares have gone up outside London.  In London, where fares have come 
down, there has been an increase in the number of bus passengers.  
 
STRANG:                                Well, frankly, it's not as simple as 
that.  I mean - in London- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              What? 
 
STRANG:                                -we know that's there a totally 
different economy there.  I mean, this is a very open issue.  I mean, some 
people use that comparison between London and the wider country not to talk 
about fare levels at all, I might say, but to talk about the issue of 
regulation as to whether we should have - you know - monopoly services and not 
have any competition.  And, I've got to make this point, you know.  One of the 
things that has happened with Deregulation, which is a bit disturbing, is that 
they've driven down standards, they've driven down conditions and the 
conditions of not just drivers but the staff and others in many of these bus 
services are at levels which really are beginning to threaten safety if we 
don't watch out.   
 
                                       So, yes, we want to keep fares as low as 
we can and, of course, we want to get them lower.  It does mean a public 
subsidy and I accept that but let's keep it in perspective, not just focus on 
the fares, focus on the quality of the service.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, it all - of course, but all of it 
costs money.  But, just to stay with the fares, then, because that's absolutely 
crucial.  I mean, look what's happening to fares in London on the Underground.  
Obviously, a lot of people aren't affected by this but an awful lot of people 
are and it's crucial to the debate.  I know, you're hoping to get a lot of 
private money going into the Underground over the next few years.  There's an 
announcement going to be made about that soon.  But, what we saw last year for 
the first time: the number of people using the Underground started to fall.  
Now, that is significant.  And, fares on the London Underground, as everybody 
who uses it knows, are outrageously high and have been going up, and up and up 
every year above inflation.   
 
STRANG:                                You're absolutely right.  I mean, what 
is happpening on the Underground, to some extent, is what British Rail were at 
and that is that they were using fares to keep people off the line because they 
didn't have the capacity.  I mean, I get the Underground out to Heathrow 
Airport.  I mean, I never sit down.  I mean, I was on it again on Thursday;  
you stand all the way.  So, there's no question that there is a major issue 
here.  But, it's not just about fares.  It's about capacity, it's about 
investment as well.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Mmm, exactly and there's an awful lot of 
investment needed just as you say to keep pace with crowding and with 
reliability and all that.  But, do you acknowledge that more money, more public 
money - forget about the private money, for the moment - because that's going 
to improve the service (phon).  I know, you're going to tell me how rotten it 
is.  Well, everybody knows how rotten it is and how it needs a great deal of 
money spent on it.  But, do you believe that public money is going to have to 
be used to keep fares at a sensible level on the Underground? 
 
STRANG:                                What I do believe is that we need a 
public-private partnership and that means private money and public money.  At 
the moment, the challenge is to get private investment into the Tube.  But, I 
don't criticise you for focussing on fares, particularly on bus services in 
rural areas where people have no choice.  But, it's not just about fares.  
That's all I'm saying, John.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              No, I understand that.  
 
STRANG:                                Alright.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But, let's just stay again with fares a 
moment on the railways.  Now, we know what's happening on the railways as well. 
Again, the same question: are you prepared - and, I should add when again to 
this - even though I suspect you won't give you an answer but I'll try again - 
are you prepared to put more money into the Railways, so that fares can be kept 
at a reasonable level?  At the moment, the fares are very high indeed and deter 
people from using the railways.                         
 
STRANG:                                On the short run, we've got to make more 
effective use of all the money that's gone into the Railways.  As you know, 
there's been a huge increase in the Public Subsidy for the Railways, since they 
were privatised.  It's up at one point eight billion pounds, as opposed to a 
billion, when it was in the Public Sector.  So, we've got to get better value 
for that and that, certainly, does include fares.  And, that's why we will be 
legislating to establish a new Railk Authority and to establish a new 
regulatory framework for the Railways because there's no doubt there's a lot 
wrong with the privatised, fragmented rail service.  And, we want better 
arrangements for regulation and, yes, better and more effective controls over 
fares.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You can add all the regulations you want 
and all the authorities you want but it won't necessarily keep fares down 
because they're run by private companies now and they say we've got to make a 
profit, you say:keep the fares down, increase the number of passengers.  
Ultimately, once again, if you're really going to be radical about it, you will 
put more Government money in, won't you?  That's the only way to do it, in the 
long run. 
 
STRANG:                                Well, there already is a regulatory 
framework- 
   
HUMPHRYS:                              Is that it?    
 
STRANG:                                -which is supposed to control fares. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, we've seen what's been happening! 
 
STRANG:                                And we need a better framework.  So, yes 
no-one's disputing the need for Public Subsidy on Public Transport, whether 
it's the Tube, whether it's the Bus services, whether it's the Railways. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, where's the money, then? 
 
STRANG:                                Well, do you want to come to that? We'll 
discuss that if you like. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              I very much want to come to it!  
Absolutely!  When are you going to say: alright, we've looked at it, we know we 
need this money, we're going to put it in, starting from- when? 
 
STRANG:                                Well, let me just remind you this 
consultation document which we've produced, which is a document which has led 
to over six thousand responses.  We've had seminars up and down the length and 
breadth of England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland.  Now, of course, 
we've been discussing all the positive things about Public Transport but we've 
also been considering and discussing and we've still to take hard decisions on 
this.  But, they're coming up quickly now.   
 
                                       Do we look for what I like to call 'New 
Dedicated Revenue Streams', to help fund Public Transport.  Yes, the 
investment, but also, as you've rightly said, the possibility of Revenue 
subsidies to help hold down fares - the sort of options we're looking at - as 
we mentioned in our document - first of all, the question of the possiblity of 
tolls.  Now, personally, I don't think tolls are likely to be a runner on a 
practical basis because..... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You're talking about tolls on motorways 
now, or what? 
 
STRANG:                                Yes, indeed, motorways and Trunk 
Roads.   Now, I think, really, if we do that and you know people are moving on 
that.  I mean, the CBI and others are coming out in favour of that, but I 
think, technologically, that's a quite a long way down the track yet - 
possibly, ten years.  But, what could be, you know, much sooner is, in fact, 
the possibility of giving Local Authorities the scope to raise some additional 
Revenue, some additional money, specifically to invest in Public Transport.  
Now, we're talking here about the possibility of congestion charging and I can 
explain that later, if you wish.  But, also, the possibility that's been widely 
floated and mooted in many academic circles of a non-residential car parking 
charge.  That would mean that, for example, employers would be encouraged to 
reduce the number of parking spaces they had.  They would pay a charge on these 
parking spaces to the Local Authority - you might want to call it a tax - and, 
of course, we would hope they would also start to encourage green commuting and 
get more people to choose Public Transport.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              That's interesting stuff.  So, the      
- Let's look at the congestion charge first and what that would mean is that if 
I want to drive into - Well, let's take two examples: Leicester and London,  
both of which, clearly, are congested cities, I would have to pay a toll to do 
so.  Now, the academics have worked out in the case of Leicester - your own 
people, indeed - your own Department of Transport ...worked out - to have any 
significant effect on people, any deterrent effect, for a start, would be about 
six pounds per car.  In the case of London it would be about ten pounds per 
car.   
 
                                       Are you prepared to go down that route, 
as far as that?   
 
STRANG:                                I don't accept these figures, I've got 
to say John, but that's a technical.. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well one of them is your own lot.  
 
STRANG:                                Well, can I just go into this.  You see, 
if we go down this road at all, and obviously this is, you know, some way down 
the track, we have to take the hard decisions, we have to pass the legislation 
and then the local councils have to decide to implement it.  But there's two 
types of schemes really.  There's one of course which you've described there, 
where you'd actually be charged to go into Bristol perhaps, or go into 
Edinburgh or indeed into London, where it's obviously been widely discussed.  
Now that would mean of course, anyone going into to - let's take London - going 
in there, would have to pay this charge.   Now, the big issue here is, are you 
saying then that everyone driving about in London has to pay this charge. So 
fro example if you lived in the ouskirts of London and you perhaps weren't very 
well off but had managed to afford a car, and you needed that car to travel 
perhaps to see your old mother or to go and work on the night-shift, is it 
really the case now that we're going to require you to pay extra - perhaps  
to pay, you know, an extra amount of duty - on the continent they talk about 
Euro....but you know basically it would be a sort of supplement to your driving 
licence, on your tax I should say.  So are we really - want to go down that 
road? 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well I don't know.  Do we? 
 
STRANG:                                Well, that's right, and that's what 
we're considering, that's what we're considering. The other option is of course 
is the one where you're just really charging people to go into the city for 
example.  You night you know, have a number of routes, perhaps half a dozen 
into a city and you'd be charging them to go through a gantry for example, to 
get into the city.  And certainly there'll be some scope perhaps in the short 
term for tolls perhaps in areas where we really want to reduce traffic, you 
know perhaps in very congested areas like - in a sensitive area such as the 
Lake District - I'll just make the point.  But if I can come to the... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Oh, the Lake District as well.  You 
might be.... 
 
STRANG:                                I don't mean obviously the Lake Districk 
generally, but in terms of encouraging people to park where we want them to 
park, and to encourage you know, the minimum impact on some of the more 
environmentally sensitive areas, but the real issue here is, do we go down the 
road of some sort of charging of that nature or do we go down the road of the 
non-residential car parking charge, which... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You could go down both. 
 
STRANG:                                Well, one could give local councils the 
option.  They could go for one or the other or neither. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Or both. 
 
STRANG:                                Well, I would think myself - in both I 
think I doubt whether there would be public acceptability for both, but again 
f course it depends on the charge.  I mean a lot of these figures that 
have been floated are highly speculative, I've got to say.... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Yes, but they'd have to high wouldn't 
they?   I mean it's no good saying kind of fifty pence to drive into London 
because nobody would take any notice, and anyway it wouldn't pay for itself, 
wouldn't produce a profit. 
 
STRANG:                                Well, it's got to more than cover the 
administrative costs.  But you know on this question of high, you see the 
difficulty with this, I mean let's be quite clear about this.  A lot of these 
people, a lot of the academics put these things forward on the basis of 
reducing the number of people who will drive into these cities, reducing car 
usage.  There's a lot of scepticism, and I think probably justified at just how 
high you've got to put these charges up to hit people with their cars.  Now of 
course if you do that then you're hitting some of the least well off.  I mean 
the fact is that the car is a very flexible and easy way of getting around and 
most of us enjoy our cars. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But you tell me you're going to be 
radical, I mean.... 
 
STRANG:                                We are going to be.... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But every time you hit what the 
government keeps talking about these days as hard choices, you say, well on the 
other hand there's this problem with this ... I mean you've actually got to 
say... 
 
STRANG:                                I'm going to have to interrupt you 
now because it's very simple, you see, we will be announcing our decisions 
in the White Paper.  Now the Conservatives were in power for eighteen years, 
and at the end of that period of office they produced a Green Paper.  We, 
within a year almost, are going to be producing a White Paper setting out quite 
clearly our decisions in these areas.   It's really quite different.  We will 
have opted for this question of whether we're going to have some sort of new
dedicated revenue streams where it's a non- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But that is clear that isn't it, the 
dedicated revenue, what's called hypothegation.  I mean the money from whatever 
it is, whether it's congestion charges or car park tax of some sort, that will 
go to the local authorities so that they can improve public transport. 
 
STRANG:                                Well, that's why you see I look at these 
charges as much as about getting the money to invest in public transport and to 
improve the services. If we want people to choose, and it is about choice - if 
we want people to choose to leave their car at home, or to leave it in a park 
and ride park and to take the bus or to take some public transport, then it's 
got to be good, and that is why it's very important that we look at these 
charges or taxes if you want to call them that, as a way of obtaining revenue 
for the investment and for the subsidy which you referred to earlier, and not 
just as a tax or something which is aimed at stopping people driving their 
cars, if we go down this road. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And councils would be able to keep that 
money? 
 
STRANG:                                Well, I think it's crucial.  I mean, can 
you imagine for example Bristol, and I keep citing Bristol because they're 
doing a lot of good things there - can you imagine the Bristol electors wanting 
to pay for a new charge whether it's a car parking charge or some sort of road 
congestion charge if all the money was just going to the central coffers? 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Exactly, so what's the scale - final 
thought - scale of your ambition over the next, I don't know, let's say ten 
years.  What kind of reduction in the number - I take it you mean there has to 
be a reduction in the number of cars on our roads, not just holding it steady - 
what kind of reduction? 
 
STRANG:                                Well, I think it's a fair point.  I 
think in some areas where there's so much congestion, particularly quite 
frankly on some of our motorways, because if we are going to be a modern 
economy we've got to get our freight about.  Of course we want more on the 
train, but if you take for example, you know, a lot of the businesses say in 
your part of the country, Wales and the West Midlands, the bulk of the stuff 
you know in the car industry still has to move about by road, so it's got to be 
speeded up, so we've got to get the congestion down, and similarly in relation 
to many of the private cars.  There is too much congestion, so in some areas 
yes, we're going to actually have to get the amount of traffic down, but across 
the country nationally, I think frankly to actually reduce the volume of 
cars on the road is probably unrealistic, and I think most of the green 
organisations themselves would accept that.  We've got to... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But your Deputy Prime Minister wouldn't 
because he said on June the sixth: I will have failed if in five years there 
aren't many fewer journeys by car.  So you're now saying, all we can do is hold 
it steady.  
 
STRANG:                                Well many fewer journeys by car, I think 
one has to put that in the context of what John Prescott said as Deputy Prime 
Minister.  The one thing we're certain about is that we've got reduce car 
usage, and we've got to make sure that we don't go down the road that the 
current projections show, which in fact show that the whole thing just becomes 
untenable, and certainly it does mean in certain areas we'll have to reduce the 
volume of cars, but more important, and this is the crucial thing, more 
important, across the country as a whole we have to reduce the rate of increase 
and the rate of usage.  It's not ownership we're talking about remember, 
it's about usage.  I mean there are still families I would say who don't have a 
car who I would like to have a car in the rural areas because it would help 
them get work. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Gavin Strang, thanks very much indeed.
 
 
                                ...oooOooo...