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
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 24.1.93
...............................................................................
JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Good afternoon and welcome to On The
Record. The critics have dubbed it the poll tax on wheels. And the enthusiasts
are so far conspicuous by their silence. In this programme I'll be asking the
Transport Secretary if his British Rail Bill isn't a privatisation too far.
You might have thought that along with Maastricht,
the recession, the miners, and the dole queue, the Government needs a Bill to privatise British
Rail like a hole in the head: indeed, judging from their public comments that
appears to be more or less the consensus of almost all those who lay claim to
know about the railways or, for that matter, privatisation.
So what is Mr MacGregor up to; and, even
more to the point, can he persuade you that what you'll get is better than what
you've got. David Walter reports:
*********
DIMBLEBY: Secretary of State, your rather
difficult task is to persuade the public that you haven't cobbled together a
dog's breakfast with your Bill.
JOHN MACGREGOR, MP: Well, it's certainly designed to produce
better services. That's the whole point of it - to produce something that's
better than we've got at the moment. The fact of the matter is that British
Rail has made considerable improvements in recent years and I've paid many
tributes to that, but I don't find many people who are saying it's perfect now.
Most people say we want to see it improve further. And the point...
DIMBLEBY: And would you agree you've got to
convince the Lords Ridleys and the Lord Youngs if you're going to be able to
persuade people beyond that that it is going to be better.
MACGREGOR: I would just.. if you'd like me to
finish. I mean, the whole point is to get the, not the privatisation in some
of the senses that we've had other privatisations because you can't sell it
outright, and we are continuing to put substantial subsidies, and will do, into
British Rail, but to get the private sector culture more into the operation of
passenger services.
Now on the comments - let's be quite
clear - Nick Ridley is doubtful about some aspects of the policy. I think he's
actually not fully understood the changes we've been making to what was
originally being proposed some years ago. Willie Whitelaw and David Young have
just expressed some doubts as to whether it will be a rip-roaring success.
It's going to take time to get the further improvements in British Rail
passenger services, and to get more freight back on to the rail, but I believe
that this is definitely the best way to do it. I'm not ideological; I'm a
very practical businessman myself, and I'm determined to make sure that we get
better services. That's what the whole point is.
DIMBLEBY: And you would accept that you've got to
get the Tim Rentons of this world on side if you're going to get it through to
the public that it's a good idea.
MACGREGOR: Well, I think I can deal with that
particular criticism. As far as fares are concerned, on commuter lines, for
example, where there is pretty well a near monopoly for British Rail at the
moment, compared with other forms of transport. We will be continuing to have
control over those fares. Remember there'll be quite a lot of subsidy going in
to those lines as well. So we will be continuing to have control and I don't
see any reason at all why what we are proposing should make any difference to
fares, compared with what we've got at the moment, except improve them.
DIMBLEBY: Now, let's take quite a lot of this
complicated Bill, bit by bit, so that the poor old punter can try and work out
for himself, herself, what actually is likely to happen.
MACGREGOR: I'm very happy to do that.
DIMBLEBY: Private operators are in there to make
money - obviously - otherwise they're not going to take it on. If they want
to, will they be able to run fewer trains on the lines on which they take up a
franchise?
MACGREGOR: Well, the first point is in there to
make money. Of course, that's the purpose of private enterprise (one of the
purposes), but they only make money by attracting more revenue, more income;
they only make money by providing better services and gearing them absolutely
to what the public wants. And this is always the danger and difficulty of a
monolithic nationalised industry. It doesn't have that culture.
I've had an awful lot of people
who have been privatised, existing employees who were in the nationalised
industry beforehand, saying to me that really privatising has had a galvanising
effect and they've really put the customer first, and British Airways is a very
good example of that - so are long distance coaches.
Now on the point you make about the
lines themselves and the services themselves, that will be part of the
contract between the franchising authority and the franchisee - the Company
operating the line, whether it's a management buy-out from British Rail or a
private sector Company in existence at the moment. That will be part of the
contract and, therefore, they will have to, in return, very often for
subsidy as well, they will have to deliver certain services which will specify
in particular the kind of thing you're talking about.
DIMBLEBY: But does this mean that you can't say at
the moment whether or not they might or might not be allowed to run fewer
trains than at presently run on the lines?
MACGREGOR: Well, we intend to maintain the service,
so I think that by and large it will always, it will be pretty well a full
service - whether every single train will operate at the time it's operating
now is, of course, a different matter, and they may well decide that they want
to put on more trains at different times, the private sector operators.
DIMBLEBY: And less at other times?
MACGREGOR: To attract more revenue. Well, if
there's a service that's attracting absolutely nothing, then obviously that
does make some sense, because what one's trying to do is to get more people on
to the rails when they want to go on them.
DIMBLEBY: At the moment there are eleven thousand
or so miles of track. Will the operators be required to keep all those miles
of track open and running?
MACGREGOR: It will be exactly the same as it's been
up to now for some years past. If there is a proposal at any point to close a
line or to close a service, exactly as some have closed in recent years, we
will maintain the same statutory procedures for closures.
Now I can't give a guarantee for all
time, because obviously if nobody is actually wanting to go on a particular
line then that would be a candidate for closure, BUT we will maintain the same
broadly speaking, with a few minor changes to reflect the fact that we've got a
different system, we will be maintaining the same strict statutory closure
procedures which are stricter than practically anywhere else in the world, and
I think that's the best guarantee one can give.
DIMBLEBY: Now when I read in today's - others will
have done - in today's newspaper (the Observer I think it was) saying that up
to a thousand miles of line might close under the pressure of the real
competitive world, that's not the case? There's no prospect of that under any
circumstances? Forever?
MACGREGOR: Forever? I mean I can't predict what's
going to happen way into the future. But just as there have been closures of
lines in the past when there has been a clear agreement following the statutory
procedures that it made sense, but that is NOT, and I repeat NOT, part of the
proposals we're putting forward.
DIMBLEBY: Now, as Secretary of State at the moment
you are responsible overall for those eleven thousand miles. Am I right to
presume that for the foreseeable future - the next three, four, five years and
beyond - you see no reason why any of those lines, that line that is now open
should be closed at all?
MACGREGOR: Any line at all.
DIMBLEBY: At this moment do you see closures
afoot?
MACGREGOR: No, but if at any point a closure
proposal comes forward, we go through the same strict procedures as we've been
going through for the last ten years, even longer, much longer than that.
DIMBLEBY: So what you're telling me is that the
franchise...
MACGREGOR: So what I'm telling you is there's no
change on closures at all as a result of our proposals.
DIMBLEBY: But what you are saying is that under
the future system there may be room for more closures if the operators can
persuade the statutory body that closures are needed and there may be fewer
services if the operator thinks there is not money to be made out of a
particular service.
MACGREGOR: No, no, no because the operator himself
will be actually contracting services in his original franchise so that'll be
very clear. Most franchises will operate for five years or more so it'll be
very clear from day one. But what I do actually expect is more services,I
think that there will be identification of more ways in which people can be
attracted onto the railways, that after all is the thrust, that is the whole
point of moving over to a private sector, that they will be keen to get more
people on the line in order to increase their revenue.
DIMBLEBY: No you used to claim not so long ago,
one of the great virtues of privatisation will be that it will bring more
competition to the railways, rival operators vying each other for our
custom on the same line, that's out of the window now.
MACGREGOR: No it isn't, it isn't at all. There is
going to be more competition, first of all you have competition between people
applying for the franchises, so you get a competitive element there, once the
franchise has been granted, if you have a series of franchises you have
competition between different lines, that's very clearly having an effect on
things like the electricity companies, the regional electricity companies
competing with each other and you know, for example, somebody will go on a line
and will say to the next line they are on they did such and such much better
where I've just been, so you'll get competition that way but you will also, we
also intend to continue to have open access for individual operators, not
everywhere because technically it may not be possible everywhere, but we intend
to do that and there will, incidently. I know we are not going to talk about
freight today, but it's a very important part of the proposals, there has been
a decline everywhere in the amount of freight going on rail, I am keen to
reverse that decline, I think talking to all the freight operators and
potential ones they agree that breaking up the British Rail monopoly and
getting more competition for freight is actually the way...the best chance of
achieving that.
DIMBLEBY: It's a strange new version of
competition that competition between a line let us say from Portsmouth to
Bristol is...there will be competition between an operator on that line and
let's say the line between Euston and Edinburgh. If I'm travelling from
Portsmouth to Bristol I'm not so interested in the competition that you allege
is there bewteen the person carrying me to Bristol and the person carrying
someone else to Edinburgh.
MACGREGOR: Because I think, and this is only one
part of it as I made clear, because you will have competition for the
tenders..for the franchisers..who tend to... (talking together)...no, no, no
it's also going to be about service, that will be a very clear part of the
franchise as you will see....
DIMBLEBY: But that is competition for a monopoly
potentially.
MACGREGOR: Well it's competition....not a monopoly
because I explained in any case it will still be open access but there
will be an element of monopoly in one sense in that you can't have two trains
running on the same track at the same time and one has to take all of that into
account and that's where British Rail is different, so what we are doing is
getting as much element of competition as you can, given the technicalities of
British Rail.
DIMBLEBY: Now let's, on these lines where you are
not going to have open access as you put, where there won't be competition as
you expect on some lines with different operators competing on the same track,
you will be replacing on those lines the exisiting public monopoly with a
rpivate monopoly. That's not competition.
MACGREGOR: Well the franchise only last for a
period so clearly the franchisee is going to be going all out to produce the
best service, but he will be also bidding for subsidy and the, I think the
process of franchising actually ensures competition in looking to get the best
service for the amount of subsidy that he wants to bid for.
DIMBLEBY: I'm sorry, I'm sorry Secretary of State
there is..if you are bidding for subsidy, that's one matter, that is not, with
respect, competition. Now, you may well argue, as you are seeking to argue
that they will seek to run an efficient service but they are not in
competition, they have a monopoly just like BR has a monopoly.
MACGREGOR: Well in some cases I have to acknowledge
that it isn't actually feesible, let me give you an example. Crowded commuter
lines at peak times during the day, I don't think it is actually feesible to
try to split up those lines and have one operator competing against the other.
What we are doing, and this is real estate, getting the best element of
competition in and getting the private sector thrust, is through the
franchising process, the bidding for subsidy, and incidently those coming in
for open access won't get subsidy, the bidding for subsidy you get that
pressure to produce the best service at the most effective cost.
DIMBLEBY: Now if the urge to have competition is
strong and you are having it, where you can have it, you obviously believe that
it is desireable to have competition in principle.
MACGREGOR: In principle, but....
DIMBLEBY: But then you can't get it on some lines
for reasons that you've explained..
MACGREGOR: I'm absolutely realistic about this,
that I think that one of the benefits of the way we are getting the private
sector into the railways here is to change the culture and I think that having
the motivation of increasing your revenue by getting more and more passengers,
giving them the service they way, is the best way of doing that.
DIMBLEBY: Does that mean those passengers...
MACGREGOR: And that was the big change incidently
that we saw in British Airways.
DIMBLEBY: But does that mean that those passengers
who are left to travel on British Rail, because no one wants those particular
lines, are going to get a worse service?
MACGREGOR: No, because I believe that what we
are..well I think increasingly the impact of franchising will improve services
all around but, I'm sorry I misunderstood your question, it doesn't mean they
will get a worst service, what we are looking for is better services and I
think those will come through the franchises.....(talking together)... but in
the areas that don't have franchaisees coming in, then in those cases, of
course, British Rail will continue to operate but I believe that the fact that
other areas are producing new ideas will have a gingering effect on them.
DIMBLEBY: Why, if you believe it is so important
to get rid of the existing culture and replace it with a better culture,
and you think that competition and privatisation will achieve better results,
how can you in the same breath persuade the electorate that the private service
won't be any better than the public service?
MACGREGOR: No, I didn't say that. I said - you
asked me would British Rail be worse..
DIMBLEBY: Alright, that way round. How can you
persuade them that it won't be worse?
MACGREGOR: I think it will be..the whole process
of privatisation, we'll be doing it, the franchising rather, we'll be doing it
gradually over a period. Now I expect about five to seven franchises in the
first year or so. That whole process will, I believe, have a galvanising
effect and gradually change the service all round. That's what we're after.
I'm not expecting a huge, big improvement in year one. I've made that clear
throughout. I think that the process will gradually improve it.
DIMBLEBY: If you're so interested in improving
service and creating this new culture, and improving British Rail via the
privatisation process as well, why don't you let British Rail bid for these
franchisesİand open competition for the others?
MACGREGOR: Because the best way is to enable
British Rail managers and employees to bid for them, as we've done in other
management/employee buy-outs, and we are very positively encouraging that and
we've already...
DIMBLEBY: Why is it better to do that? Why should
British Rail not be allowed to compete?
MACGREGOR: Because if you have a single monolithic
body called British Rail applying for the franchises you aren't actually
changing the system, but if you actually...
DIMBLEBY: They may win because they can do it more
efficiently.
MACGREGOR: No, no. If you get the managers coming
in and bidding - as we've seen in so many other management buy-outs - they have
new incentives because they're out there in the private sector and there are
real opportunities for THEM actually to do better for themselves and for their
employees in providing better services, and THEY gain the benefits. So we are
undoubtedly wishing to make use of the expertise, the dedication, the skills of
the new managers, but we believe the best way to do it is to enable them to
apply themselves for the franchises through buy-outs, and we are giving
positive encouragement to that.
DIMBLEBY: Now let me ask you about a report that
surfaces in the Sunday Independent today, because as we know there's not
exactly a rush of operators at the moment saying "We desperately want to be
on these lines". You're having to listen to them very closely to create the
conditions in which they want to come on.
MACGREGOR: No. No.
DIMBLEBY: Well, okay. You have got a rush have
you?
MACGREGOR: We've got a lot of interest but it makes
sense...
DIMBLEBY: Bit different from a rush isn't it?
MACGREGOR: Well, I don't know how you define rush.
There are about fifty companies....
DIMBLEBY: Everyone watching the programme's quite
interested I hope in the plans.
MACGREGOR: Fifty companies and a lot of
management/employee buy-outs from British Rail. That's a lot. But what I'm
keen to do is to make sure that we structure the franchises sensibly so that
they have the opportunities to improve the service and we get it right from day
one. That's why I'm listening and talking to them.
DIMBLEBY: The report in today's papers suggests
that your Department is saying that in order to create that framework that
will attract them you've got to invest massively more than is currently being
invested in rail, signals, stations, and soon. Is that true?
MACGREGOR: I didn't quite understand that report
because the headline said "Two billion pounds of Government support" - that's
actually what's happening this year so we are actually putting in Government
support through grants and ...
DIMBLEBY: And you're not after any more money?
MACGREGOR: Well, I got an extra amount - well over,
a further two hundred million pounds in the Autumn Statement.
DIMBLEBY: Well done, but you're not after any
more? You're not after any more than you've got in the future? You're happy
with what you've got
MACGREGOR: I got a very good deal for British Rail
in very difficult circumstances this year - an extra, well over two hundred
million pounds extra on top of the existing plans for next year, but then the
public expenditure round for next year is another occasion. Clearly, we have
to wait for that, but let me be quite clear - we have record levels of
Government support at the moment, higher than any for a very long time, and we
actually have record levels of investment in British Rail too; higher than for
the last thirty years, and that's a very important factor and I believe that
what we are doing will give the opportunity for more finance to come in for
investment.
DIMBLEBY: Well, let's have a look at that.
Passengers are extremely familiar at the moment with trains that break down,
carriages dilapidated, and they know that investment in the future in the
long-term is of vital importance. There's no guarantee at all that you can
offer, that private investors will in fact invest either more or indeed as much
as is being invested now by British Rail itself.
MACGREGOR: Well, can I just go through that because
British Rail obviously have had to take account of the declining revenue as a
result of the recession at the moment, and that's meant that they haven't been
able to proceed with all their plans as fast as they or we would like,
and that's one of the reasons why the Government is putting in these record
sums at the present time, to keep the investment at record levels.
Now, at the moment, the money for
investment comes from the revenues that British Rail attract and from
Government support. In the future, there will continue to be, of course,
obviously the money from revenues and I hope those will increase. As far as
Government support is concerned, we've made it clear that the subsidies for
socially necessary lines - and that's a large number of them - will continue
and a very large element of that, therefore, for which the franchisees will be
bidding, can go into investment.
But on top of that - and rail track, of
course, will be able to continue to get Government support - but on top of that
there will be opportunities for the private sector to start putting in their
own funding of rail stock, and I believe - rolling stock - and we've actually
introduced a new scheme this year in anticipation of privatisation for rolling
stock investment. We will be talking about how we can get a leasing market
going in the private sector next week. I believe that gradually we will see
that additional amount coming in so that, overall, we should be getting extra
investment in our rail system.
DIMBLEBY: But an investor, a private operator,
who's saying well, I've got five years on this line - because you want to keep
open that element of fear that he might lose it unless he does the service
jolly well - there's nothing to stop him putting a lick of paint on the
outside, tarting up the inside of old carriages and running them a bit further
into the ground. There's nothing to make him invest. And then he puts the
profits back into the pockets of the shareholders.
MACGREGOR: Well, I emphasise already that there
will be other methods, means of money coming in for investment, but that
wouldn't be a very satisfactory way of making sure that you get the franchise
the time after, and we'll get I think a range of different responses from the
private sector...
DIMBLEBY: He'd cream it off and then would want
something else.
MACGREGOR: We will have some long... Well, we're
also making arrangements which are in the Bill and which we'll be spelling out
as the Bill goes through Parliament for the handover of the rolling stock at
that point, but you'll see when we set up all the arrangements for the
Franchising Authority that those sort of things are fully taken care of.
I think what is important to emphasise
is that by being adaptable on franchises we will be able to encourage some to
come in and take longer franchises because they're making more substantial
investments. You may well get manufacturing companies wishing to set up leases
with operators, because they will have an interest in producing more rolling
stock. You will get a market developing in this, just as you have on the
freight side. I mean, nearly forty per cent of all freight rolling stock at
the moment is owned by the private sector, so there is a market there. The
problem is that British Rail has a monopoly on freight and what we need to do
is switch that round so you get better use of it.
DIMBLEBY: You talk about giving longer franchises.
Are you considering franchises up fifteen, twenty, twenty-five year franchises?
MACGREGOR: I haven't decided the precise time. We
will be reflecting on this very carefully as the debates take place in
Parliament, as the Bill goes through, but we're certainly looking for flexible
franchise lets.
DIMBLEBY: Of course. The attraction of the longer
franchise is it's better for investment - they're more likely to spend those
hundreds of millions of pounds on new stock.
MACGREGOR: Correct.
DIMBLEBY: The problem is that you end up with a
longer franchise which is ineffectively an entrenched private monopoly.
MACGREGOR: So what you're looking for is a balance,
in some cases it may make sense actually to do that but it will have a limited
time and there will all the way through be the incentive to that franchisee to
provide a better service in order to attract more revenue.
DIMBLEBY: It's a bit of a lick and a promise all
of this.
MACGREGOR: Well could I just say British Rail is a
very complex organisation. British Rail has a very substantial bureaucracy,
the problem is that at the moment you don't see it all because it is all in one
organisation and this is actually, I think, the answer, part of the answer to
that point made about bureaucracy. Now I believe that what we are proposing
will in the end slim this down.
DIMBLEBY: So far, listening to what you've very
openly said about what you hope might happen and here and there you have got a
lot of....you've got open questions still in your mind and you're still the
listening minister...
MACGREGOR: Only because I'm determined to get it
right and make a real success of it.
DIMBLEBY: Viewers may not be entirely convinced,
they may be I don't know, one thing that would certainly make them more
attracted to what you were doing is if you were to say I'm holding out the
prospect of cheaper fares to you, but you would not be so rash as to offer
anything like that, on the contrary.
MACGREGOR: Could I say that I think Tim Renton
had it right when he said that eventually when people see that there are
improvements they will understand exactly why we are doing all of this.
DIMBLEBY: That's an interesting gloss on what Tim
Renton had to say...
MACGREGOR: He said at one point, he did say
that..that is eventually where you'll get the answer and the better services I
think will come out...
DIMBLEBY: That's what we call in politics putting
a spin on it, what Tim Renton actually said was, what Tim Renton actually said
was, if it works, if it works they'll say well done, if it doesn't they'll say
what on earth have we got privatisation for, now that's what we are exploring
this for....
MACGREGOR: But I believe it is the best way
....(talking together)...yes on prices, what.. I said at the beginning that I
see no reason why as a result of our proposals prices should rise anymore than
they have been rising recently. What you will I think get is a whole, a more
imaginative and more varied approach to different kinds of services and
different kinds of fares, so I believe there will be a lot more discount
services which British Rail are doing to a certain extent now.
DIMBLEBY: Eighty per cent of travellers.. of
tickets at the moment are discount tickets, you are saying more than eighty per
cent will be discounts.
MACGREGOR: I think there will be...
DIMBLEBY: More than eighty per cent.
MACGREGOR: I think there will be a good deal more
variety in the way in which fares are structured and that can, in some cases,
certainly lead to lower fares.
DIMBLEBY: You're saying, I'm sorry, you said
there will be more discounting than now, eighty per cent of British Rail
tickets, I think I'm right, are discounted.
MACGREGOR: Well it depends whether you count season
tickets as a discount, and obviously..
DIMBLEBY: Well most season ticket holders do.
MACGREGOR: Well of course, well I mean if that is,
season tickets will continue clearly as a discounted service, but I am talking
about the additional kinds of services not season tickets on commuter services,
I'm talking about the others where I think that people coming in will want to
try different ways of doing things and that could mean lower fares.
DIMBLEBY: You see the rail traveller will think,
and surely would be right to think that the ticket price that they have
to pay in future after privatisation, doesn't only have to finance investment
as now, it has to finance the profits for the Bransons, the Sherwoods and
their share holders.
MACGREGOR: There is another very important point
here though, I think the evidence is clear that costs have improved, costs have
been got down, greater efficiencies have been got into systems, when
organisations are privatised.
DIMBLEBY: You mean like water.
MACGREGOR: Well water of course is..the main
thrust of the upward pressure on water charges is the colossal investment that
is now taking place in the water industry.....
DIMBLEBY: As is also...
MACGREGOR: ...a colossal investment, much higher
than it ever was when it was in the public sector because they are able to go
to the market. Now that colossal investment is partly to meet of course higher
environmental standards, to quite a large extent, which have been imposed on
the water industry.
DIMBLEBY: And as I understand it, colossal
investment is also required if British Rail is to be able to be efficient
enough to attract people to go on it, so by the same parity of reasoning, one
would expect rail prices after privatisation also to rise, people will say to
themselves it happened with water, of course it will happen with rail.
MACGREGOR: But Jonathan there are some differences
and one of the differences is that we have made clear that the subsidies will
continue and that's very clearly a source of investment and also there is a
very substantial ongoing investment programme taking place at the moment, the
film referred to the East Coast mainline. There are the network trains on
Network Southeast coming in...an eight hundred million pound investment. The
London, Tilbury and Southend line is getting a forty million pound contract on
its sibling which was announced last week following the Autumn Statement -
they've now drawn up the contract. So there is a great deal of that going on
at the present time.
DIMBLEBY: Yes, but we're talking about the public
sector, and I'm talking to you about the private sector...
MACGREGOR: And I am making the point that a
lot..most of that will continue, but that on top of it we should be able to
attract in private sector investment.
DIMBLEBY: Private sector investment, which will
also, as the public will doubtless be thinking, has top managers, top bosses
who have top scale salaries of the kind that have always been such an
embarrassment to the government after privatisation recently, even more
reason for ticket prices to go up.
MACGREGOR: I hope you are going to come onto
bureaucracy because it's a point I want to deal with, but could I just make a
point on that, one of the differences of the water industry is that very
clearly privatised railway..franchised, railway passenger services have to
compete with road, they have to compete with air, they have to compete with
other forms of service, they will want to maximise their revenue, simply
pushing up fares is not the way to do that because they will have to meet that
competition and therefore, they will have to make the judgement about how much
investment they put in, now that's quite a difference in comparison with the
water industry.
DIMBLEBY: You said you wanted to have a word on
bureaucracy, I want to get onto strategy and I've got to move on swiftly to
that. How do you answer the case that what you're establishing is a wonderous
new set of quangos which aren't necessary at the moment.
MACGREGOR: Two points, one is there is a very big
bureaucracy there at the moment which the public doesn't see. Secondly, the
only new authority we are actually setting up in all of this is the regulator,
and everyone agrees that it's desireable to have the regulator to protect the
consumer and to have fair competition, that's effectively at the end of the day
the only new authority, because the safety authority, rail track even the
franchising because that will distribute money, that's done at the moment
between my department and British Rail, all of those are already there so the
only new one is the regulator and everyone believes that is right, and it's
going to be a very slim operation. I believe that what we are proposing will
actually streamline the bureaucracy and cut it down.
DIMBLEBY: Finally, finally Secretary of State, if
this proposal were to be part of a coherent transport policy, you would be able
to tell me that one definite consequence of it would be to close that
yawning gap of price between travelling by road and travelling by rail with the
effect that you would wean people off roads onto trains and you cannot tell me
that with your hand over your heart anyway.
MACGREGOR: I can but how long have I got..
DIMBLEBY: You've got about half a minute.
MACGREGOR: Half a minute well I'll have to be
extremely quick. Now, first of all, you can well argue that it's not fair to
say at the moment that road users don't have to pay for the costs of the road
system, it's upto two and a half times what they put in in taxes and so on, but
secondly, I am producing a Green Paper very shortly and I announced that last
Autumn on extra ways of finance on the road system which will include things
like tolling and user charges. In that way I believe we will show that we get
a level playing field, even more than we've got at the moment and that we have
a strategy and, of course, we have clear networks for the rail system, the road
system, they are well laid out, they do work well together and on that side
too, we have a clear strategy for our transport system.
DIMBLEBY: And in a word, you're hoping this is not
going to be seen as the poll tax on wheels.
MACGREGOR: Well that was one person's description,
I am determined that it should not be.
DIMBLEBY: Secretary of State, thank you very much.
MACGREGOR: Thank you.
...oooOooo...
|