The lateness of the white paper put before parliament was the result of a long debate in the government over the form that privatisation would take. According to the Daily Mail we were going "Back To The Goken Age of Trains". ". The government was planning a "rebirth of the fiercely prond and independent Victorian railway companies". There was, of course, no such age. The reality was one of industrial slavery, with incredibly long hours of work and absolute flexibility of staff who might be sent long distances away from their homes for a week's work, with no choice in the Just taking the figures for one year towards the end of Victoria's reign (1890), a year when accident figures were down on the previous year, we find 773 dead, 2,150 injured. Over the period 1875-94 more than 12,000 people died on the railways operators who resisted every salety negene which hoprivate cut this carnage.
What the government has finally decided to do is to
split the industry down the middle. A track authorily. - Railtrack - will own the track and the rest of the not rumally subside directly and vil have to cover its costs through charges to the train operators for use of its track I will be expected to contract out activities such as track maintenance "where it is sensible to do so". The federation of Civil Engineering; Contractors, desperate for work in the recession, has floated the idea of taking over the entire workload (currently carried out by a 30,000 strong engineering workforce)!
BR would continue as an operator of those services not franchised to private firms, but it will not be able to put in competing tenders. A regulating body would be set up (appointed by the government) to oversee track access and charging of users. There is a great deal of concern even amongst supporlers of privatisation over the level of charging for track use. If it is set too high then it will discourage firms taking on franchises. Since Railtrack is supposed to break even and its only source of income is from track users it is difficult to see how such charges are going to be kept very low.
The general idea of the franchising is that eventually BR will be supplanted as an operator. The reality will be somewhal different. Whist Branson and co may be interested in the more lucrative routes, those services which are socially necessary, especially out in the regions, as well as many local commuter routes are hardly liable to attract offers because there is simply no chance of a profit being made from them. The Public Sector Obligation grant (from the government) for 1990/91 paid out c528.8 million to Regional Railways and £1427 million to Network South Fast. Not a single service on regional railways offers a profit, with revenue producing as little as 30% of actual costs. These services however, are crucial for the travel of millions of people who do not have other means. The government has recognised this by indicating that it would offer part of the subsidies they currently give, to operators prepared to lake on such services. The franchise would go lo the company offering to accept the lowest level of subsidy. It is dificult to imagine many companies being attracted to such a prospect.
Overall what would happen is that private companies
would cream off areas of potential profit, whilst the rest of the network sank deeper into debt. Financial pressures will inevitably lead to cutbacks in service and lens of thousands of job cuts.
The practical application of the legislation promises do a busy railway will the dificult and the meland of casten and charging is not yet clear". (The government has commissioned consultants Cooper, Lybrand & Deloitte fo advise on how it should be done.) It is difficult to see how the Health & Safety Executive, which is grossly over-worked and under-stafled, is going to be able to lake on the lask of overseeing safety on such a massive network. For the workforce, privatisation would be an absolute disaster which would break up national conditions of service and rates of pay. You only have to look at the experience or the privatised bus network to see the "benefits of increased compelition". Not only has it led to a decline of services in many areas, but the wage levels of staff have been dragged down, whilst hours of work have increased. BR's expensive pamphlet which landed on the doormats of rail workers tells us that employees transferred to new companies will "take their existing conditions of service with them", adding innocently that any subsequent changes would be "a maller belween them and their new employers" : The government has "promised" to safeguard pensions, likewise an assurance which does nothing to case the fears of staff.