Social commitment is the key

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.