Guard's van of Thatcherism

very bumpy ride. On Monday Mr MacGregor will face the Commons transport

select committee to answer questions about British Rail's more stringent

funding over the next three years, which should be a warm-up exercise

for Commons Question Time, when he will reply to his numerous critics.

With the rail privatisation Bill due to be published in less than a

fortnight, the plans are coming under sustained fire from all directions

-- from senior Tories as well as Opposition MPs. Even Lord Ridley,

notable champion of privatisation, is gunning for the Government: he

regards the privatisation proposals as unworkable and predicts higher

fares, fewer customers, and ramshackle trains. More tellingly, the

doubters also include Sir Bob Reid, impeccable free marketeer, who was

appointed to implement privatisation. He fears that private companies

will put profit before safety and reliability -- something which already

appears to be happening in the run-up to privatisation, as the plans for

cutting down on maintenance workers in Scotland evidently illustrates.

All this poses difficulties for the Government's forthcoming campaign

to win public support for privatisation. So far it has not made an

impressive job of presenting its case. The plans have been modified

repeatedly and the rhetoric sends confusing signals. At the beginning of

this week the Prime Minister talked of ''semi-privatisation''. The next

day the Transport Secretary talked of going ''full steam ahead''. The

Prime Minister's phrase perhaps more accurately reflects the uncertainty

and ambiguity in Government policy. Last year's White Paper envisaged

that only the freight operations would be sold outright, with the

private sector being invited to bid for franchises to operate BR

passenger trains while the infrastructure remained in state ownership.

And now Mr MacGregor, despite his forceful railway metaphors, has said

that in the first year of privatisation only about half a dozen

franchises would be given to the private sector.

This may be preferable to what most people would understand by ''full

steam ahead'', but whatever terminology is used it still looks like a

recipe for confusion. Two very serious objections to the plan have been

raised -- Sir Bob Reid's point about safety, and the concerns about the

effects of separating management of the track from management of the

services. The prospect of competing services running on the same line is

causing a lot of furrowed brows, for it is something that never happened

when the railways were formerly in the private sector and some people

believe that it is totally impracticable. Some of the transport

executives who are potentially interested in bidding for private

franchises insist that they would need more control of the tracks.

Freight users also have their doubts.

The Government's repeated policy modifications could perhaps be

represented as pragmatism. But true pragmatism would go much further and

would pay attention to the objections of those most closely involved. If

Sir Bob Reid, with his unquestionable free market credentials, is

dubious, then is it wise to go even half-steam ahead? On a pragmatic

view it is clear that what the railways most need is adequate

investment. The last thing they need is what one Tory MP has described

as ''a dated political commitment''. Sir Bob also sees the plan as

doctrinaire and has expressed fears that it could cause long-term damage

to the railway network. If Mr Major had the political nerve to abolish

the poll tax he should surely be able to develop a relevant and

confidence-inspiring strategy for the railways rather than applying the

Thatcherite nostrums. The privatisation plan looks more like the guard's

van of Thatcherism than the vanguard of progress. In this, just as in

its pits closure proposals, the Government may be running up against the

limits of public opinion. There is no strong desire for further

privatisation of utilities and services, but rather a possibly growing

feeling that the provision of certain basic services should remain a

collective responsibility. At any rate, publication of the White Paper

should provide a significant test of public opinion.