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 franchisesÝand 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...