Outlook: Jarvis fails to learn the first rule of holes; just stop digging

Rail maintenance companies should know better than to pick fights with train crash survivors. By raising its dividend 15 per cent yesterday, Jarvis, the contractor responsible for the stretch of line at Potters Bar where seven people died last month, has done just that.

Jarvis' behaviour is eerily reminiscent of Railtrack's decision to increase the payout to shareholders while the rail network was still struggling to recover from its biggest peacetime shutdown – again the result of a fatal accident caused by poor maintenance. In retrospect, it was probably the straw which broke the camel's back and re-inforced the Government in its determination to pull the plug on the company and its shareholders.

If there is a lesson here, Paris Moayedi, the chief executive of Jarvis, appears not to have learnt it. He was sticking rigidly to the script yesterday. The assertion that it was sabotage which caused the crash was being downplayed but Jarvis remains adamant that it is "inconceivable" that its staff could have been responsible for the faulty Potters Bar points. Mr Moayedi went well beyond that, insisting that he would not resign even if Jarvis was ultimately found to be responsible. His legal advice is that there is no risk of corporate manslaughter charges being brought and the word from the insurers is that they will pick up the bill even if Jarvis is found guilty of gross negligence.

So shareholders don't have to worry, whatever the misery the company may or may not have been responsible for. Mr Moayedi is missing the point. Just as control of the network has been ripped from Railtrack's hands, there is an increasing danger that responsibility for maintenance and renewal will be taken back in house by the not-for-profit company being created to replace Railtrack.

That could do terminal damage to a company like Jarvis, which is reliant upon the rail industry for a third of its income and depends on the public sector for much of the rest. The 40 per cent decline in the Jarvis share price since Potters Bar reflects the trouble Mr Moayedi's company is in, but he doesn't want to recognise it. Instead, he seems more concerned with the injustice of being wrongly held to account for Potters Bar – like being "circumcised with a mallet" to repeat the bizarre analogy used by Mr Moayedi yesterday. In raising the dividend so soon after the tragedy and protesting so vigorously, Jarvis is being at best grossly insensitive. It may also be profoundly damaging its longer-term prospects.

Estate agents study

According to surveys, estate agents are among the most loathed people in the land, so the Office of Fair Trading must think it is striking a popular note in ordering one of its new fangled "studies" of the market. These are not full competition act investigations, but more in the nature of a trawling exercise to establish whether there is anything untoward going on which might merit further action. John Vickers, director-general of Fair Trading, can allow himself the luxury of such fishing expeditions because the Government has just given him a barrow load of extra money to seek out business abuse wherever it may be.

As far as estate agents are concerned, the issues are well known. There is very little, if any, price competition between estate agents, the number and value of transactions has risen dramatically over the past 10 years yet there has been no corresponding reduction in charges, and abuse, real and suspected, remains rife. The OFT is hoping to come up with suggestions that make the market more transparent, and as such the "study" seems a relatively harmless exercise. None the less it is not entirely clear what the OFT thinks it will achieve. Shop around in obtaining a valuation for your home and don't accept the first one that comes along? That's a matter of common sense, isn't it?

As for abuse, most of the obvious stuff is already illegal. Estate agents can and are struck off for engaging in practices such as backhanders for finding purchasers favourable deals. You don't have to sell your house through an estate agent, and if the 1.5 to 2 per cent commission estate agents commonly charge seems like a rip-off for the amount of work they do, just compare that to the 4 per cent money down the drain you'll be paying in stamp duty on any purchase above £500,000.

Are estate agents encouraging the boom in house prices? Yes, of course, but it is the function of a salesman to get the highest price the market will stand, and as things are, the sky seems the only limit. It would be churlish to dismiss the OFT's initiative as entirely worthless but, loathed though estate agents are, it is not a totally dishonourable profession. There are far too many Government-sponsored investigations of business already. Do we really need another?

Murdoch's no to euro

So that's it then. No euro referendum next year after all. Rupert Murdoch has said unequivocally that all his newspaper titles will campaign against the euro in the event of a referendum. If nothing else, this must be a bit of a blow to the new editor at The Times, who seemed to be subtly shifting the paper's position to a less eurosceptic one. In recent interviews, he has said he is completely open minded on the euro and would judge the case for joining on its merits when the time came. Not now he won't. The boss has spoken. Tony Blair, the prime minister, will not wish to go into a euro campaign with the Murdoch press against him, the theory goes, so if Mr Murdoch says no, he won't risk having one at all.

Well maybe, but in point of fact the Prime Minister doesn't have to think this way and probably won't. The Sun prides itself on being terribly influential these days, but the reality is that few of its readers take any notice of what its leaders say. During Kelvin Mackenzie's glory years as editor, a survey famously found 60 per cent of readers thought The Sun supported Labour. The leaders don't matter. The balance of the news coverage matters more, but even then it is by no means clear that The Sun would be capable of swinging any referendum vote. The UK press is more evenly balanced between a pro and anti-euro position than generally thought, with The Independent, Financial Times, The Guardian, Daily Express, The Star and The Mirror (and Sunday stable mates) ranged against The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Mail and The Sun. Combined circulations favour the no campaign, but not overwhelmingly so.

In the end, the electorate will vote not with The Sun or The Times but with the politicians and businessmen they most trust. On this front, Ian Duncan Smith, Tony Benn and Stanley Kalms are going to be no match for Ken Clarke, Tony Blair and Niall Fitzgerald. Mr Murdoch's opposition is hardly going to help the yes campaign's prospects, but actually the personal prejudices of Britain's most powerful media baron are the least of Mr Blair's problems with the euro vote. Much more worrying is the presumed opposition of his next door neighbour, Gordon Brown. The Chancellor will make the Treasury's five economic tests swing which ever way he wants them to.

Both publicly and privately, Mr Brown remains inscrutable in his views, but that he has cooled to the idea is not in doubt. He's become too comfortable doing things his way than to want to have Europe do them for him. In calling a referendum, Mr Blair's main worry will be of splitting the Government down the middle.