Letter: Rationale for railways policy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I WAS NOT the intellectual father of rail privatisation in its current form - nor of the poll tax, for that matter ('Breaking up is hard to do', Business, 27 March). The White Paper setting it out was published in 1992 before John MacGregor became Transport Secretary or I his special adviser. Neither am I an academic nor have I been one for 16 years. In so far as I have had an influence on the development of railway policy, I gave a speech at the University of Leeds on 10 March, 'The Economics of Rail Privatisation', which set out a rationale for it: how, through a mixture of franchising and privatisation, it would provide incentives to all parts of the industry to deliver a better quality service.
Sir Christopher Foster
Coopers & Lybrand
London WC2
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments