Morning:
14°c
HEADS they win, tails they win. This would appear to be the approach of the bosses of the rail operating companies to the question of fares. They are allowed to raise peak-time fares by one per cent above inflation - which is why fares rose in January by an astonishing six per cent, because the rates are set according to the Retail Price Index the previous July. But the prospect that during this year the economy may enter a period of deflation, or falling prices, means that, for once, fares next year may not rise at all or may even fall. This has resulted in the operators running to the Government to demand that they be allowed to ride roughshod over the rules and freeze fares for two years.
The Government has so far given the operators short shrift and it is right to do so. The operators in any case take full advantage of their ability to raise fares over the odds for offpeak journeys, while drastically restricting the availability and timing of reduced fares. Indeed, the rail minister, Lord Adonis, should make very clear that they cannot fleece offpeak travellers in order to make up for a fall in their inflation-linked fares. The operators, who make substantial profits, show no inclination to forgo their increases at times of rising inflation; they should not get away with an attempt to ride roughshod over the rules when it suits them to do so.
But it is not just rail executives in the private sector who are utterly shameless. As we report today, the bosses of Network Rail, the state-owned company that maintains the rail network, are awarding themselves, through Network Rail's remuneration committee, hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses. An internal letter suggests this is an "important aspect" of giving incentives to success. How about penalising the bosses for failure instead? That might produce rather better service for passengers.
Something to hide
THE Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, was right to argue that the minutes of Cabinet discussions about the war in Iraq should not be released. If ministers cannot be assured that their discussions will not be made public under the Freedom of Information Act, it could deter them from full and frank discussion of critical issues. And, given how politics works, important decisions would be more likely than ever to be decided in advance in corridor discussions between the Cabinet's big players, out of reach of the minute-takers. To some extent in Tony Blair's notably cliquish Cabinet, this happened anyway.
Having said this, the Government gives the impression that in the case of the discussions that preceded the Iraq war, it has something to hide. It probably does. The late Robin Cook recorded in his diaries that Gordon Brown, then Chancellor, argued passionately in support of backing the invasion. If true, it is something that he would now prefer us not to know, for very good reason. And there is no burying the suggestion that Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney General, may have changed his advice on the legality of the conflict under political pressure. The war that was approved by so many members of the present Cabinet is now discredited; small wonder they don't want it raked over.
Cameron's loss
THERE is sympathy right across the political spectrum - as expressed in heartfelt words today by the Prime Minister - for David Cameron, the Tory leader, and his wife Samantha, following the death of their six-year-old son, Ivan. The child had suffered from severe epilepsy and cerebral palsy since his birth and although he could engage with his parents, he could neither walk nor talk. The loss of any child is a tragedy for the parents but at least Ivan, during his short life, brought the realities of disability and the responsibilities of carers into the heart of contemporary politics. He certainly affected his father's approach to the NHS. Mr and Mrs Cameron have our deepest condolences.
