Such endearing faith in the public sector, but it's not really any safer

A private company, properly regulated, is more likely to deliver safety and customer satisfaction than a public monopoly

Why, despite the dreadful record our government had in running British Rail, do people – after yet another catastrophe – hope that it can sort out Railtrack?

One of the enduring, even touching, aspects of developed world electorates is faith in the public sector. That is not just here in Britain. In the United States, airport security is being taken over by federal agents, even though another department of the US government, the immigration authorities, have been shown to be so ineffective that they issued a visa to one of the 11 September hijackers several months after his death.

Here in the UK we have remarkably solid support for the NHS, despite its evident failings, and that clever politician, Ken Livingstone, has managed to garner support for keeping London Underground entirely under public ownership, despite its uneven performance record.

And so it is with Railtrack. A privately-owned company, it is repeatedly argued, will always put less emphasis on safety than a publicly-owned one, because the former has to make profits. Bob Crow, the general secretary of the RMT union, put it this way: "We have contractors who use sub-contractors, sub-contractors who use agency staff, agencies who use casual labour and they are all in it for profits, not safety. Maintenance needs to be brought back in-house."

Railtrack probably ought to tighten up on its contractors, but the "profits not safety" argument is ludicrous. Still, many people passionately believe it. To argue instead that a private company or group of companies, sensibly regulated, are actually much more likely to produce a safe railway network is seen as perverse. People who don't want to be persuaded of this won't ever be convinced – but let me try.

The first thing to do is to look at other railways. The safest rail system in the world is Japan's. So it is state-owned? Er, no. It is split. JNR, the largest network, is in the process of being privatised and there has been no deterioration in its safety or indeed its punctuality record. In addition, there are a number of private-sector railways, which also have very good records. From Narita airport, you have a choice of trains to take you into town. The one run by the private sector goes to a slightly less convenient station but, last time I used it, was some 30 per cent cheaper. Condition of the privately-owned track? It has rather more curves that the main line into Tokyo central, so I suppose it was originally built to lower standards, but the ride seemed fine to me.

What about other transport industries? The obvious example is air travel, which has become steadily safer yet is largely – and increasingly – privately owned. Safety certainly sells. One certain way of damaging an airline commercially is to allow a reputation for poor safety to develop. You can see this in a very practical way. Airlines that have a bad accident record get shut out of the international alliances to which they need to belong to survive.

Airlines illustrate another myth about railways: that they need to be "integrated" to be safe. The airline industry is particularly specialised. Airlines do not own airports and have outsourced many of the services they use. Are the engines less well-maintained if a specialised contractor does the servicing? Do low-cost airlines get their fares down by skimping on safety? There is no evidence of either of those charges – exactly the same sort of accusations levelled at Railtrack.

Ownership of airports? Well, most UK airports are owned by BAA. By contrast, many outside Britain are under state or municipal ownership. So is there any evidence that BAA's airports, like Heathrow or Gatwick, are less safe than, say, JFK or Charles de Gaulle? Absolutely none – though none of this evidence will convince people who oppose moving air traffic control to the private sector.

What about car manufacturers? Not very many state-owned car makers remain, and you can't compare the safety of a Lada and a BMW. And I don't hear many people arguing that Renaults have become less safe now that the company is being privatised. What is clear is that companies like Mercedes that have pioneered safety have prospered on the back of it.

You can extend the argument that there is no evidence that private sector companies in general "put profits before safety" by looking at other industries. Heaven knows, the private sector has huge imperfections and there are certainly lots of examples where safety considerations have been set aside for commercial gain. But the punishment the market exacts for safety failures is so enormous – a single catastrophe can destroy a company – that in general the private sector is forced to push safety to the top of its priorities.

But only in general – which is why we need regulation. That is where the state comes in. Well-managed companies are very aware of the perils they risk running if they skimp on safety. But not all companies are well-run. Railtrack, sadly, has been an example of mediocre management. It was not helped by the reward structure under which it had to operate, nor by a dearth of investment during a half-century of state ownership. It took over a mess. But even given that mess, it should have done better. In particular, it should have paid more attention to safety.

How do you persuade the less well-managed elements of the commercial world to do that? In fact, we have huge experience of doing so. It is the great web of regulation and legislation. In just about every industry where there are significant safety concerns, there are regulatory bodies whose job it is to bring order to the industry.

The structure varies from industry to industry and from country to country. Airlines, by their very nature, have to be regulated internationally as well as nationally. Drug companies have to cope with different national regulatory bodies if they want to sell their drugs across national boundaries. Car companies have to comply with different safety regulations and pass a series of tests every time they bring out a new design.

Improving safety requires relentless attention to detail. With the airlines, every incident is analysed and the lessons that can be drawn are conveyed around the world. As a result, the whole industry has developed a culture of safety. When there is a major problem, investment either in training or in equipment is available. There are few industries under more profound commercial pressures, but the companies know they have to invest in making flying ever safer.

Actually, rail travel in Britain has become safer despite these recent crashes. It has not become safer at an acceptable rate, nor has the culture of the railways changed sufficiently. That will inevitably change now, because it has to. Whether the present regulatory structure is the most appropriate is open to question. But the key point is that a privately-owned company, properly regulated, is more likely to deliver both customer satisfaction and public safety than a state-owned monopoly. That is the experience of the rest of the commercial world. Why should railways be different?