However, he wanted to ensure that Railtrack could still be privatised, and while the expected receipts for the company will belower, it is impossible to assess how the new regime will affect its valuation - variously put at £3bn to £4bn.Mr Swift said he was concerned with creating a "long-term stable regime for the railways" but he did not rule out future intervention if Railtrack failed to perform adequately.He added: "I believe expected savings from greater efficiency should be passed on to Railtrack's customers, while leaving Railtrack with real incentives to reduce costs or increase revenue further. He wants Railtrack to charge 8 per cent less than this year in real terms, and then reduce its charges by 2 per cent in real terms in each of the following five years. This amounts to a reduction for next year of £170m on total charges to train operators of £2.2bn.The cut will help British Rail tackle its current financial crisis which has left it £400m short for the coming financial year.Mr Swift said he wanted to "achieve a better balance of advantage between all the parties operating in the new railway market". He did not specify a new rate of return but instead imposed a reduction on the charges that Railtrack could impose. While the reduction imposed by Mr Swift is relatively modest, its impact on the profitability of Railtrack - and therefore on its market value - could be quite severe.

In a statement on the charges that companies will have to pay to use the railways after privatisation, Mr Swift criticised the Government's attempt to impose an 8 per cent rate of return on Railtrack's assets, which would have made it very expensive for train operators to run services and would have led to higher subsidies or higher fares. John Swift, the Rail Regulator, yesterday cut millions off the value of the soon-to-be privatised Railtrack and boosted slightly the prospects for rail franchises to be transferred to the private sector. However, he admitted yesterday:"We weren't gripped with a time deadline on this."The case continues today.. When no reply was forthcoming, Mr Gray said, Mr Cooper was force to write a chasing letter on 20 August: "Mr Cooper got a bit fed up with what he thought was prevarication. He makes plain that he was getting a bit miffed with what he sees as a `certain reluctance to co-operate'and adds that the matter is being placed in the hands of his [Robson Rhodes'] solicitors."Mr Judge, 45, of Elmbridge, Worcestershire, maintains he co-operated with the trustees and never heard any suggestion of court action, even during a cordial conversation with Mr Cooper two days before the article appeared. Paul Judge, director-general of the Conservative Party, is suing the Guardian newspaper, its editor-in-chief, Peter Preston, and two journalists, Paul Brown and David Pallister, over allegations in September 1993 that Central Office resorted to "old tricks" to obstruct trustees' inquiries and faced court action unless it co-operated. Charles Gray QC, cross-examining for the defence, told the court that Neil Cooper, head of corporate recovery at the accountants Robson Rhodes, a joint trustee in Nadir's personal bankruptcy, had written to Central Office on 16 June 1993 requesting that details of any personal donations be provided with "utmost urgency".Mr Judge replied on 7 July that Mr Nadir had made no personal donations to the party, and Mr Cooper wrote back a fortnight later requesting information about payments that may have been made through Nadir's companies or nominees. I said when they were allocated Iwould not cash them for three years.

After that time, I would translate them into shares in the company to give me a long-term stake.". Staff at Conservative Party Central Office "prevaricated" over requests from trustees representing Asil Nadir's creditors about donations the fugitive tycoon had made to the party, a High Court jury was told yesterday, writes Rhys Williams. Twelve months ago, the directors decided to allocate share options. Seven per cent went to executives and garage managers, and 93 per cent to employees.

They are now valued at £1.50 and could go higher when shares are traded. Mr Snape said he was not embarrassed by the share option scheme after being named in the Commons by Henry Bellingham, a Tory MP, who taunted Labour for cashing in on a "privatised success story".In a jibe at Labour's plans to keep British Rail as a publicly-owned service, John Major said: "I suppose it's another indication it's better to be a former Labour transport spokesman than the current transport spokesman [Michael Meacher]."Mr Snape said: "The company has been employee-owned for four years. Peter Snape, MP for West Bromwich East, a non-executive director of the West Midlands Travel company, was given 40,000 shares at 55p each after it was privatised. It also suggests adopting a code of practice for checking identity and qualifications.. A former Labour transport spokesman last night defended his position after it emerged he stands to enjoy a profit on paper of about £40,000 from shares in a privatised bus company when it is floated on the Stock Exchange. Then they apply for a loan.Provided that there are not too many checks on attendance during the first year, they then collect instalments of grant at the beginning of each term.Mr Higgins said last night: "This is big business. An individual will register at perhaps half a dozen universities on the same day and then collect the grant. They have computer equipment producing high quality examination and birth certificates."Many universities, says Mr Higgins, do not require attendance at a specified number of lectures or completion of a number of pieces of work before students are allowed to proceed to the next term.