Maternal Instinct
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN Parliament discusses the latest report of the British Transport Commission, it will be interesting to see whether Members notice some of the contradictions that at various points betray the conflict between fact and opinion. The Commission's task in preparing their report is roughly the same each year. The statistics follow a pre-arranged pattern that allows fairly easy comparison with previous returns. In the report itself, the Commission enlarge upon the figures, and draw certain conclusions from them. Naturally, the commentary follows the lines that the Commission choose, and puts the work and the results of the Executives in the most favourable light. The task of Parliament will be to get behind the commentary and endeavour to find out what really happened.
The Commission would like to prove all their ducklings to be swans. Their anxiety over any particular case is often a useful indication of its lack of strength. They will defend the weakly child with all the means at their disposal, but will leave another child largely to make its own way in the world. An interesting example of this is the contrasted treatment in the 1952 report of the work of the Commission-owned bus companies and of the Road Haulage Executive.
In dealing with the Tilling and the Scottish bus groups, the tone of the report is relaxed and, therefore, convincing. There is nothing to hide or explain away. Receipts at £48.2m. in 1952 exceeded the previous year's total of £43.9m. by approximately the same amount as the expenditure had increased, so that for each year the net revenue has been nearly Vim.
The report builds a somewhat more debatable structure on this solid foundation. There have been, it is stated, economies which have offset many of the increased costs. The reply may well be that such economies would have been achieved were the companies wholly independent. The development of an argument on these lines is likely in view of the changes foreshadowed by the Transport Act, 1953; but nobody will deny that, whether under the Commission or under free enterprise, the bus groups are well able to stand on their own and let their annual results speak for themselves.
On the Defensive Turning from what the report says about road passenger transport to what it says about road goods transport, one gets the immediate impression that the Commission are here on the defensive, bristling with arguments and excuses to protect their somewhat backward offspring. It is significant in itself that, in the chapter on finance, the Tilling and Scottish bus groups are given two paragraphs, and the R.H.E. 2f pages. The difference is even more fundamental. The brief statement on the groups is perfectly clear; but it is hard to say what, if anything, is meant by much of the section dealing with the-R.H.E.
"The year 1952," it begins, "saw the consolidation and improvement of the organization, accompanied by a decrease in traffic due in the main to the reduced national output of consumer goods. Setting the two factors off against each other, there was still a net improvement in the economics of the services, though this is not apparent in terms of money, owing to the changes in wages and price levels." Having made this boast, the Commission now tackle the more difficult task of proving it true. The report claims that the effects of the reduction in traffic were mitigated by a large cut in vehicle mileage amounting to 7.6 per cent. This is not very convincing. When there is less traffic, one expects the mileage to fall. In fact, the tonnage of traffic fell by more than 10 per cent., and, as I pointed out last week, empty mileage last year was almost similar to that of 1951.
An attempt is next made in the report to extract credit for the R.H.E. from the table showing vehicle operating costs, consisting of wages, fuel, tyres and lubricants. In 1952, there were substantial increases in wage rates and the cost of fuel, and a fall in the price of tyres. If the level of traffic had remained the same, the effect of the price changes in 1952 would have been an increase of nearly £3m. in operating costs. The actual increase was £400,000. The difference is accounted for "partly by the smaller mileage run, but in the main by the concentration of operations and the resulting economies. Per mile, the vehicle operating costs increased by only 0.92d., which is 8.2 per cent. over the cost per mile in 1951."
More Than Expected
Assuming that the figure of Dm. is correct, it repre sents only 71 per cent. of the vehicle operating costs in 1951, which amounted to approximately £39m. The cost per mile, therefore, went up slightly more than one would have expected. The Commission seem to make a virtue of it by linking it with the more economic running which is boldly stated as a fact, but nowhere satisfactorily proved.
The work of more than one hand is visible in different parts of the report, and sometimes even in the same part. At one stage, the expansion in the fleets of C-licence holders is shown as the British aspect of a general European trend. The implication is that the expansion has had no effect, on the public carrier; but later the increased competition from C-licence holders is advanced, among other reasons, for the decline in the traffic carried by the R.H.E.
The accusation is extended to -hauliers who carry goods beyond the 2.5-mile limit, with or without a permit. It is also stated, however, that the R.H.E. "maintained their share of the smaller volume of traffic available for conveyance by road." Another curious point, which emerges from the statistics but is nowhere emphasized in the report, is that by far the greatest decline in R.H.E. traffic was in respect of local services, where 21 per cent, less was carried in 1952.
Trunk and tramp services carried 8f per cent. less than in 1951, and receipts from these classes of work were actually a little higher. These percentages do not necessarily provide a means for measuring the fall in traffic carried within and beyond the highly artificial boundary of 25 miles, but it would have been helpful if the Commission had reconciled the figures with the complaints about permits and about the illegal activities of hauliers.
It is unfortunate for the B.T.C. that, if Parliament does have an opportunity for a debate on the report, the main discussion will be concerned with the R.H.E. The Commission, one suspects, know well enough which of their brood is the least well-favoured,