1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
SHOCK TACTIC
Page 85
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
E[OWEVER far he may go in his career, Mr. Ernest Marples, the Minister of Transport, will never be regarded as a good politician while he continues to make speeches in the same vein as his introductkon to the recent debate on British Railways in the House of Commons_ Like the child in the fairy tale who—alone of all the watching crowds—grasped the essential fact that the Emperor had no clothes on, Mr. Marples dared to speak the simple truth about the railways and road transport. The subsequent debate seemed to indicate that this was not at all thefunction of a Minister as Parliament understood it.
For all the apparent effect of Mr. Marples' arguments, he might have been talking to himself. It would be unfair to suggest that the other speakers had not listened to him, but most of them completely failed to grasp the significance of what he was saying. They seized upon points that, though not unimportant, were concerned more with parliamentary procedure and etiquette than with the problem of the railways. •
The Opposition speakers could not get over the fact that the Minister had set up an advisory group, the Stedeford committee, and was actually keeping their advice to himself. Whether the advice was good or bad, or whether the Minister proposedto follow it, seemed of -secondary importance beside the fact that he had no intention of publishing what would no doubt become known as the Stedeford report.
What Mr. Anthony -Wedgwood Benn found most disheartening in the Minister's speech was that it did not pay the customary tribute to Sir Brian Robertson, the chairman of the British Transport Commission. Mr. Marples, Of course, did not attack Sir Brian, and it is doubtful whether Sir Brian cares much if his name is mentioned in Parliament or not; but never mindl there should have been a shortpassage of eulogy, however meaningless in the context, and Mr. Marples' omission was unforgivable.
Upsetting Conventions Admittedly, the Minister seemed bent upon upsetting the usual conventions. The purpose of the debate was to accept the Commission's reportand accounts for 1959 and the report on the railways from the Select Committee on
Nationalized Industries. Far from accepting the two documents, the Minister more than hinted that the Commission had got their figures wrong and that the select committee really did not know what they were talking
He pointed out, for example, that the Commission's report hardly painted a true picture when it arrived at a figure of £42m. for the railways deficit in 1959. There was a further £42m. of central charges, mostly interest payments on capital, said Mr. Marples, and the revenue account was relieved of other interest burdens amounting to £26m. As a result, the true deficit was £110m. even before the cost of the modernization programme was taken into account.
With these and other figures as background, Mr. Marples chose that moment to quote the conclusion of the select committee that " there is no doubt that a large-scale British Railways system can be profitable." The inference was plain.
The Minister's speech may be summarized briefly. Transportivity on the railways is low. They are being subsidized, at a rate equivalent to 4d. in the £ on income
tax—paid by a public that is increasingly turning to road transport. A new committee is therefore being set up to see whether the efficiency of the railways can be increased and their size diminished, to such an extent that they pay their way and more exactly correspond to public demand.
These things have been said often before, but not often enough inside Parliament. The effect was traumatic, as the remainder of the debate clearly showed. Instead of dealing with the presentation of the facts by Mr. Marples. too many of the M.P.s who caught the Speaker's eye were content to put forward the arguments that had done duty in the past in so many debates on transport. The irrelevance of those arguments to the present situation passed unnoticed.
Effect on Railwaymen As befits the Member for Swindon, Mr. Francis NoelBaker was concerned with the effect on rail workers of the Government's policy as outlined by the Minister. There must be considerable sympathy with much of what Mr. Noel-Baker had to say, except when he went on to consider the relation between the Conservative party and the road haulage industry. One cannot come to any other conclusion," he said, "than that they have had a dominating influence on the policy of the Government and their attitude towards the railways." -Something of the same kind has been said many times before by members a the Labour party, who fail to realize that the situation has reached a point where the views of the hauliers can have no effect whatever upon what must ultimately be done.
On the previous day there had been one or two questions put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. about the 10 per cent, increase in rates announced by the Road Haulage Association. Possibly the questioners were aware of the similar increase imposed by British Road Services, for they did not press the point of the iniquity of hauliers. In the subsequent debate, however, Mr. Wedgwood Benn suggested that the increase would be an "added attraction " to those people who contemplated using the railways. Whatever the truth of this, it ignored the fact that the railways have apparently been charging 25 per cent, too little. They have recouped the balance from the taxpayer. whereas the haulier has had to go to his customer for the extra 10 per cent.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn Mr. Wedgwood Benn was the first spokesman in the debate for the Labour party and to that extent he had more opportunities than his supporters to bring out points that he considered telling. He saved until the last the accusation that in Mr. Marples the country had "a Minister who really does not like railways." This seemed to Mr. Wedgwood Benn a great tragedy, -although to many people it might seem something different. There is no strong evidence that the accusation is true. Early in his own speech, Mr. Marples said firmly that" we -must have a railway system." The gasp with which the statement was received was compounded less of scepticism than of astonishment that such a self-evident truth needed to be put into words. Parliament have for so long been guided by a determination not to be beastly to the railways tin public, at least!, that it may take them some lime to get over the shock of the Minister's latest analysis.