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
145
146
147
148 
TOPLESS TOWER
Page 81
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE ripple of public interest created by the release last month of a study on transport by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce was almost obliterated by the tidal wave from the Government's White Paper. It remains a useful exercise to compare the two documents, which both make a determined effort to grapple with the enigma of a vast structure, gimcrack at the best, built for one purpose and now to be adapted for something completely different.
The study was concerned with transport as a whole and is bound to take up some points not dealt with in the White Paper, much as one would like to have an official Government statement upon them. It is axiomatic, says the Association, that the trader .should remain free to operate his own vehicles under C licence. They add the interesting comment that professional ,transporters, road or rail, are always developing and improving their facilities, and that these developments are worth studying before a decision is taken to renew or expand a C licence fleet.
Almost certainly the Government would agree with both statements, although there is nothing aboutthem in the White Paper. The official view is less certain on the suggestion by the Association that a review of the licensing system is needed, and that in the interim the Licensing Authorities should give a more liberal reception to applications, with objections and the need to give evidence reduced to a minimum. "The abolition of any locational qualification as a basis for a licence is essential,the Association add.
Where the study and the White Paper are on the same ground there are one or two clashes of opinion between them. The Association see no virtue in the financial interest held by the British Transport Commission in the Tilling, Scottish or B.E.T. groups, whereas the Government clearly intend to retain that interest through the holding company that is to be set up as one of five main bodies directly responsible to the Minister of Transport.
On the other hand, the Association do not go nearly as far as the White Paper in their proposals for British Road Services. in the interests of greater co-ordination, they recommend that B.R.S. should be made subject to the railways as if they were a railway region. The Government think it better to separate B.R.S. from any other goods transport section and to put them also under the holding company. Co-ordination will be the responsibility of the Minister assisted by his new advisory council, and further arrangements will be made for co-ordinating day-to-day activities.
Eligibility for the holding company includes apparently a sound financial standing. The businesses in the company are expected to yield a good return, just as if they were operated under private enterprise. The Association, somewhat surprisingly, seem to doubt the ability of B.R.S. to do this. The study admits no more than that they have reorganized themselves into a "marginally profitable unit, althbugh not strong enough to support capital liabilities." This doubt about B.R.S. is one reason why the Association would prefer them to remain in public ownership.
The study also envisages the expansion of B.R.S.. so long as this is in fair competition with other hauliers. There is no comment on this point in the White Paper, and this is not surprising in view of the categorical pledge given by the Conservative Party in a document as official and as recent as the 1959 General Election manifesto, which stated: "We are utterly opposed to any extension of nationalization, by any means."
The niggling doubt that this may not mean what it evidently says—coupled with the contradictory proposals of the study and the White Paper, the Railway Conversion League and the Road and Rail Association, and the Conservatives and the Socialists—underlines the unrealistic position that has been reached. Nobody really knows what should be done with nationalized transport, and it may be said in a sense that any solution to the problem is as good or as bad as another. Bitter experience has shown that. however many modifications may be introduced, the B.T.C. were not suited to their original purpose and are perhaps still less suited to the functions that they or their successors will now be called on to perform.
The Socialists who built the Ivory Tower did not make a particularly good job of it. The many flaws, such as the unresolved relationship between the Commission and the executives, and the plain need for more and more restrictions to sustain an uninviting monopoly, might have led to disaster had the Labour Party remained in office. From the first the intentions of the Socialists were never clear even to themselves, and there were a number of important points on which they apparently agreed to differ.
All public long-distance transport, it was proclaimed, was to come under one control and was to be "integrated," although to the very end the meaning of that vital word was never made clear. The phoenix born from the ashes of private enterprise was supposed to provide a service rather than to make a profit. In spite of this, the Transport Act, 1947, laid down the unenforcible doctrine that the Commission should pay their way, taking one year with another. The monopoly set up by the Act seemed destined sooner or later to involve inroads into the freedom of the customer, but the safeguarding of that freedom was nevertheless written into the Act itself.
In so far as nationalization conformed to a positive plan. all the signals are being reversed in the White Paper. Integration in every shade of meaning has been abandoned and competition is to reign to the fullest possible extent. The profit motive is to be firmly implanted—or as firmly as the soil will permit—in every branch of nationalized transport. For a time the railways are to be handled with kid gloves, but there will evidently be trouble if there is still an annual railway loss after five years or so.
But although the principles have been so radically changed, they still have to be arranged within the shell originally built for their predecessors. There is no talk of actually pulling the Ivory Tower down, although what was, intended to be the very keystone itself, namely the Commission, is to be taken away. It was never of much use at its best and has been slowly declining in importance. Nevertheless, something or somebody must take its place and this is where the intrepid Minister steps in, establishing with the various boards and companies, as far as the White Paper lets us into the secret, a kind of rriystical relationship even more ineffable than integration.