The Menace of Nationalization
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By E. B. Howes,
Managtng Director, A. Saunders and Son (Harpenden), Ltd., Chairman, Hauliers Mutual Federation.
THOSE who are so sure that the nationalization of transport is likely to be a good thing, the indifferent, and hauliers who, provided the compensation be snough, do not mind, should think again. There is plenty of basis for belief that nationalization would be the worst thing that could befall the industry, and, furthermore, would be a disaster of the first magnitude for the country.
Surely we have had examples enough of the mess the Government can get into when it deals with road transport?
In 1931, the Royal Commission on Transport produced an Interim Report that was full of wise and far-seeing recommendations. Had it been translated into action there would have been no further troubles of importance in the industry, and certainly no need for the inept interference to which it has since been subjected.
What did the Government of the day do about it? Nothing. It simply ignored it. Indeed, it did not await the Report, but took action before the Report was issued by passing the Road Traffic Act of 1930, which put passenger road transport in bonds which eventually led to the bulk of it being subject to railway influence.
Hardly had this legislation become effective when another Act was placed upon the Statute Book—the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. That dealt mainly with goods-carrying operators, and put a stranglehold on them. They were heavily taxed, so that their vitality was diminished, and placed in such a position that they could easily be bullied out of their just dues and rights by the railway companies. The latter were •given full power of objection to hauliers extending or even renewing their licences, whilst being practically immune from such action and free to add to their fleets of road vehicles.
The principal effect of these two Acts was to lower the efficiency of the road-transport industry, first by increasing its cost, and, secondly, by limiting its activities and preventin,, its natural growth. Then came the war, and with it abundant excuses for Government interference.
First the petrol restrictions, framed in a manner which showed at once that the Ministry knew nothing of the practical side of road transport or of the services it rendered. The story of that time is sufficiently recent for me to leave it untold. It is enough to point out that there were so many muddles that the M.O.W.T. decided, quite wrongly, that some further control was needed. In consequence, there appeared the first Government Scheme, the Chartered Fleet and the H.N.T.P. They were such a flop that the Ministry itself had to drop them.
Road Transport's Great Test 'Period There followed an interim period between one Government plan and the next. It so happened, too, that this coincided with one of the worst periods of the blitz, when, partly as the result of damage to the railways and partly because of damage to the ports, the demand for road transport transcended anything that had been experienced.
Road transport, on its own, directed by experienced operators, was more than equal to the occasion. It did all that was required of it and asked for more. That is something which is worth bearing in mind in reference to this threat of nationalization, which, it is suggested, would improve the capacity and efficiency of the industry.
Then came the next Government Scheme—the formation of the Road Haulage Organization, which still controls all long-distance road transport. As to that, I need refer only to the criticism passed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which condemned the scheme as uneconomic.
That control is still with us, and looks like being very difficult to remove. I am told, on good authority, that an inner ring of officials is hard at work on a plan which, in the course of a couple of years, will bring about a state of affairs which will make it possible for nationalization, once. agreed in the House, to become effective overnight. Whatever may be the truth of that, the fact remains that the Government, in the course of a decade and a half, has shown itself to be utterly incapable of dealing with the manifold, intricate and highly technical problems of our industry. Under Government control, road transport has become steadily less efficient; its cost has grown in inverse proportion to its efficiency. Yet if it be nationalized it will be entirely and completely in the hands of the Civil Service!
I often wonder if those in the T.U.C. and in the Labour. Party who talk so glibly of nationalizing the industry really know what they mean or appreciate what is involved. Do they realize, in the first place, what would be the cost of the acquisition of this vast industry, the third largest in the Kingdom? Have they appreciated that, with the national debt at its present figure, the country cannot afford to embark upon such an enterprise?
We could not afford it even if there were the certainty that the venture would be a profitable one, because we cannot spare the capital.
Nationalized Transport Would Be Uneconomic .
Since we know that, far from being profitable, it must be operated at a heavy foss, there is the more reason for stating that the country cannot afford it. Nationalized transport elsewhere has always shown a loss. Experience of Government handling of transport in this country has been such that we may be quite sure it will show one here. Does the Labour Government realize that, by nationalizing road transport, it will at once create a new and vast problem of unemployment? For taking that vital step will throw out of work thousands of efficient workers whose livelihood depends on the continuance of the status quo. Some manufacturers, many salesmen, publicity men, technical advisers, etc., would also become redundant.
There would be employment for many civil servants, more numerous, perhaps, than those workers displaced, but not of the same calibre, or with the same competitive incentive to give of their best. We should, virtually, be replacing active workers by drones. Instead of men who earn their living out of the industry by working hard for it, we would have men who derive their living from the Nation, men who would clog the wheels of the industry.
Has consideration been given to the fact that the transport industry is the key to all others; that the cost of trans port is a big factor in the cost of production of every com modity; that our very existence as a nation depends upon being able to produce goods for export at competitive prices? To nationalize transport would inevitably increase its cost, thus hampering the country's efforts to return to prosperity.
If once the almost-irretrievable step of nationalizing transport were to be taken, where would it end? Soon the manufacture of transport vehicles might be controlled and even the production of cars.
But would there be cars, except for the use of Govern ment officials? I think not. For if the Government became responsible for the railways it would. find that the drop in passenger revenues is, in normal times, largely due to the use of the private car. Now what is the R.H.A. doing? When are we to see some action as the result of the merger? Where is this " one voice" that was going to speak so loudly on behalf of the industry? It is because the N.R.T.F. is not taking strong action that other organizations, imbued with more spirit, are attracting recruits and growing quickly. The neW associations are moving, and are even now preparing, in conjunction with the Council of Retail ,Dis
trilautors, to hold a giant two-days' meeting in London, in the near future, to protest against the continuance of Government control of the industry and against this threat of nationalization.