AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

topic

6th July 1973, Page 91
6th July 1973
Page 91
Page 91, 6th July 1973 — topic
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Rail

Whose side are you on anyway?

"COUNTER-INFLATION, as the Government calls it," said Maggie's brother Cromwell, "seems to be no bad thing for road transport."

"It may sound like another name for a puncture," I said. "But whatever it signifies, hauliers seem able to keep going."

"They are doing better than that," said Cromwell. "The expectation is so general, that my friend Attila the haulier finds it difficult not to increase his rates by at least 5 per cent, which is more than he has ever succeeded in getting out of his customers before."

"The Prices Commission seems a little more friendly," I said, "than the old Prices and Incomes Board, for whom a recommendation was little better than a four-letter word."

"But the Pay Board is not equally helpful," said Cromwell. "Attila is not allowed to spend the extra 5 per cent on the wages he must offer to get drivers of the vehicles that will earn him that same 5 per cent."

"At least he is doing better with his rates than the railways," I said. "They are fortunate, on the other hand, in having more than one way of finding money at least to meet deficits."

-And the opportunities are many times greater now that we are in the Common Market," said Cromwell. "You must have seen the warning broadsheet put out by Transport 2000 under the title How the EEC can benefit British Rail. When we are supposed to be thinking of counter-inflation, Transport 2000 goes to the other extreme. It even revives some figures that Richard Marsh gave several months ago and might now prefer to forget. He pointed out at the time that in 1971 the French railways got £.500m and the German railways £700m from their Governments, as compared with British Rail's measly E100m. The strong hint from Transport 2000 is that we shall all have to pay much more unless we are careful."

"It all goes to show," I said, "how when you support the railways nothing that helps them can be wrong. So we must rejoice, now we are in the Common Market, that we can at last be on a parity with France and Germany, and hand the railways with a cheerful heart the subsidies which we grudge giving for butter or beef."

"You are making Transport 2000 sound more naive than it is," said Cromwell. "As you can guess from its name, it is a forward-looking organization, and probably believes that, in a world ruled by reason rather than by sentiment, there would be no more railways by the time we reach the year 2000. As I said a little while ago, the purpose of the new publication is to warn us that, if we are not careful, our membership of the EEC will force the Government to pay more and more money just to keep the railways going".

"What you are suggesting," I said, "is that, in choosing the title How the EEC can benefit British Rail, Transport 2000 is merely being sarcastic."

"That would be a good description for much of the document," said Cromwell. "Take the passage, for example, which points out that under the EEC regulation there is no more nonsense about the railway subsidies being a social grant. The payment is to be made to BR by the Government, says Transport 2000, 'as of right.' Do you suppose that this is intended to convey approval?"

"Certainly," I agreed, "the public do not like to hear that they must pay by compulsion, whether they want to or not. But this makes no difference to the amount of the payment, which is what counts in the end. A subsidy by any other name ..."

£700m squeeze "Let me read you another passage," said Cromwell. "'The second worrying aspect of the Common Market is the assumption that the three modes of transport should compete with each other for the business of carrying people and goods.' This is irony laid on with a trowel. There is no evidence that anybody, and this includes the railways, is opposed to, or as Transport 2000 puts it, is 'worried' about competition."

"It is hard to imagine any undertaking being worried about anything," I said, "if it believes it can squeeze £700m a year out of the taxpayer.

"You are beginning to get the point," said Cromwell. "If you look closely at the wording, you will see that what Transport 2000 actually finds worrying is the 'assumption,' and this is worrying because it is not soundly based. If the railways are to be subsidized 'as of right,' there can hardly be any real competition."

"The compilers of the Transport 2000 pamphlet have looked more carefully than most of us," I said, "at the rights of the railways under the relevant EEC regulation. According to one heading it contains 15 classes 'under which compensation is due.' " "It is easy to understand that this would worry a group of people who look to the future," said Cromwell. "There must be so much compensation owing that we shall still be paying it years after the railways have stopped running and all the tracks look like those selected for the British Rail advertisements."

byJANUS


comments powered by Disqus