Labour Will Go 'or "Public Ownership"
Page 58
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Compensation would be paid • No nationalization of motor manufacturing industry • Rural bus aid
An interview with Mr. George Strauss by The Editor
As the General Election approaches, the road transport industry is seething with rumours awl speculation as to what the Labour Party has in mind for road transport, should it be elected to power. The Labour leader, Mr. Harold Wilson, steadfastly refuses to commit his party to a policy on transport. When pressed, his colleagues have not till now been impressive in their utterances.
Like everyone else in road transport, The Commercial Motor has become cynical and tired whilst waiting for an official Socialist transport policy. In the absence of a stated policy, and because it is impossible to believe Mr. Wilson thinks transport to be unimportant, two conclusions seem possible.
The first is that a major carve-up of road transport is envisaged, and the Socialists would prefer not to say so until they have control.
The second possibility would seem to be that Mr. Wilson does not agree with his extremist followers, intends to follow a more moderate line, but dare not tell them so before an election.
Whatever the reason, the present situation is not satisfactory, so I set out to get some answers. First, I wrote to Mr. Wilson, asking for an opportunity to discuss transport with him. I did not hear from the Socialist leader but got a prompt reply from his private secretary, who said Mr. Wilson could not fit it in. She added: "He is not, of course, able to deal in detail with every policy matter ", and referred me to the Party transport spokesman, Mr. George Strauss.
Over a pot of tea in the House of Commons, 1 got one or two pointers from Mr. Strauss who, I must admit, was much more specific than when he spoke last year to the London Transport Managers' Club.
Can his answers be taken as " policy "? I think (in view of Mr. Wilson's disclaimer) that they must be taken as official Labour Party thinking at the very top. It must, therefore, follow that these are the strongest pointers yet to what the Socialists will do if elected to govern this country.
I would particularly emphasize five points. First, the phrase "public ownership in some form or another "; this cannot bode well for operators of long-distance road transport, whether Aor C-licensed. Secondly, Mr. Strauss' very firm denial that the Labour Party would acquire businesses without compensation; he was most emphatic about this. Thirdly, his equally emphatic denial that they wanted to nationalize the motor manufacturing industry. Fourthly, he said quite frankly he could see no specific C-licence traffic which lent itself to transfer from road to rail. Lastly, he seemed firmly in favour of Exchequer subsidization of rural transport on an individual-route basis—each case being considered on its merits.
This was our discussion: Am I right in assuming that you are the official Labour spokesman on transport?
I am the front bench Labour Party spokesman, but this does not necessarily mean that I will be a Minister in the Government.
c30 The big question for the road transport industry is, if the Labour Party is elected, does it intend to renationalize long-distance road haulage?
We refuse to be precise in how we are going to implement our general policy. We realize that until we are in a position to have the expert advice of the knowledgeable people inside and outside the Ministry, and are able to consult the interests concerned, we cannot be precise in our detailed policy.
But would it be right for us to say that there will be public ownership in some form or another?
You could certainly use that expression.
If the Labour Party were in power and it proceeded with some form of public ownership, would it give effect to remarks which have been made by some Labour M.P.s that the would not pay compensation a second time?
Oh, definitely not. That was a remark made shortly after denationalization, in 1953. What they really meant to say was that no one would get double compensation. But for any firm which was taken over there would be, as previously, fair compensation paid to all the interests concerned.
Would you not think that British Road Services is at the optimum size for administration at the moment and, if it had a large number of units accruing to it willy-nilly, this would tend to make B.R.S. less profitable?
I would not accept that, and I do not think the management of B.R.S. would accept that. This is an organizational point. It may -require further decentralization—I don't know. But I do not accept the view that a growth of B.R.S. would make it less remunerative or less efficient.
There has been a lot of talk of transferring traffic from road to rail, but nobody has quantified this. Can you see any types of traffic which you think should be so transferred? Do you think any should be transferred?
am sure there is a good bit of traffic on the roads which, in the national interest, should go onto rail. It may well be that it is slightly more expensive to the interests concerned to go onto rail, but nevertheless it is nationally desirable. For example, I believe there is a good bit of coal which is now delivered in bulk vehicles to the consumer by road. It goes by road because it is rather cheaper. Coventry is choked—so my colleague in the House tells me—with lorries carrying coal, causing enormous damage to the city, its industry and its amenities. I have no doubt—and I quote this as an example—that this type of traffic should certainly be considered to see whether it could not go by rail, and it would be better in our interests today. I have no doubt that there are other traffics (which go by road because it is cheaper) which Could go ideally by rail. Now I quite realize that a lot of this traffic has to go by road; but this does not mean that there is not a section where, in fact, the railways would be equally good from the point of view of efficiency although the cost might be, in some cases, slightly higher.
What future would you envisage for road! rail co-operation of the type that Dr. Beeching is talking about with liner trains, and so on?
' There is an enormous field for better co-operation here. Until one studies the thing on the spot, with the facts and figures, one cannot make any useful comment. But as a general principle, obviously this co-operation should be at a maximum, and r see no reason why it should not be done in respect of the liner trains. In principle, I am 100 per cent in favour; hut as to how it can best be done and to what extent it should be done I cannot give an opinion..
C-licensed traffic seems to be the type of traffic to which most people usually turn for transfer to rail. Can you see any specific C-licence traffic which lends itself to this?
No. The Geddes Committee is considering this problem and it will be very interesting to see what they report. They may find that there are sonic traffics which should be diverted: but again, without the expert knowledge it is impossible to say Of course, it is easy to see the traffics which cannot be diverted. To answer this, one requires to be in the seat of power and to have all the information available.
C-licence vehicles have been growing in numbers all over Europe, very often at a faster rate than in this country. Why, therefore, do you think they are under such attack in this country?
Some article I was reading on the subject said they were growing at about the same pace in relation to industrial expansion.
I was.speaking in terms of total registration.
You have to relate it to industrial activity. According to the figures which I saw, C licences are increasing in this country in proportion to industrial activities as in other countries, which is what one would expect. There may be all sorts of difficulties arising from the accessibility of railway services and other features which may alter it; but I should have thought there is nothing in this. I don't think this is a relevant factor. In some Qountries, such as Germany, they discourage C licences by a higher form of taxation. There may be less C licences in Germany because of that, and more A-licensed vehicles. You have to consider each country individually.
The Germans are considering liberalization of transport licensing. I wonder if that might indicate that they contrOl them too stein gently?
They may be considering it in the light of their Common Market obligations. It all depends on the local circumstances.
What role do you see for this country on European road transport matters? I am thinking particularly of the Common Market and its effects.
Well, I think l can only give an obvious reply, especially in view of the probability of a Channel Tunnel, so that our vehicles will circulate more freely in Europe, and their vehicles more freely here. There should be as much similarity, in proximation, in regulations concerned with vehicles in Europe and this country. But I don't think that means we have got to follow European standards. For example, they permit much larger vehicles on the roads; but the roads on which their vehicles travel are very much broader than ours and I am doubtful whether it would be wise to accept their present greater lengths and widths for this country, The congestion which could be caused here would be very serious. Our road conditions are different; therefore, while I think the maximum proximation is desirable we must reserve for ourselves at all times the rights to impose our own regulations not only with regard to sizes and weights, but in various other fields. If one day we should go into the Common Market we will have to balance the disadvantages of adopting European standards with the advantages which would accrue through joining the Common Market. But until we do, I see no reason why we should accept regulations which appear to be contrary to our present interests.
Assuming that, if the Labour Party were in power, you were the Minister of Transport, what legislation would you like to bring in—nationalization apart–ghat you Mink the
road transport industry needs?
There is a whole variety of matters. which have been considered and which hate been suggested by politicians and experts. For instance, taxation changes—which are very important --in relation to, say, heavy vehicles (which some people say don't pay sufficient tax at the moment). Taxation changes in regard to the use of congested centres of cities. There is another thing; we need a much more active policy of inter-urban road building and, what I think would probably be more important, redesigning the cities (which are now terribly congested) on Buchanan lines. All these are things, rather than special legislation, which I think should have prior consideration. I have left out one thing—the question of revising the licensing system, including the C-licence problem, and there we may at least get help from the Geddes Committee. It is along these more positive lines which I am thinking at the moment, rather than any need for legislative action.
Would you think drivers' hours are satisfactory?
I think the abuse by employers of the limitations of driving hours is very serious, and I believe it is quite common. It is very often done With the connivance of the drivers. This action is not a matter of legislation, but more effective enforcement.
That would involve employing more enforcement people? That would involve more enforcement people, and maybe heavier penalties.
Would you think similarly on the subject of emitting black smoke?
There are a whole lot of things—black smoke, every commercial vehicle having plainly written on it what it is entitled to carry and the maximum amount.
Plating?
Yes, and there are a whole range of things of that sort which I think would want considering from the point of view of road safety, the interests of the men concerned, ot for one reason or another. These are terribly important.
Have you any intention of bringing into public ownership the motor manufacturing industry?
No.
Can you give its any idea of Labour Party policy towards rural transport?
The jack Committee report was about three years ago. The Ministry has done nothing except, as you told us recently, set up some local inquiries. I think we know all the facts, and I think this is merely a delaying tactic. I believe there is a strong case for subsidizing on social grounds rural bus services in some areas—not necessarily everywhere. I regard transport as a public service.
Would that mean you would consider subsidization as something to come from the Exchequer rather than from county councils?
I have an open mind on that. I don't like the county councils proposal. In the Jack Committee, the majority carne to the conclusion that the county councils should do it. I am a bit doubtful about that. and I really have no answer as to how it should best be done. One possible way, which the Jack Committee considered and turned down, is the remission of the fuel tax on bus services in rural areas. They said it was impracticable. I don't believe it. It might help. But you see, in principle, if the Minister makes it a condition that unremunerative bus services should replace line closures, it is equally logical to say that where there is insufficient transport in rural areas some should be provided with the help of public funds. I am not prepared to go further than that; but I think there is a strong case for it, and I think each individual case would have to be considered,