THE HOOP
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentary By JANUS
HAVING issued a White Paper on the nationalized transport undertakings, the Minister of Transport had no choice but to go through the hoop of a debate in the House of Commons in order to demonstrate a Parliamentary majority in his favour. That he succeeded by 303 votes to 221 would never have been guessed from the tenor of the discussion. The Socialist speakers, while in favour of relieving the railways' financial difficulties for the time being at the expense of the taxpayer, could find nothing else to please them in the White Paper. The Conservatives were at best lukewarm and occasionally strongly critical.
Even more strongly than usual an air of unreality hung about the debate. Each side pretended—were indeed forced by circumstances into pretending—that they knew the answer to the railway problem. The Minister and his supporters, naturally enough, stood by the White Paper that does indeed seem to contain as much common sense as the situation permits. The Socialists, in somewhat muted tones, stated their belief that the trouble would get worse instead of better because the Government were departing more and more from the sacred principle of integration. Mr. Aubrey Jones, the Conservative M.P. for Birmingham, Hall Green, took a line of his own by hinting that perhaps the Stedeford group had had the right solution and that it would die with them for lack of publication.
ANOTHER Conservative M.P., Mr. John Peyton, of Yeovil, came nearest at least to seeing what the problem involved. His speech was an exercise in pessimism, filled with statements such as "I believe that the nationalization of the railways is with us for ever," and " I believe that there are no grounds for giving this White Paper even the most general blessing." He saw no reason to hope that the proposed railway board would be any more successful than the old railway executive. "1 find myself unable to support the Government's proposals in the Lobby tonight," he concluded, although according to Hansard he did in fact support the Government in the one vote that was taken.
Mr. Peyton put forward no positive and comprehensive proposals of his own and had this at least in common with most of the other speakers. The tone of his contribution was justified. One must admit that the,railways will always be with us in the foreseeable future and no bright businesslike facade can disguise that they will always be a liability. This may well have been the case with or without nationalization, for the long-drawn-out agony of the railways is not peculiar to Britain. Mr. Marples has merely made the best of a bad job, although evidently there are many of his fellow politicians prepared to contradict even this, but it is more than likely that another rescue operation will be needed in a few years' time and that the process will go on repeating itself indefinitely.
Parliament would have found it more profitable to disCUSS other forms of transport, leaving the railways to slim as best they can under the simple regimen prescribed in the White Paper. Such references as there were to road transport in the debate were for the most part abusive, and came from the Labour benches. Mr. George Strauss, M.P. for Vauxhall, the first speaker for the Socialists, drew attention to what was happening in West Germany, where there are restrictions on road haulage operation outside a radius of 50 km., and in France, where the Government are proposing to raise road rates in some cases where road transport is taking business away from the railways. Rather hesitantly Mr. Strauss appeared to think that something. similar might be done in Britain. He was right to be cautious in advocating such action, for it would cause a severe setback in British trade and industry, whatever may have happened on the Continent. Road transport has decisively taken the lead in this country and the process of changing from the older form of transport to the new can hardly be curbed.
ANOTHER Labour M.P., Mr. Ernest Poppiewell, from Newcastle upon Tyne, West, gave figures to illustrate the point, although that was not his intention. As between road and rail, only 46 per cent. of goods traffic went by road in 1952 and the proportion had risen to 56 per cent, in six years. Since 1948, continued Mr. Popplewell, the number of long-distance vehicles on C licence had increased by nearly 200,000 and there had been a rise from 2,500 to 8,800 in the number weighing 6 tons or more unladen. These statistics, he said, indicated " the real source of the problems of transport." The inference intended was no doubt that something ought to be done about it. Mr. Popplewell did not pursue the point, perhaps because he has begun to realize that the revolution in transport has taken place and cannot now be reversed.
In face of this ineluctable fact many of the speakers may have felt, dimly or clearly according to their lights, that there was nothing very constructive they Could say. In spite of this, they managed to keep the debate going for the best part of six hours. Mr. James Callaghan, M.P. for Cardiff, South East, who wound, up the discussion for the Opposition, made a desperate attempt at an, epigram by accusing the Government Of proceeding " from plunder to blunder." • Hauliers who took part in the process of disposal may have thought that they themselves, rather than the British Transport Commission, were the victims of plunder, and if the Government have made a blunder in their plans for the railways the only alternative that the. Socialists can suggest is apparently a return to the discredited doctrine of integration.
PERHAPS the-oddest contribution to the debate came from Mr: Geoffrey Wilson. Conservative M.P. for Truro. He went so far as to suggest that the White Paper introduced an "atmosphere of reality." His opinion was based on the fact that the document begins with the blunt statement that the railways "are still a vital basic industry." One might well agree that the assumption has to be made if the rest of the White Paper is to make sense, but may still doubt that the assessment is realistic.
To support the assessment, which evidently accords with his own belief, Mr. Wilson assembled a set of statistics that put even the more speculative calculations of the Railway Conversion League in the .shade. British roads, said Mr. Wilson, are in the aggregate nearly 10 times as long as the railway track, but the railways carry nearly half the country's goods and about one-fifth of all passengers. This, he believes, helps to prove that the railways are indispensable. It is surely only necessary, in reply, to point to the calculations of the Road Research Laboratory that a mere I per cent. of the whole road system carries no less than 25 per cent. of road traffic.