Political Commentary
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Equal to What?
By JANUS
ALL men are equal before the Ivory Tower. This was the theme of Lord Hurcornb's recent address to the Mansion House Association on Transport. The ideal, he implied, was that every transport user should pay the correct cost of the service provided for him. Those people who have in the past enjoyed exceptional privileges or unreasonably favourable concessions should be brought up to, or nearer to, the standard. "Is it not obvious," Lord Hurcomb continued, "that if the British Transport Commission grants unduly favoured treatment to one section of its users other sections of the trading or travelling public must in the long run make good the difference?"
A few days earlier the House of Commons was also discussing transport equality. Mr. Hector Hughes, Labour M.P. for North Aberdeen, proposed a motion strongly urging the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Transport Act so as to provide for standard freight charges, irrespective of the distance covered. On the whole, the verdict of the debate was against the motion, and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, stated firmly that, although the Government had every intention of amending the Transport Act, it did not contemplate doing so on the lines that Mr. Hughes indicated.
One M.P. went so far as to call the motion "imbecile." It certainly represents the opposite extreme of the opinions expressed by Lord Hurcomb and yet both views profess to favour the cause of equality. The virtual contradiction illustrates what many people have been thinking for a long time, that the doctrine of fair shares does not stand up to close examination. It may just possibly be applied to individual items such as sugar and butter, which can be equalized in price and distributed in equal quantities to every member of the population. But even rationing takes no account of variations in individual needs and can be administered only by the exercise of strict control and usually with the help of a subsidy.
True Rate for the Job
Fair shares in transport can never be granted because there is no agreed method of measuring them. From the point of view of the nationalized provider of transport, Lord Hurcomb aims to charge the true rate for the job. Even so he has to admit exceptions. There are commercial reasons for preferential treatment of some classes of goods, and the computing of fares has no exact connection with the actual cost of each individual journey. From the point of view of the customer, Mr. Hector Hughes can argue towards an ideal state of affairs in which the charge for carrying similar loads should be the same whatever the distance.
Between the extremes, innumerable variations can be developed. Their deployment during the recent Parliamentary debate helped to create the confused and uncertain atmosphere that permeated it. Somewhere or other comes the deplorable standpoint of • the independent operator who-aims to charge the rates that will bring him in a nice living-without scaring the customers away. As a way of life this may be repugnant equally to the flat-rate enthusiasts and the support= of )312 nationalization. It may be difficult to defend by a process of logic, but it has worked admirably both before and after the Transport Act and has drawn from the customers tributes such as they too rarely pay the theoretically admirable B.T.C.
Egalitarians, whatever their complexion, seldom attempt to extend their ideas beyond the field of thought they have chosen. What suits the customer should also suit-the provider. Lord Hurcomb, whilst opposed to giving favoured treatment to any class of user, said nothing to the Mansion House Association about taking restrictions off free-enterprise hauliers and allowing them to compete with the B.T.C. on equal terms.
Nor on the other hand is Mr. Hughes any more likely to support the hauliers' cause. As a Socialist, he takes his share of the responsibility for those pads of the Transport Act that he has no wish to amend. His plan for a fiat rate. as Mr. Gurney Braithwaite observed, would involve subsidizing the railways.
It should be noted that Lord Hurcomb has several times expressed his disapproval of a subsidy. He has indicated that the accounts of the B.T.C. for 1951 will show a much healthier position than in the year before. The likelihood is, according to some reports, that the loss in 1951 was down to £7m. It might be held to follow from this that the B.T.C. will ultimately pay its way without a State pension. Be that as it may, the subsidy is still regarded in many quarters as essential.
Sliding-scale Subsidy
Mr. Harold Wilson, M.P., has now completed his inquiries on behalf of the railway unions, and it is reported that he proposes a sliding-scale subsidy which will vary from year to year in accordance with changes in such items as national production and restrictions on free-enterprise hauliers. There are further reports that the feather-bedding of the railways will even be included in the new Bill which is ready or nearly ready for its debut.
Lord Hurcomb is right in fearing the impact of a subsidy, whether direct or indirect.. However it may be disguised, once a subsidy forces its way into the Ivory Tower there is no knowing where it will stop. It will have an inevitable effect on the nationalized rates structure. The B.T.C. will find it more and more difficult to dispense its own brand of equality to customers who know that it is a pensioner of the Exchequer. Regarding it as a public service for which they are paying in taxation, they will demand more and more from it by way of recompense.
Reasons for subsidizing other industries are obvious. It may be necessary to protect them from foreign competition or to keep them going for the sake of national prestige. They may be producing essential goods at an unavoidably high cost. None of these reasons applies to transport. Its only real justification for a subsidy would be if the continued operation were required for military purposes of any section that could not be made to pay. This argument can apply in only a few instances. Transport should need no -subsidy. The Government's policy should be first and foremost the provision of cheap transport. If the new Act be designed with this end in view, it cannot go far wrong.