Carbolic and Yellow Soap
Page 39
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WITH well scrubbed rubber gloved hands, the Thesiger Committee have dissected the subject of the control of road passenger undertakings by the British Transport Commis sion. The result of their work is a treatise so clinically pure that it is barely human.
They examine and weigh the evidence and summarize their views in terms redolent of carbolic and yellow soap. They never take their conclusions to the ultimate and no germ of human prejudice taints their words.
The Minister of Transport is left to draw his own inferences. As one conclusion tends to cancel another, he is unlikely to feel compelled to denationalize the bus companies purely to safeguard the licensing system against the monopolistic powers of the Commission. He may, however, decide on political and economic grounds that at least part of the Commission's holdings in road passenger transport should, in the public interest, be given up.
State Monopolies The case of the independent bus companies, as presented to the committee, was that the B.T.C. had been able to establish virtual road-rail monopolies in certain areas and that as the railways were the Commission's primary concern, road facilities would be subordinated to railway interests. Instead of road-rail rivalries being thrashed out before the Licensing Authorities and composed by them, they were, where the Commission held a monopoly, now settled behind closed doors.
In those instances, control had passed from the Authorities to the B.T.C. Moreover, the Licensing Authorities were embarrassed by the railways' practice of opposing applications by independent operators, but not those of State-owned companies.
The Commission replied that it was in no way contrary to the 1930 Act for providers of transport to make co-ordination arrang-ements among themselves. That Act had .succeeded in all respects except in the co-ordination of road and rail passenger services by dividing their functions. Unified control increased the possibility of co-ordination for the public benefit, as was seen in cases where 'railway branch lines had been closed.
In the Thesiger Committee's view, it is only in the matter of road-rail competition that the Stateowned and other large bus companies are in different positions. Irrespective of their ownership, the report says, large undertakings lack the spur of free competition, although they always face the risk that a newcomer may be admitted if they do not fulfil their obligations to the public. They are also able to subsidize unrernunerative but desirable services by others which are protected by the licensing system.
Equality in Service The committee do not believe that the service given by the Commission-owned companies is inferior to that provided by private enterprise. Indeed, they point out that the B.T.C.'s road passenger activities are under the vigilance of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees, whereas the others are not.
The possible conflict between the licensing system and the Commission's control of road passenger services in the field where road-rail competition is acute is, however, regarded as "quite another matter." For 20 years the railways have been urging the Licensing Authorities that the only effective way of securing proper co-ordination is to eliminate long-distance coach services. The railways are now owned by the Commission who, in addition, have become arbiters also of the question of what road services should be provided and their cost.
According to the Thesiger Report, the main or only reason why a B.T.C.-owned company might wish to develop or expand a long-distance service would be the fear of competition from a newcomer. On the other hand, the Commission are not thought to be likely to make applications that the Licensing Authorities would feel compelled to reduce in order to control competition, nor would they cause the railways to press for elimination of State-owned road services. The implication, to which the committee carefully avoid giving expression, is that the public cannot expect an improvement in the long-distance coach services provided by the B.T.C., but that existing facilities are unlikely to be withdrawn. There are sound foundations for this belief. This is not so much a matter of licensing, on which the committee were asked to submit recommendations, as of politics.
If the Government genuinely believe in competi tion in transport—and in the denationalization of road haulage they have shown that they do—they will take steps to allow long-distance coach services to develop naturally. This can be done only by placing them in the hands of private operators, who will have every incentive to increase their facilities in response to demand, and by letting the Licensing Authorities once again assess the merits of road and rail in the light of public needs.