The Laodiceans
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SOME time ago I coined the word " antidenationalization " to define the point of view that, while not enamoured of the goad Haulage Executive, was fearful of the consequences of a complete return to free enterprise. The antidenationalizers wanted to go very little farther than the proposals in the Transport (Amendment) Bill, which would have raised the 25-mile limit to 60 miles and brought the R.H.E. within the scope of the licensing system.
There are still a good many Laodiceans who would like to adopt a middle course something on these lines and who take what they are proud to feel is a moderate view. They have a good precedent in the Transport Act, which proclaims cheerfully that integration of transport may exist side by side with the user's freedom of choice, and establishes a monopoly while leaving the C-licence holder undisturbed. Unfortunately, as an attempt at a permanent solution the moderate approach gives the worst of both worlds. It does nothing to improve the quality of nationalized road transport and makes the position of the R.H.E. worse by enlarging the field within which the independent haulier can compete.
The Transport (Amendment) Bill, had it become law, would have helped many hauliers but would not have solved the transport problem, politically or otherwise. In some ways it would have made the situation more prickly than before. Let us suppose the Bill had been passed. The celebrated second reading on which the Labour Government was defeated took place in February, 1951. The Bill had several stages to go, but it was just possible that the 25-mile limit would have been lifted by the end of the summer, a little beforethe General Election.
Now it so happens that shortly afterwards the R.H.E. struck a bad patch. On the whole, 1951 was a successful year. The R.H.E. earned a net revenue of £3,246,589, and, even when other obligations are taken into account, it probably ended the year on the right side.
Revenue Insufficient
Since 1951 the figures are not so good. The revenue for the first 24 weeks of this year was £35,730.000. This is a little better than the total of £34,333,000 for the corresponding period last year, but the rise of about 5 per cent. is not nearly enough to meet the increases in costs. The traffic statistics tell a similar story. The R.H.E. carried 17,828,000 tons in 20 weeks last year, and lm. tons less this year. ,
As the Transport (Amendment) Bill Fizzled out, nobody can blame Lord Teynham or Mr. Bevins for the present state of affairs. If the Bill had been allowed a favourable. passage, it would have been saddled with at least some share of the responsibility. When one event follows another it is natural to play the game of consequences, and the drop in R.H.E. revenue and tonnages would have been attributed to the wider degree of competition from hauliers.
The nationalizers would have said how necessary and wise the narrow restriction to 25 miles had been. The supporters of free enterprise would have sneered at an R.H.E. which could not survive competition on equal terms. The Socialists would have threatened to impose
the limit as soon as they had the chance, and, possibly, also to control the C-licence holder. The Conservatives. .
What in fact could the Conservatives have done? Whatever their views on nationalization, they would not wish to see the R.H.E. running into trouble from which it might have to be rescued by the taxpayer. On the other hand, they could not have rescinded what they had won while in Opposition. The chances are that, whether the limit be 25 miles, 60 miles or infinity, the Government's action would be the same. All roads lead to denationalization.
Practical Politics People who imagine that it would be practical politics at the present time to abolish the limit and retain the R.H.E. have not studied the situation as a whole. There are reasons for the falling away in the business of the R.H.E. Trade has been quiet and the volume of goods for transport has fallen. In some parts of the country hauliers also have not had sufficient traffic, although in many cases this is the result of permit withdrawals. The R.H.E, announced a few months ago a general increase of 7i per cent. in its rates. Enforcement of the increase has not always been possible, and -the burden of rising costs has remained with the R.H.E. The present not very encouraging situation may continue for some time. The Government would hesitate to add to the difficulties of the R.H.E. by the one-sided action of freeing the haulier from the restrictions of the mileage limit.
A time of dearth is not the right time for a change of this sort. The present Government played no part in creating the R.H.E.; in fact, the Opposition was vigorous from start to finish. But while the R.H.E. exists, the Government must do what it can to keep it on a sound basis. A policy cannot be adopted which has the effect of driving the R.H.E. off the roads and leaving it like a millstone round the neck of the B.T.C. It is true that hauliers freed from the 25-mile limit would not encroach upon the preserves of the R.H.E. to as great an extent as is sometimes thought. Inevitably, abolition of the restriction would have some effect, whether large or small, and the effect would become greater as time went on.
No Awkward Questions It is an illusion to suppose that the Socialists would be less willing to repeal Laodicean legislation than the more thoroughgoing denationalization. If in their view any change in the 25-mile limit harmed the R.H.E., they would restore the restriction as soon as they had the opportunity. It would be a good deal easier than renationalization, and no awkward questions of compensation would arise.
Compromise is sometimes said to be one of the principles upon which the British constitution depends, but this seems a point on which compromise is not possible. If it were, the .Government, one suspects, would have adopted it, for the task undertaken by the new Bill is not easy, and has so far attracted wide criticism, which has at times been just as fierce from the Laodiceans as from the official Opposition.