1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
ditical Commentary , By JANUS
Page 83
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Back to Methuselah
EWER transport operators are Liberals today than 4 25 years ago, but those who have preserved their political faith intact may still have something worth ing, although their party has almost vanished from the itical scene. Nationalization of road haulage was one the few exceptions to the rule that, once legislation has n put into effect, it becomes respectable and accepted the question whether it is right or wrong, previously hotly debated, no longer troubles the public mind.
1 generation ago, not without protests from many irters, the future pattern of British transport was out:d by the Royal Commission on the subject, and isolidated by further reports and by a series of Acts of liament. With a few exceptions—who may not call mselves Liberals but would be willing to accept the cription of liberals—the transport industry and the the in general regard the legislation of the 1930s as an lost inviolate text, liable to small emendations and Litions, but exempt from repeal.
he Conservatives and the Socialists seem to agree at ;t on this basic attitude. Both see their own plans for isport as a further extension of the programme first lined by the Royal Commission; although both interpret report of that body in their own fashion, and use the le text to preach somewhat different sermons. Only Liberals, including those hauliers who have remained crals for a generation, continue to suggest in general ns that perhaps the text itself is corrupt.
t is not clear what the Liberals would propose to do h the transport industry in the unlikely event of their rig returned to power. What are known as liberal iciples may not be precisely those that the party would into effect. The name and to some extent the spirit those principles have been preserved in the label beralization of transport" that the Government have iched to plans now under discussion for allowing goods ides as much freedom as possible to carry goods ween one country and another. Freedom, like charity, ins at home, and liberalization of British transport, ried to its extreme, would involve in the main the ffition of the licensing system.
Accent on Proof of Need
Vhat is often forgotten is that Liberal policy, as I have tatively defined it, is almost exactly in accord with the ommendations in the final report of the Royal /mission, which was presented to Parliament at the end 1930. It is true that the report suggested placing 'tiers "under a system of licensing to be administered the area traffic commissioners"; but the Royal :nmission made it clear that the grant of a licence uld depend on two factors only—vehicle fitness, and :able wages and conditions of service. The transport of ids by road, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, not lend itself to licensing system " such as is cticable with passenger transport by road." The present nsing system, with its accent on proof of need, owes its in chiefly to the report of the Salter Committee, 'fished in 1932.
1 back-to-the-Royal-Commission movement would an the end of licensing as it is now administered. Most iliers—even among those who call themselves Liberals, suspects—would not support a proposal of this kind. r need they worry about it a great deal in view of the fact that victory at the election lies between the Conservative and Labour parties. In spite of this, the Liberals are doing nobody a disservice by the occasional reminder that the transport system ought to be overhauled now and again.
From time to time, there comes from the road transport industry the suggestion of a public inquiry. The industry would be disconcerted if their request were granted, but it is as well if a few people outside the main political current kept up a kind of running inquiry of their own. There is nothing to be complacent about, although one would have thought that, after so much discussion on the subject of transport a quarter of a century ago, there would be no problems left.
Criticism of the work of the Royal Commission and of their successors would be out of place only if their labours had brought forth the results they intended. It was the general opinion at the time that the growth of road transport had far-reaching consequences that ought to be made the subject of a comprehensive survey. It is possible to set out the aims of the inquiry in a number of ways and under a variety of headings, but in retrospect the main problems appear to be the safeguarding of the railways and the stabilization of road transport. There is no evidence that either of these aims has been achieved.
Terms of Reference
In one sense. the legislative work of the 1930s may be regarded as successful. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission refer to the "public advantage," and there is no doubt that, with a few exceptions, the public are satisfied with the transport service they receive. The standard of this service can be judged from the effect of the unfortunate 1947 Act passed by the Socialists.
Quality of service was not, however, the basic concern of the Royal Commission. People were hardly likely to complain that, whereas before they were entirely dependent upon the railways, they now had a choice between road and rail, and were even able to run their own transport for the first time since the days of the packhorse. With or without the Royal Commission, transport operators would no doubt have continued to satisfy their customers. There remained the threat, or the possibility, of instability within the transport industry itself, and it is on their success in dealing with this possibility that the legislators of the 1930s must stand or fall.
After 25 years success seems as far away as ever. The railways, but for the fact that they are backed by public money, could aptly be described as head over ears in debt, to the tune of something like £100m. per annum. Passenger road transport finds it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Hauliers have no lack of traffic, and appear prosperous, but have not ceased to complain of rate-cutting, of unscrupulous clearing houses and of unnecessarily hampering restrictions. To this perplexing situation, the main political parties propose remedies that are on the way to being desperate. The Socialists have nothing better to offer than their disastrous 1947 policy.
plus restrictions on the C-licence holder. The Conserv.4fives are apparently hoping that their loans will ultimate!) catch up with the worsening position of the railways.
There can be no harm in having another look at the achievements of the last generation, to see whether they really were on the right lines.