Hive Off B.R.S.
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE casual observer may be readily excused for wondering whether transport users really know what they want. Both the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries have approved the Government's decision to leave trunk road services in the hands of the British Transport Commission. Both have also shown some uneasiness at the possible diminution of competition between the Commission and private enterprise.
They want the trunk network of British Road Services to be preserved, but, paradoxically. desire also keen competition between road and rail. The F.B.I. have expressed their forebodings plainly to the Minister of Transport. They have told him that industry agreed to the withdrawal of longstanding safeguards on railway rates on condition that there was to be genuine competition with railway freight services by independent longdistance hauliers.
In the early stages after the 1953 Act was passed, the railways and B.R.S. did not compete freely, but, said the F.B.I., "tended to share long-distance haulage on terms arranged between themselves. Later, as competition from reconstituted private hauliers became potent, this practice noticeably lessened." The Federation doubted whether the present scale of competition would be a sufficient safeguard for all classes of traffic.
Ministerial Refusal Those fears could be overcome, without disturbing the B.R.S. trunk network, by segregating the State road haulage undertaking from the B.T.C. The Minister was asked in Parliament to do so, but replied that, although the suggestion was interesting, the Government had no intention at present of adopting it. It is a pity that he did not give his reasons for his attitude.
To transfer the assets of B.R.S. to a new Stateowned company should not be unduly difficult and the Bill to be promoted in the autumn provides the administrative opportunity of doing so. So long as B.R.S. continue as an arm of a railwaydominated Commission, there will be a tendency ionalized Bus for the road branch to be Two Separate Maj.-Gen. G. N. Russell. Undertakings general manager of B.R.S., would probably not willingly sacrifice traffic to the railways. " I attach great importance to the principle that once the movement of goods has been initiated by a road vehicle —and practically all journeys start by road—the goods should not be transferred from road to rail unless there is a very good reason for so doing," he told the Midland Section of the Institute of Transport on March 1 this year. He is, however, subject to policy decisions by the Commission.
Spur of Competition Under Gen. Russell's energetic control, B.R.S.
as a separate enterprise would undoubtedly provide the railways with the spur of competition, and private hauliers would supply the necessary goad to the State-owned road haulage service. Traders would then be assured of the present network of trunk services without the risk of collusion between B.R.S. and the railways.
There is an equally compelling reason for transferring the Commission's bus companies to a separate organization. The effect of railway dOmination on them has been felt for some years and is well known.
Despite their reluctance to reach conclusions on any controversial matter, the 'Thesiger Committee drew attention to the possible conflict between the licensing system and the Commission's control of road passenger services in the field where road-rail competition was acute. For many years the railways have been urging the Licensing Authorities that the only effective way to secure proper co-ordination is to eliminate long-distance coach services. They would obviously not abandon their own coach services, because of the risk of others taking over, but they are equally unlikely to encourage internal competition within the B.T.C.
By hiving off B.R.S. and the nationalized bus companies to two new State-owned concerns, the interests of users would be protected without the danger of creating new political controversy.