Getting at the Facts
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By JAN US CHAMPIONS of nationalized transport are prone to point out that free enterprise is free front at least one obligation placed upon the British Transport Commission, the activities of which are subject to supervision, control and public inquiries of various kinds To this line of attack there is one obvious and not very polite reply. The independent operator is the sole loser if he allows his business to get into the red. The losses of the Commission are of national consequence, and would in the last resort have to be defrayed by the taxpayer, of whose money (or at least £70 m. of it) Lord Lucas has recently constituted himself guardian.
The retort discourteous, as so often happens, begs the question. It is by no means certain that the complaint of the Commission is justified, and that it is much more circumscribed than any other commercial undertaking. The Commission appears to take little notice of • ci iticisms made by customers.
One obligation cannot be avoided. Once a year the Commission must produce a detailed report for discussion by Parliament. Two reports have so far been issued, massive documents that should contain all the facts and figures required. Unfortunately, most of the questions one would like to ask remain unanswered. . Is the service provided by the Commission efficient, adequate, economical and so forth? The reports give no clue. They resemble the ponderous biographies of Victorian worthies, full of the virtues of the subject, but discreetly quiet on his weaknesses.
Promoting Timidity In theory, Parliament has ways of obtaining further information; in practice, the machinery often fails to produce what is wanted. There are valid reasons for this. Parliamentary time is no different from any other time; it cannot be stretched beyond the limits of the clock and the calendar. Detailed consideration of each one of the nationalized industries is difficult, if not impracticable, when the agenda is already full. Moreover, ministerial responsibility for every detail of a State corporation would undoubtedly promote the timidity and over-centralization that the corporation was supposedly designed to avoid.
For some time past, a running fight (not always on party lines) has been waged in the House of Commons .between those Members who wish to look into all the corners and those who prefer to hide the nationalized light under a bushel. The obscurantists appear to be winning all along the line. Much of the dispute is concerned with Parliamentary technicalities, but the present position is, roughly speaking, that the Minister of Transport may be asked questions about the Commission only if they deal with general policy. He is not held responsible for day-to-day administration. An exception is where the Speaker considers the matter of sufficient public importance to justify breaking the general rule.
This arrangement is particularly suitable to any Minister of Transport wishing to evade tiresome questions. Unlike its sister corporations, the Commission might almost have been designed in anticipation of this division between eligible and ineligible Parliamentary questions. For policy is the Commission's prerogative; day-to-day working it delegates to its Executives. The c24 Minister may, therefore, decline even to consider any question that concerns an Executive only, and he may well get away with most inquiries on matters of Obey by arguing that they are concerned with the necessary consequences of the duties laid upon the Commission by the Transport Act.
That the present Minister takes full advantage of the 'position cannot reasonably be doubled. Few questions about the Commission and its Executives have even reached Hansard during 1950, and to those of any significance replies have mostly been refused.
On the other hand, several debates on transport have been held in both Houses of Parliament. It may be argued that they provided ample opportunity for the Commission's critics to deploy all their arguments and complaints. Many members took the opportunity, but apart from the publicity provided, the debates mostly failed to come to any conclusion. Where they were on general lines, Members could not possibly cover so wide and complex a subject in the time provided.
Insulating the Ivory Tower The Minister can hardly help himself from adopting as his watchword, " My Commission, right or wrong." He who laid the foundation stone of the ivory tower naturally wishes to insulate it against the elements and the hand of man. He cannot understand why its bulletins should not be regarded with reverence, as allsufficing. The critics find this attitude of mind more irritating than ever. They know the Minister has wide powers to extract information from the Commission and to give it directions. It is not known to what extent he is using his powers to obtain the results he wants himself, while refusing to take action on behalf of Parliament.
Apart from the proceedings of Parliament, there are other ways of bringing matters to the attention of the Commission Lord Hurcornb has stated that he will answer personally letters from M.P.s. There are, or will be, users' consultative committees all over the country. The public has conic to place little faith in the effectiveness of such bodies.
The Transport Tribunal has more substance. The trading and manufacturing public will have an opportunity of putting its case fully and publicly once the mysterious charges scheme has been produced. Good advantage was taken of similar opportunities when the Railway and London Transport Executives applied for increased charges. One cannot help adding that, in spite of opposition, the railways were given their 163-per-cent uplift and London Transport most of the higher fares for which it asked. The existence of the Tribunal does not seem seriously to prevent the railways from charging a good deal more than many traders are willing to pay.
Mr. Herbert Morrison has proposed a review of each nationalized industry once every seven years. Other M.P.s would like a select committee, on the lines of the bodies set up during the war to report on national expen diture Members of all parties feel the lack of any real control. For all the good the proposed safeguards have done, they might as well have been omitted from the the Act. Until fresh legislation is passed, the ivory tower is secure from intrusion.