'I think we know a great deal more about the thinking of all the components of transport'
Page 56
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Confederation of British Industry represents most of transport's big users and it can exert considerable influence on policy. One of its most active committees at present is devoted to transport and in an exclusive interview the committee's chairman, Mr. P. S. H EN MAN—who is also chairman of TDG—told Alan Havard about its work and gave his own views about the future for British transport. This is the account of their wide-ranging talk:
COULD you first of all tell me what is the constitution of the 14–, committee, who it represents, and its sphere of influence?
When the FBI merged with the Confederation of British Industry it was decided to constitute a new transport committee and in August last year I was invited to become chairman. We had, initially, something like 11 large groups of users represented on the committee, plus the British Iron and Steel Federation, Anglo Overseas Shipping and the GTM Group. Later we brought in British Railways, Transport Holding Company, British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation. So in the end we had a committee which represented users to a majority extent, providers to a minority extent, and within both groups nationalized and private enterprise industries side by side.
Do you sit regularly?
We hold meetings about once a month. This sort of committee, in the context of the CBI, would be a four-meeting-a-year type normally. But, of course, we have been involved with the Government White Paper, with the going into Europe and one or two things which are fast moving. So our meetings have been pressurized by events with which we have had to keep pace and also to express opinions upon.
Is there any particular way in which you would like to see the work of the committee strengthened?
I think we've just learnt to accept the committee in its present form. The members seem perfectly happy to have a free forum for their views and the majority view prevails. Generally speaking, it will be the user whose voice is dominant, and the user's thinking as between nationalized and private enterprise industry is very complementary; the only real division comes over railways v. rest.
One way in which it will be extended is by the proposed panel to make a dispassionate examination of freight transport (mainly as seen by the panel), compare it with the best understanding they can get of the Government White Paper, and make some pronouncements on the broad concept of transport policy in the belief that these will have some bearing on the outworking of the White Paper.
I think the Ministry might be prepared to keep the panel informed of the priorities of the decisions under the White Paper so that at each stage, insofar as the panel is prepared and able, the panel can make a comment which will reach the Ministry, although perhaps their overall report may not have come very much before the drafting of the legislation.
What the transport committee has done so far is to prepare a formula for judging the merits or demerits of the outworking of the White Paper, as far as the freight user is concerned. This formula will be applied to discover what advantage or disadvantage there is from a particular measure or series of measures.
Will the user have the same freedom of choice that he has today? Will there be any competition and, if so, in what form? If the user hands his traffic to the Freight Authority, will he havi any say in the route or method by which it is transported? Wil it have to be an act of faith and will he have to take what thi Freight Authority thinks is good for him?
What effect do you think the committee will have on transpor matters?
I think it will have more effect behind the scenes than in thi open. Take as one illustration this very important matter of rail way freight standby charges which, under the White Paper, wont( seem might be paid by the Exchequer on social grounds in certait circumstances.
These standby charges must be closely analysed and examinec to make sure that they represent something that no transpor provider could genuinely be expected to incorporate in his ordin ary costs, because there is no field of transport where the trans port provider has not got to provide for standby, since he neve gets uniform loads.
He has got to have more vehicles or more barges or moo trucks, or whatever it may be, than he requires at all times—am the same thing applies to warehouse space--just because traffio does not move on automated lines and never will. It moves witl markets and it moves with harvest and all these sort of things The transport provider has therefore got to have provision fo peak loads of one sort or another. It may involve sub-contractim as well. But we feel that while it is understandable that the rail ways want relief from passenger standby charges on soda grounds, it is a vastly different thing in the realm of freight, wher there is no compulsion to provide a service. If it applied to cos or timber, for instance, then the coal or the timber would have to take the total cost of it. It's not a social cost to be borne by th State.
This is just an illustration of the discussion that is taking plac in the transport committee.
Could the committee have a greater effect?
I doubt it, because all ministries like to talk to individual. Group bodies give them a broad, balanced picture which is oftei contrary to their own ideas and therefore not welcome. I an not speaking for any particular government; this applies to a governments.
One very important development since we formed this trans port committee is that we decided that, so far as the Ministr is concerned, if we could group together all the bodies tha represented the freight users into a consultative committee thi could make a much bigger impact than the transport committe of the CBI—or possibly even the panel.
So we have brought together, as was done, I believe, whe nationalization was the order of the day last, many of the freigh transport associations including the TRTA and this body no's meets under the chairmanship of Mr. Bannard, of Unilevel This is supplementary and complementary to the CBI's tram port committee and panel, which is represented on that joir committee and I feel that frankly if the Government want an views in that particular body they have almost as broad scope of opinion as one could get. And all of them have agree to work with this committee, while reserving the right necessary to deal direct with particular points.
Where does road transport fit into your particular pattern? Well it's just part of it; that's all. We have a representative of th Transport Holding Company and;as you know, they are the biggeo
iperators of road vehicles. They have a great deal to say, and I vould have thought that there (and possibly with the knowledge have) the views of the road hauliers are adequately made known.
Do you feel a need for bodies like the RHA and the TRTA? The RHA are not members of the CBI. We have got close vorking relations with them and we have never had any difficulty here. The TRTA, of course, has members who are also CBI nembers.
Are there ever occasions when you find yourselves torn between ival claims of road and rail?
Yes we do. It's thought that it's good that we do. Because there this rivalry inside the transport committee, we probably do learn , lot more about each other's point of view than if we did not have he rivalry. Although we may still not agree, I think we know a ;reat deal more about the thinking of all the components of transIon, particularly with regard to the White Paper and its proposals, han we would ever have known if we hadn't been prepared to listen
o very forthright views by road and rail and docks and users on the Vhite Paper.
I presume in this respect it is of much greater advantage not to tave to make public pronouncements.
I think so. It is, of course, the transport committee as such which annot make a pronouncement. It must report to the council. The ; SI is the ruling body and really nothing can be said to be the iew of the Confederation until it has been accepted and approved ly the council.
Do you consider that transport in the UK is well organized? Speaking personally, I would say that few countries in the world ave a more adequate transport system than this island home of urs and few countries have a wider choice for users than this ountry. The basic problem in this country is not one of facilities ut one of finance and the continuing loss of the railways—the very ubstantial loss—coupled with a certain amount of road pressures, ; I think the reason for Government action, although not entirely n that score.
I don't think that the White Paper is based on or motivated by ny manner of means on the railway losses or in fact entirely on the rounds of congestion. I think if you read the Labour Party's mani:sto you'll see much more the reason for the White Paper than you o in any deficiencies that exist, although they do exist.
The thinking behind the question was really the fragmentation of le private haulage industry more than anything, coupled with the ailway losses.
I would have thought the road haulage industry is now well on the )ad to economic grouping, organizationally. This will be accelera:d as the liner trains, with freedom to quote any rates, begin to bite Ito the long-distance traffic and I would expect that all we have seen the last five or 10 years will go on, perhaps at an accelerated pace 3 groupings are inevitable to get adequate management and to revent duplication and things of this sort.
Does management seem to be a problem with haulage?
I think it is and if you've only got four or five vehicles and you an pay a man £.1,000 a year, you can only get a £1,000 a year's /orth of brains out of him. If, as in our case, you can afford to ay a man £10,000 or £15,000 or £20,000, you are going to get le corresponding amount of grey matter, or you should do. This ; why I think this grouping is necessary and will go on.
A lot could be done without any legislation at all, in co-operaon with the railways as we do in Australia, if the depots were, as ley should be, open to private road hauliers to use on the same !,rms as the railways. Then you would have the free and mutually eneficial partnership you have in Australia, where a road haulier an charter a train or truck, he can have his own siding or his wn depot or he can use the railway's depot and so far as the ailways are concerned, their main goal is rail freight. They don't rant all the trimmings and the bits and pieces which our railways eem to be willing to bother with. They concentrate on full freight )ads and in consequence they make a much better financial lowing.
But you must remember there is bound to be a tremendous umber of small people around the country doing a local trade, tal because there is no rail system to help them. Essentially a )ad job. And as the container traffic begins to move, perforce a It of it will have to go on the road, for sizes and other reasons. Would you like to see a suprafactional body established which deals horizontally between Government and different modes of transport?
One can only say that on the surface there seems to be a case for considering whether one body looking after road and track capital and maintenance costs, and all that is to do with the track, might be a better arrangement than the numerous bodies that at the moment handle that particular and important part of transportation. My own feeling is that there is no alternative, if you want real efficiency, to competition in transport.
On the other hand, I think people will always make a case, either by tax or in some way, for some overall control of competition if national interests are at stake. But I am sure that as we are essentially an exporting country, our transport charges are vital to our export trade and if we are to have them on the best and lowest possible basis, which we ought to have, then we must make room for healthy competition between providers of transport, especially for the handling of exports.
What do you see as the short-term, say five years, and longterm, say 15 years, future role in the UK for road transport?
Well I think in the next five years transport is going to be in the melting pot whether we like it or not. I think that the present pattern of creating viable units which has been going on for 10 or more years will continue at an even more rapid pace and you will find road transport moving up into larger financial groups, sometimes on a geographical basis, sometimes functional, and sometimes both; the object being to streamline overhead charges, reduce costs, provide necessary capital and all that goes with it, so that every vehicle on the road, unlike on the passenger side, is running as far as possible with a full load in all directions. That is the answer to profitability on the capital employed.
Long-term, I think frankly that (this is purely my own hypothesis—not the committee's) Great Britain needs what I might call a backbone of fast motor roads and a backbone of railway track, basically linking our major ports and lines of communication overseas through the centre. We have one of the best secondary and subsidiary road systems in the world. We should tune them into the road-railway backbone. When we've got those, we want a mutually advantageous partnership between users and providers which enables the long-distance hauls of 200 miles or more to go where possible economically and viably by rail, with the road haulier collecting and delivering.
In this way Great Britain could continue in the field of transportation a service which will match the scientific developments which are coming throughout the country and the revolution that is going to take place in exporting and longdistance sea transport and in every way be equal to what is required.
I think that if we created a State monopoly either directly or by pressures which I fear are implied in the White Paper, Great Britain in the movement of its goods would be very severely handicapped as compared with the countries that have got competition and choice for the users of transport.