Socialists Want
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Fair Competition So Does the Haulier
Says JAN US
WHEN the Labour Party meets for its annual conference at Whitsun it will have before it a statement. issued -by . its National Executive Committee, under the title "Labour Believes in Britain.Although there is nothing about transport nationalization. in the statement, providers and users of transport may not altogether be wasting their time if they read it with some care.
One thing that is likely to strike even the casual reader is the emphasis on the. word "enterprise," which is brought into the second line of the document, and later • given a section all to itself. To the transport user, and in particular to the haulier, it must come as something of a surprise to read in a Labour Party document that "efficient private enterprise thrives on a proper and . beneficial competition," and that "the efficient prodticei need have no fears from State competition."
: Nationalization to Save Railways
-The C-licence holder, when he reads this, will remember that -drastic restrictions . in the operation of his vehicles were Cut out of the Transport Bill only at the last, moment, to the accompaniment of a not-toogracious threat. The-haulier will remember that, when he opposed the nationalization of his industry, he was told that his efficiency and enterprise were largely irrelevant, and that the main reason for nationalization was the necessity to safeguard the future of the railways The new Labour Party statement on policy, as was to he expected, sets out to cover every aspect of national and international life The haulier, however, can scarcely be blamed for considering the document from his own point of view, and for judging its value and sincerity accordingly. When, therefore, it refers. to the "continuing consent and co-operation of the people in the objectives and methods" of the Labour Party's plan, the haulier cannot help remembering that the virtually unanimous disapproval of trade and industry—that is to say, his customers, who should know best—was insufficient evento modify the restrictions imposed tip'on. him by the Transport Act. Similarly, when he reads that both public and private enterprise should have " plenty of room" he thinks ruefully of that tiny circle with a radius of 25 miles that is to he his not-very-happy Minting ground in the future.
. Wailing for the Axe According to "Labour Believes in Britain," several additional industries will come within the net of nationalization if the Labour Party be returned to power at the next General Election. Insurance, cement, sugar, meat, cold .storage, water supply and certain minerals are all on the list. Even on this point, . however, the Labour Party, continuing its somewhat novel tactics, finds it necessary to bring in some reference to the virtues of private enterprise. The following paragraph is particularly interesting:— .
".Up .to the present, industries have been socialized , where a monopoly was an economic necessity, and therefore public ownership the only nublie safeguard But unless there is economic necessity, there is no reason for always socializing whole industries. For private and public enterprise to compete fairly with each other can be good for both. The anti-socialist can hardly object to such competition as unfair, since he should be convinced that the superior efficiency of private enterprise will always win through. This argument, although not one we can 'accept, certainly destroys any charge of unfairness. Nor should the socialist fear competition from private enterprise."
At last, the haulier may imagine that he sees some glimmer of daylight. So far, the transport industry is the only one that has been nationalized in part; coal, electricity, gas and, of course, the railways, were taken over as a whole, The haulier may now feel there was some method in his exclusion. "For private and public enterprise to compete fairly with each other can he good for both."
Here, the haulier might say, is an excellent opportunity for the Government to put its principle to the test without waiting for the doubtful result of the 1950 Election. Give equal opportunity to the independent operator and to the State organization, and see which one is more successful Haulier at a Disadvantage
At present, of course, all the advantages lie with the Road Transport Executive, and the scales are heavily weighted against the haulier. The Executive is in a position to pick and choose undertakings with the best facilities, and to force or persuade them to hand themselves over It can put what vehicles it likes on the road, without proving need in the licensing courts (although, for some unaccountable reason, it has so far eschewed this privilege). On the other hand, the R.T.E. can oppose the haulier's applications,
The R.T.E. simply because it is a State Organization, will, be able to attract to 'itself much of the traflic offered by other State organizations, including Government Departments. By far the largest haulage concern in the country, it will be in a powerful position to influence manufacturers and suppliers.
All these advantages are of little significance when compared with the 25-mile restriction. to be imposed, according to report, some time after October I. • No other provision could have been more certain of ensuring that competition between haulier and Executive will not be " fair " Its purpose can only have been to make sure that, whatever happens, the R.T.E. will always have the whip hand.
On this point, at any rate, a clear challenge can be given to. the Labour party to revoke that part of the Transport' Act which provides for the imposition of the 25-Mile limit. This action would, at one stroke, retain for trade and industry its unfettered choice between
haulier and Commission; stop all the wrangling about operating centres, changes of base, original permits,
ordinary permits, and so on; and* save -an immense amount of time, paper and money expended merely to prevent vehicles from doing something which everybody, except possibly the Commission, wants them to do