AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

, Nationalizect Transport

14th April 1933, Page 54
14th April 1933
Page 54
Page 54, 14th April 1933 — , Nationalizect Transport
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Discussed

Omnibus Society Members Disagree with the Socialist Ideal of Control

G°vE

port was advocated by Mr. A. M. Skeffington in an address entitled "The National Planning of Transport," which he read, last Friday, before a London meeting of members of the Omnibus Society.

At the outset, the speaker made it clear that he would hold no brief for any particular class of transport, but, as an economist, would consider the subject in all its spheres. He outlined the official plan of the Socialist movement in connection with transport.

The scheme was for the Minister of Transport to appoint a national transport board, and, pending the acquisition by this organization of all transport, Private undertakings should be regulated by licensing or otherwise. Compensation would be based on the revenue of the companies concerned, and national transport stock would be transferred to the shareholders.

Closing Branch Lines.

Under the national scheme, efforts would be made to place long-distance traffic upon the railways, but many branch lines would be closed, because road transport could perform with greater efficiency the functions of these lines. Endeavours would be made to correct the balance between road and fail; transport equipment, particularly in respect the railways, would be im

proved.

Mr. Skeffington dealt with the reasons for the decline of the railways, including lack of enterprise, and the huge burden of unremunerative capital. He outlined the progress of road transport, mentioning that it had increased by over 400 per cent. between 1924 and 1931. He remarked that there was no real road-transport co-ordination, and commented upon the unsatisfactory

3340

position of railway companies being interested in bus concerns. Mr. Skeffington deplored the waste created by vehicles running light or only 'partially laden, and the waste created by the needless competition of railway road goods services with those of hauliers.

The speaker expressed the view that the canals had a limited future, but could be utilized in the national scheme of transport..

Mr. Skeffington foresaw rt great future for commercial aviation, and described it as the latest weapon of the railways against road transport. As co-ordination between various forms of transport could not, it appeared, voluntarily be brought about, this action would have to be taken by an independent authority.

The discussion on the address showed a complete absence of sympathy with the Socialist ideal and the chairman of the Society, Mr. C. E. Lee, asked if national control need -entail nationalization.

Mr. C. P. Klepper, the hon. secretary, pointed to the value of individual enterprise and cited the unsatisfactory results of the nationalization of transport in Russia. Later, in his reply, Mr. Skeffington refused to accept comparison with Russia as a fair one. Mr. Klepper also paid tribute to The Commercial, Motor Air Transport supplement. Mr. J. A. Dunnage, secretary of the Industrial Transport Asseciation, in commenting on a remark by Mr. Skef fington, expressed the view that mixed ownership of goods road transport was not a disadvantage, and pointed out that, in many eases, transport itself was not the only function of a commercial vehicle. He contended that the only sphere of transport activity in which nationalization might be justified was that connected with ports and harbours. It was rather appropriate that Mr. A. G. Partridge, chairman of the Association of London Omnibus Proprietors, being on the "losing" side in connection with the London Passenger Transport Bill, should have been asked to express his views on nationalization. With this request he vigorously complied.

"Give People Something to Own."

He challenged Mr. Skeffington to indicate any place in the world in which monopoly had been successful, and quoted a memorable speech of Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in which the Conservative leader said that the way to uplift people was to give them something to own. Mr. Partridge's view was that the situation would right itself. In his reply, Mr. Skeffington said that private enterprise belonged to the past and that monopolies were of the present. He emphasized the fact thap the organization of Government departments could not be accepted as the criterion of the success of a national transport authority, because those departments were, in most cases, supervised by opposers of nationalization. The futureactivities of the London Passenger Transport Board would not provide an indication of the success or otherwise of nationalized transport. The original plan had been altered to such an extent that the Socialist movement would like entirely to dissociate itself with the measure.


comments powered by Disqus