HEDGING THE BETS
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONCE the main structure of the Government's proposed transport legislation has been published, the enterprising and sometimes amusing attempts to read the mind of the Minister of Transport will no longer be necessary. The interested parties may find themselves missing the game that they tave been playing. Anticipation and conjecture are often more pleasurable than the
cold reality.
Some of the guesses have been inspired in more senses than one. The information they provide has been leaked perhaps deliberately from a reliable source. Even if they correctly interpret what Mrs. Barbara Castle is thinking at the time they may not be accurate as forecasts. The signs are that consideration of the wide range of problems involved will continue as long as possible up to the date when the legislation is drafted and even beyond.
Several strands have to be woven by the Minister and her advisers into a single acceptable pattern. There is the avowed determination to preserve a railway system. This means striking a balance somewhere between the plans of the British Railways Board, the demands of the railway unions, the financial considerations and what are thought to be the needs of society. There must be a continuous and substantial expansion of the road programme although this can hardly be to the comfort or the benefit of the railways. There is the problem of road congestion as part of the wider subject of amenity. There is the road safety problem.
CLOSE TO GEDDES?
All these factors and possibly many others will play a part in deciding the content of each separate piece of legislation. The licensing of goods vehicles provides a suitable example. Several possibilities are being canvassed to the Minister. She must make a choice which fulfils the maximum number of desirable conditions.
The current indication is that the Government's plans will come surprisingly close to those put forward by the Geddes Committee. The licensing system's time-honoured function of protecting the railways will no longer apply or will be concealed behind the stated intention of improving standards of road safety.
There is more than one way of keeping down the number of hauliers. It might be done by adopting the practice of some continental countries arid stipulating that applicants for licences—or at any rate new applicants—should undergo tests to prove that they appreciate the onerous legal obligations involved; that they have the basic qualifications needed for running a successful transport business; that they have adequate arrangements for vehicle maintenance; and perhaps also that they have sufficient capital to stay in business for the first few months 'before revenue begins to come in.
The burden of proof might turn out to be even harder than the present requirements which must be satisfied before a licence is granted. The Government would have achieved a number of results simultaneously without risking the accusation that it was deliberately placing obstacles in the way of enterprise for the sole purpose of bolstering the frail and declining railways.
RAIL HAULIERS Other rumours take the process a stage further. It has been suggested that the Minister wishes the railways themselves to enter the road haulage industry, not merely to carry their own feeder traffic as at present but to run services entirely by road.
Under the present system it seems inevitable that proof of need would be required. If it were to be superseded by proof of ability the railways might still experience difficulty especially in establishing their solvency. The point would certainly be made strongly by the Opposition whatever the exact legal position.
A touch of the ludicrous would be added by the perplexity of certain individuals and organizations with the mission of exalting the railways above road transport. They have aimed to win public support with the argument that there is too much traffic on the roads and that the transfer of as much of it as possible to the railways would reduce road congestion, road costs and road accidents. To such dedicated champions the spectacle of the railways themselves becoming road operators must seem like a betrayal.
THOSE COSTS AGAIN Another familiar contention from the same sources is that road operators are not paying enough for the track they use and are thus competing unfairly with the railways who would have to meet the whole of their track costs if only they had the money. The
point is one with which the Government is likely to be sympathetic. The White Paper on transport policy, now almost a year old, revealed that the Ministry were making an inquiry into trunk route transport costs.
The purpose was to establish the relative costs of carrying goods by road and by rail on certain key routes and the effect on costs of altering the distribution of traffic between the two forms of transport. No more information has so far been made available but according to the White Paper the Government expected to have the results towards the end of 1966 and would then decide what "changes will be required in the conditions under which road goods vehicles are operated".
VAGUE THREAT
The uneasy effect produced by this form of words is a reminder of another comment in the White Paper that "it will be necessary to devise a licensing system which is an effective instrument of a modern, national freight policy". The vagueness of what seems a threat to the established order may have reflected the genuine uncertainty of the Government on the action which ought to be taken. It has inevitably helped to foster the current speculations which are pleasant or unpleasant according to one's temperament Or interest.
The impression that the Government is hedging its bets is characteristic of the White Paper. Other examples are to be found in the chapter on the railways. Where a line has been closed down but "it appears that services might in future have to be reinstated", says the White Paper at one point, "the Government will ensure that the route is preserved meantime, even if the actual track is removed, so that there will be no physical obstacle to reopening".
The picture of a ghost train running on a non-existent track is not calculated to give the impression of clear and vigorous policy. It brings with it, however, a certain nostalgia for things as they once were, a sentiment which is likely to vanish when the Minister in due course puts the Government's specifiZ-proposals before Parliament.