UNDERSTUDY
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONE may well suppose that British Road Services have dissociated themselves from the annual diatribe of the British Transport Commission against the Clicence holder. The usual references in the 1960 report seem to go out of their way to make it clear that within the Commission, it is only the railways who are worried. It is the receipts of the railways that, according to the report, tend to be depressed by the selectivity which the railways' customers can exercise. On another page, competition with the customer is stated—in a curious phrase to find in such a document—to be intensified for " the railways and other public services "—not, it will be noted. the Commission and other public services.
At least the Commission do not propose directly that the status of the C-licence holder should be changed—their gentlemanly frown at the " undesirable " effect of the Merchandise Transport decision by the Transport Tribunal comes into a different category. The furthest the report goes is to point out the dilemma facing the legislators. "Whatever the new forms of structure introduced into the nationalized transport undertakings in future," it says, "the fundamental problem will remain of reconciling the growth and the freedom of private transport with the need to preserve public services which are healthy and efficient."
ONE body of legislators, the Labour Party, with difficulty bring themselves to be a little mote explicit. Their latest policy statement, "Signposts for the Sixties," does not claim to be comprehensive, but nevertheless includes three separate approaches to the transport problem, as if it were the subject to which all signposts point.
Each approach promises a great deal but leads nowhere. There is a suggestion that the Government are not investing enough money in transport; but there is no clue to the way in which extra money could be spent to best purpose. Reference is made to " anomalous restrictions "that prevent the publicly owned transport authority from extending its road services; but no examples of the anomalies are provided.
FINALLY, the Socialist statement considers an expansion of public ownership necessary in transport because it is a key industry, "where competition creates not efficiency but chaos." Through prudence, or by an oversight, nothing is said about the main source of the allegedly disruptive competition. However, the Commission seem to be in no doubt, nor do the National Union of Railwaymen. On the eve of their conference last week, their president, Mr. W. H. Rathbone, deplored the growth in C-licensed vehicles and regretted that they had not been restricted in the Transport Act, 1947. The Commission and the Union might not be in complete agreement on this point, but neither would they be in disagreement.
If independent operators. including the C-licence holder, are to be suppressed, and their role is to be taken over partly or wholly by the State-owned road services, as the Labour Party suggest, it is as well that the substitute should have the ability to do the job. The Commission's report does not present B.R.S. in the light of a super-efficient undertaking that by its deeds will inspire trade and industry and the hauliers to forget their lost freedom of licence or of operation.
By all accounts. B.R.S. were struggling during 1960. Their net receipts of well under £2m, were about half the figure for the previous year and represent only 3 or 4 per cent. on a turnover exceeding £50m. If other costs, including a proper share of the Commission's central charges, are reckoned against the revenue of B.R.S., it is more likely that they made a loss than a profit. Gross receipts of £55-}m. were about £3m. up on the results for 1959, but were hardly satisfactory in view of rising costs. Traffic carried increased by only 1.7 per cent, to a total of 17,352,000 tons. Even the railways did much better than this. The volume of freight train traffic increased during the year by 6.2 per cent.
B.R.S. actually showed a decline in some kinds of traffic. In contrast to the experience of most express carriers, who found themselves very busy during 1960, the 941m. packages handled by B.R.S. (Parcels), Ltd., were less than the total of 951m. in 1959. Labour disputes and extensive flooding towards the end of 1960 are put forward by way of explanation for the disappointing results.
According to the report, in fact, labour troubles should take the main brunt of the responsibility for the misfortunes of B.R.S. Stigmatized as the two outstanding stoppages of work in the whole of the Commission are the disturbances arising from the raising of the speed limit for heavy vehicles and a strike in London that followed police searches for missing goods. The section of the report dealing with B.R.S. refers to labour troubles outside the organization, notably in the docks and in the car manufacturing industry.
THE strike over the speed limit is said to have had serious and far-reaching effects on the general haulage and parcels business of B.R.S: Regular traffic was lost to competitors. Recovery was difficult, especially because previous rate levels were depressed. A general rise in rates in the haulage industry was not introduced until November, and then "its application so far as general haulage is concerned was gradual and selective." The increase came some time after the rise in wages which took effect at the beginning of 1960. A minor curiosity is that, whereas the number of staff remained almost the same, the wage bill of B.R.S. went up by no more than 8 per cent. This counters the general impression that the great majority of the staff received an uplift of 15 per cent.
THE catalogue of misfortune set out here should not be taken to mean that B.R.S. were inefficient during 1960. It was a bad year for them, and 1961 may well show a substantial improvement. It would be foolish, however, to claim that B.R.S. have distinguished themselves above their fellow hauliers. Most hauliers probably did a good deal better, increased their volume of traffic by a greater proportion and made a greater margin of profit, on which, incidentally, they would have been required to pay taxation to swell the national revenue. From the point of view of the majority of observers, it is likely that B.R.S. did well enough to deserve not to be made the victims of a further disruptive process of denationalization. But they are evidentally not cut out to play the role that the Labour Party would ascribe to them, and, if truth be known, they might well be reluctant to assume the burden.