Naming the Day
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE relative importance of the differences between the old Transport Bill and the new is not necessarily to be measured by the amount of comment that each one has caused. The agitation against the levy, particularly that part of it which would have provided a subsidy for the railways, was just and understandable; but the amount the levy was likely to produce was tiny in comparison with the sums now paid by road users each year in taxation. Greater freedom for the railways to vary their rates may not make so much difference as is sometimes supposed. Nor is the British Transport Commission's right to arrange pleasure parties for its employees and their friends likely to make serious inroads into the revenue of independent operators providing contract carriages for private work.
On looking back, it may well be acknowledged that the most important new feature is the decision to fix a date for the abolition of the 25-mile limit imposed upon free-enterprise hauliers as a result of the 1947 Act. The last day of 1954 is the hub of the Transport Bill. Everything will be done that is possible to complete the sale of transport units in advance of the date, for when it arrives the special A licence will be indistinguishable from the normal A licence.
As a general rule, the authorities dislike announcing too far in advance when they propose to remove a restriction. The date when an item comes off the ration or out of the restraint of purchase tax is concealed as jealously as the details of a new vehicle. Apart from the bureaucratic instinct for keeping the public in the dark, there is no doubt a feeling that people who know too much tend to use the knowledge to their own advantage, and that a restriction of which the end can be accurately predicted no longer commands respect or exacts observance.
Burned in Effigy . The end of 1954 seems remote enough at the moment, hut measured against the time-scale of the new Bill it may arrive surprisingly soon. The agencies responsible for putting the Bill into effect, including the Commission and the Disposal Board, must work fast if they are to finish their task in two years' time. They can hardly expect a reprieve. It is possible sometimes to postpone even a definite appointment. For example, the Minister of Transport has twice extended the period in which the Commission was required to submit a charges scheme. But December 31, 1954, is a date which; now that the Minister has fixed it, he can hardly fail to keep if he desires to escape being burned in effigy at the next function arranged by the hauliers.
Naming the day has been a notable act of faith on the part of the Minister. It compels him to press forward regardless of the course of events. Even if there were no takers for any of the transport units, the decision to abolish the 25-mile limit would have to be honoured. For one school of thought this would be an admirable conclusion, but it would certainly make the Bill appear an odd piece of legislation.
There is little hope that the Bill will have an easy passage. The Socialists have already loosed off a shower of missiles at its predecessor, and are lining up ready to repeat the barrage. Their weapons may be somewhat antiquated, but make up in noise for what they lack in
power of penetration. Also in the ranks of the Opposition is a surprisingly large contingent of economists, professors and the like. As experts, they dislike the unknown. The clear-cut proposals of the 1947 Act and the large literary and statistical ‘output of the Commission provide for them food which they fail to find in the new Bill.
Nor can the Government expect anything but bleak, if veiled, hostility from the Ivory Tower. Nationalized road transport, having taken a beating from the critics in the last fi7e years, is now making a last-ditch recovery in prestige. As the Bill is the subject of much public interest, the friends and supporters of the Road Haulage Executive are taking the opportunity to paint a somewhat idealized picture of steady progress.
Growing Confidence
The public cannot but note that the hauliers, if their published statements are anything to go by, seem mostly interested in changing the Bill, presumably to their own advantage. The public may also have noticed that even the Government appears to feel a growing confidence in the R.H.E. The original plan, providing for complete abolition, was later amended to allow the Commission to retain a fleet equivalent to that operated by road haulage companies in which the railways had a controlling interest before nationalization. The new Bill provides that this rump may be increased by one-fifth, and until a satisfactory explanation of this change has been given, the public may be excused for imagining that the extra concession may be counted unto the R.H.E. for righteousness.
Rehabilitation of the R.H.E. is helped by the present taciturnity of trade and industry. There is still little praise for the R.H.E. from its customers, but they have for the most part ceased to condemn. Still less are they energetically supporting the Bill. It may be that the C-licence holder, no more than Alice, relishet pointed references to an abnormal rate of growth. It may be a natural desire to keep the haulier in his place now that his position is to be restored. Whatever the reasons, trade and industry are certainly among that section of the community concerning whose lack of support the Minister recently expressed regret.
By naming the day, the Minister has set a target for prospective buyers of transport uqits. They will be in two minds whether to act quickly. They may feel that, by waiting until 1955, they will be able to buy more cheaply. On the other hand, the best units will probably be disposed of first, and, if the buyer wants to take full advantage of his unrestricted A licence, the sooner he makes up his mind the better. Under the old Bill, the purchase would have been something of a gamble, as the buyer would have had to guess how long he had to consolidate his position in the long-distance field. The provision in the new Bill gives him exact information.
It also relieves the Minister from what might have become an embarrassing situation. While it remained his duty to specify the appointed day, he would inevitably have been subject to some pressure from the established hauliers on one side and the holders of special A licences on the other. The strength, and no doubt the stridency of presentation, of the hauliers' ease would have. increased as time went on, particularly when it is remembered that their lack of responsibility for the
circumstances necessitating the levy gives them no exemption from paying it. The parvenu hauliers would have devised arguments for retaining the limit indefinitely, and would have accused the Minister of misleading them whatever the date finally fixed.
Disputes would also have,taken place between the two sides in the industry. The absence of an appointed day would have formed an artificial barrier between them. As it is, the subject should not now cause any division. The hauliers are naturally pleased that some concession has been made on what they regarded as their main bone of contention with the Minister. To the buyers, the named day is merely one of the points to be considered when the transaction takes place.
The hauliers should consider themselves fortunate. In retrospect, it is strange that they should have made little attempt to secure public support for the points on which they apparently felt so strongly. The levy was universally unpopular, and its critics made no bones about voicing their opinion, which has been largely accepted by the Government. But nobody apart from the hauliers was greatly concerned about the new licensing conditions or that the 25-mile limit was not being abolished immediately.
There was a good case to be made out on both items. As it was not explained, the agitation appeared to be inspired merely by unenlightened self-interest. It was easy to see why the hauliers would benefit from imme diate abolition of the limit and from preserving tk .existing licensing system. What was lacking was a clew statement on how these things would benefit trade and industry, the public, and possibly the railways.
Hauliers now have two years in which to plan ahead. They know that to a large extent the structure of their industry will remain constant during that period. There should be little change in the number and scope of the original and substituted permits now in operation. As the road haulage interests of the Commission diminish, it may be that more ordinary and job permits will be made available.
A more liberal licensing procedure will come into force as soon as the Bill becomes law, but is unlikely to lead to an influx of newcomers at least until the end of 1954. An outsider wishing to enter the industry will be more interested in buying a transport unit. Purchasers of the units will for the first year or so be chiefly concerned to secure the long-distance traffic that the R.H.E. Will progressively relinquish.
The stage is set, the time of the performance is fixed, and the disposal of the nationalized assets is merely the prologue. Behind the scenes the players should be busy prepari,ng something really calculated to justify so much fuss and so much legislation. The play's the thing, and it now rests with the present and the future hauliers to ensure that the public is not disappointed.