MOTLEY
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SACKCLOTH and ashes are not suitable for workaday dress, but this does not mean that motley is the only wear. The British Transport Commission are righrin continually beating their breasts; there are plenty of other people to do the job for them. On the other hand, one expects them to take their troubles seriously. If the 1959 annual report is not the place for an apology to the taxpayer for spending so much of his money with no apparent hope that he will ever get it back, at least the financial circumstances of the Commission ought to be set out clearly, and not swept under the carpet with the other awkward and unfavourable items.
What the Commission want the public to think is naturally set out most clearly and simply in British Transport in 1959. the popular and abridged version of the report. It contains only one reference, and that in an appendix, to the real state of the Commission's finances. Otherwise the tone throughout is one of optimism, almost of euphoria.
The popular vepsion, like the report itself, begins with a reference to the two major inquiries at present being made into the activities of nationalized transport. A Parliamentary select committee has been examining the work of the railways, and a special advisory group has been trying to discover the best way of securing a better use of the Commission's assets. "In point of fact," the Commission claim, "progress towards these objectives, and towards a better financial position for the undertaking, was considerable during 1959."
As proof of this, they point to the working deficit for the year of £13m., less, than half the £28m. recorded in 1958. British Railways reduced their own working deficit by £6m. to £42m.. and almost all the other activities of the Commission showed an improvement. British Road Services, "though competition mounted steadily "—whatever that may mean—carried 6 per cent, more traffic and increased their net receipts by El m. London Transport and Tilling and Scottish buses all did better in 1959 in spite of the delay and financial loss entailed by congestion.
Negligible Effect
All these achievements are worth while, and it is right for the Commission to record them and to take some pride in them. But their effect on the financial fortunes of the Commission is little more than negligible. The railways account for about two-thirds of the entire revenue and expenditure of the Commission, and it is upon the results of the railways that the Commission must stand or fail. However well B.R.S. conduct their affairs--and even if they were restored to the position before denationalization —they could hardly help the railways materially while their entire revenue is substantially less than the true revenue deficit of the railways.
The so-called special account, now paid for directly out of taxation, has been swollen as a result of the year's activities by £84m., made up in equal parts of the net working deficit of the railways and their share of the Commission's central charges. In addition, the money is being supplied by the Treasury, nominally as a loan, for the cost of the railway modernization scheme, Which in 1959 accounted for nearly all the Commission's expenditure of £168m, on fixed assets.
Typical of the report is the comment that, although this figure is higher than in 1958, the share of the railways in • total road and rail investment in the country was no greater, "investment in road transport having increased in step." To the road user this seems hardly better than flippant. Over 90 per cent. of the road investment, as the Commission themselves point out in a diagram, was in vehicles and buildings and was paid for by the road users, and the special taxation they have to pay defrayed many times over the cost of the roads.
The railways are in a fortunate position. It is extremely unlikely, even after the dual investigation now being made into their activities, that they would be required to go into liquidation. At the same time they are permitted and even encouraged to behave like any other industrial concern, that is to say, to increase their business and decrease their expenditure.
After recording a rise of 2.3 per cent. in general goods tonnages—but ignoring a drop of 4.3 per cent, in revenue from this source--the report adds: "Complaints on an increasing scale from road transport operators about competition in rates from the railways were a sign that the railway drive to obtain those traffics which are most suitable for rail haulage was no longer being hindered by the traditional railway rates„structure."
Intensified Competition
It is then pointed out, with the help of a diagram, that the number of railway goods wagons went down and the number of lorries went up, especially C-licensed vehicles weighing more than 2.1, tons. "Competition with their own customers to which the railways and other public hauliers are thus driven was therefore intensified."
This may be interpreted as an appeal to hauliers to stand firm with the railways against the wicked trader and manufacturer. It is not an appeal to which hauliers will respond with any warmth, for they at least are in a good position to see the flaw in the argument. If the railways are no longer hindered by• a rigid rates structure, they are also unhindered by an absolute and burning need to show a profit on the rates they charge. This is a very cogent need for the haulier, who also has' to fit himself into the strictly regulated licensing system.
It is open to doubt whether the haulier competes with the C-licence holder in the same sense as he competes with other hauliers and with the railways, but the extent of his competition in either sense is limited by his licence, the main reason for which is the desire of the Government to protect the same railways who are classing themselves as his companions in adversity. He may be excused, therefore, for his occasional outbursts of anger at the attitude taken up by the Commission in their periodic reports.
The haulier who accuses the railways of cutting rates can find evidence in the report. He rightly refuses to accept fair competition as a completely satisfactory excuse while the affairs of the Commission are in such a tangle. If he thinks the railways are irresponsible, the report gives him grounds for his opinion. The fact that two major inquiries have had to be carried out is the strongest possible indication that there is something amiss.
The report makes the inquiries the reason or excuse for not setting out the "factors which tend to delay or even jeopardize the attainment of viability by the undertaking as a whole." For the haulier' this is not good enough. He believes he knows what the factors are. They are in the main the same as have restricted his expansion for a quarter of a century, and it is adding insult to injury that he should continue to endure them while the railways play at being an entirely commercial undertaking.