The Ringer
Page 49
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Although Some of the White Paper's Provisions may be Disliked, its Philosophical Background will meet with Approval: to Leave the Country's Transport Unchanged is to Perpetuate an Unsatisfactory System LET nobody accuse the present Government of lack of courage. In publishing its White Paper on transport policy it has gallantlY and unequivocally nailed its colours to the mast.. There can be no going back. If the providers and users of transport do not give their support at least to the main principles embodied in the White Paper, the Government will be left in the unhappy state of having a policy it cannot carry out.
This is a point that should be borne in mind by those critics who favour free enterprise but regard the White Paper as a long way removed from their ideal. They must be careful not to throw out the baby, with the bath-water. They should certainly not hesitate to voice their opinions, but should remember at the same time that to leave the country's transport unchanged is to perpetuate a system that has satisfied few of them and may be extended by another Government emboldened by their lack of agreement to undertake further experi ments in State control. .
Most people seem still to be goggle-eyed at the terms of the White Paper. It provides a plan for denationalization, yes ! It says so. But many of the supporters of denationalization find difficulty in recognizing the horse they have backed. They had not expected that the return to free enterprise would restore the 1948 position, but they had hoped that some of the old landmarks would be put up again. In the event, the policy so briefly outlined in the White Paper could transform the road haulage industry almost beyond recognition.
Danger of Monopoly
At the outset there is the proposal that the Road Haulage Executive should • be divided into "operable units" and sold by open tender. Hauliers past and present would under this arrangement have no priority. It is possible, and even likely, that outside financial interests would combine to establish control over the greater part of long-distance road transport! Although the White Paper provides for a "suitable proportion of small units," there seems nothing to prevent representatives of one organization from buying any number of units for subsequent amalgamation.
Literally speaking, the White Paper redeems the Conservative election pledge to give operators whose undertakings have been nationalized an opportunity to return into the industry. In practice, they will have difficulty in securing the unit most fitted to their requirements and experience. The White Paper ignores, in particular, the problems facing ex-hauliers who went over with their businesses. It condemns the barren search for integration and criticizes the elaborate system of depots created by the Road Haulage Executive. During the past few years an increasing number of people has put in similar terms the case which has been made out against nationalization.
It is important to disentangle from such criticisms the individuals making up the R.H.E. Most of them had previously proved their capacity either in transport or in some other walk of life. Many actively opposed nationalization almost up to the day when their businesses were taken over. Once they had thrown in their lot with the R.H.E., they naturally did their best to make it a success. It was the system, not the individuals, that Many of them have developed an affection for the R.H.E. almost as strong as their former love of free enterprise. There is no reason why they should not respond with equal fervour to an invitation to rejoin their old comrades and help to build up the-better and cheaper system of transport promised in the White Paper. It is preferable, however, perhaps essential, that the invitation should be given and that it should be clear. The White Paper, in rejecting the organization of the R.H.E., seems also to be condemning its staff.
"Frigid Tone" In saying this I may be doing the Government an injustice. The absence of any suggestion that ex-operators would be welcomed back may be part of the generally frigid tone adopted by the White Paper in its references to road transport. Even the promise of denationalization is made in so offhand a manner that one is reminded of the family having a whip round to raise the wherewithal to pay for the black sheers passage to Australia.
Far different in tone are the references to the railways. They are a "national asset " (almost as if road transport is a national liability)."They must remain an essential element in transport and cannot be allowed to fall into decay." For this reason they are to be given a carefully regulated and perennial blood transfusion from their more vigorous rival. There is to be a levy on goods vehicles operated by A-, Band C-licence holders, with the exception of small local delivery vans operated under C licences.
The levy, as outlined in the White Paper, is a Subsidy of the most diabolical kind. It is a hybrid made up of the loss the Government expects from the sale of nationalized road haulage assets and the loss the railways may sustain once the road haulage industry is allowed to expand. Part of the levy, according to the proposal, will be paid to amortize the Government's loss over a period of years; the rest will go to the railways. One might expect, therefore, that in due course the first part of the levy would come to an end, and the White Paper states that the second part will not be used to make good loss of railway revenues attributable to reasons other than the competition of road transport. Unfortunately, taxation seldom stays docilely within the compound its original creators place round it. Apart from the difficulty of establishing exactly how any particular railway loss is caused, the likelihood is that the purpose of the levy, like that of the Road Fund, will soon be forgotten. Nothing on earth will stop a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few years' time increasing the levy merely to get additional revenue.
It is in some ways a novel principle that a new development in an industry should be taxed in order to preserve the rival that otherwise it might expect ultimately to supplant. • If Lord Leathers had anything to do with this device, we may perhaps expect him to apply the principle also in the field of fuel and power, making us, for example, pay more for the electric light we prefer in order that the gas undertaking may continue to provide the service we no longer need. Redundant and obsolete services will continue for ever, so long as the Government is prepared to rob Atomic-Age Peter to pay Storte-Age Paul.
Unashamed Subsidy Nevertheless, it would he a mistake to reject the levy out of hand merely because it is unpalatable or because it is unashamedly presented as a means of holstering up the railways. Perhaps it was too much to hope for denationalization without tears. The levy is the price of free enterprise, and trade and industry, as well as the hauliers, now have to make up their minds whether the price is worth paying.
The White Paper's indictment of the present transport system is sweeping. It states, without reservation, that the Transport Act has not achieved, and is not likely to achieve, its avowed purpose. In spite of the efforts made by the British Transport Commission and its Executives, integration has made little progress, and would in any case mean the creation of a huge, unwieldy machine. The railways have become excessively centralized, The R.H.E. "cannot give trade and industry the speedy, individual and specialized services afforded by free hauliers, and could not stand up to competition from them." At the same time, the process of restricting road haulage to avoid excessive road-rail competition has gone too far.
Even some Socialists have admitted that there is a good deal of truth in this picture of the present position. Chambers of Commerce and Trade, the . National Farmers' Union and other similar organizations are familiar with complaints about lack of service from the R.H.E. and about the high rates. More significant still, these complaints are usually coupled with praise of the standard set by free enterprise before nationalization.
Which, is Preferred ?
If a tithe of the complaints be true, the annual cost to trade and industry of using nationalized road transport must be colossal. It must certainly be much greater than the proposed levy, which, is expected to work out at no more than a fraction of a penny per ton-mile. When the inevitable and justified protests have been made, trade and industry must still decide whether they prefernationalization to denationalization plus levy.
The situation is further confused by the threat from the Socialists that as soon as they get back into power they will reverse the process outlined in the White Paper. It is possible to take this seriously, or to take politics seriously, but not both. So you may make your own choice. As a deterrent against prospective purchasers of R.H.E. assets, the threat may.prove.effective. If not presumably the Socialists willbe called upon at some time or another to make good their word. Three Major upheavals in the transport industry will then have taken place in a few years merely to make a political point.
That the Socialists would oppose the White Paper was to be expected. It will be interesting to find out in due course why, before they had had a real chance to study the Government's proposals, much less before they had had the opportunity of watching the effect of the proposals, they should have given notice of their intention to turn back the clock.
The transport workers, in so far as they are represented by the trade unions, have already passed several resolutions in favour of leaving things as they are. It is difficult, however, to imagine why the workers should feel that they would be worse off under free enterprise. Certainly, the quarrel that seems likely to break out between the road transport and the railway unions would be avoided if the two sides of the industry were no longer both within the B.T.C.
Even if the Socialists receive the official support of the workers, therefore, this need not necessarily represent the opinions of the rank and file. As for trade and industry, although to the Opposition it may look like ingratitude, there is no denying that they have failed to appreciate the benefits of the Transport Act and of integration.
Considered dispassionately, the measure of denationalization proposed in the White Paper is not great. It affects 40,000 vehicles, or less than 5 per cent. of the . road transport industry's total of nearly one million.
The empire of the B.T.C. will still be tinge. If the Socialists believe that the position of the railways has improved as a result of the Transport Act, they should be reassured that the railways will remain under State ownership.
Political Manoeuvres The need to have some regard for the manceuvrei of the Opposition may help to account for some of the surprising items in the White Paper, and in particular for the levy. Freed from the entanglements of integration, and provided with an annual contribution from their chief competitors, the railways ought to make progress during the next few years, to such an extent that even the unions would have no desire to change the situation again. For this reason the appearance of the horse so much favoured by free. enterprise may have been altered deliberately. The ringer has been at work in the hope of giving it a greater chance of success.
Much as one may dislike some of the provisions of the White Paper, the philosophical background will meet with wide approval. The document gives few reassurances even to those sections of the road transport industry who may be regarded as supporting the policy of denatioaalization. It makes no attempt to placate the transport operator, the C-licence holder, or the transport worker who, in fact, is not even mentioned. The basic assqmption of the White Paper is that "a positive approach" is needed and that the sole aim is to meet adequately "the demands of trade, industry and commerce "—and presumably the general public.
Alas for Transport Man that this simple truth should have to be emphasized ! The threat by the Socialists has not been made on his behalf. One can only hope that the Government will at least have time'enough to provide a brave new transport worIdfor Transport Man, and that, if he likes it better. than the old one, he makes -up his mind to keep it. For this.to be•even possible, the -transport industry -must -take up the .challenge of the White Paper, in spite of its objectionable features.