The Oracle is Dumb
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentarâ– By JANUS
IT would not have been surprising had the Government incorporated in the Transport Bill a provision to wind up the Central Transport Consultative Committee and their area committees. Well-meaning though their work has been, these bodies have failed lo capture the public custom for which they were intended.
Their original purpose was easy to understand_ Nationalization invariably meant setting up barriers of various kinds between the general public and the industries affected. Over a wide field, Transport Man was deprived, without compensation, of the right to decide who should carry his goods or himself. What may have seemed a particularly happy way of overcoming the difficulty was to provide Transport Man with a mediator installed within the very shadow of the Ivory Tower.
A similar pattern was followed in setting up consumer councils in each of the nationalized industries. The members, who are unpaid, are appointed by the appropriate Minister from organizations that he selects as representing consumers. On the C.T.C.C. the British Transport Commission themselves are allowed two representatives. The function of the bodies thus established is twofold. They are intended as the medium for bringing suggestions or complaints to the attention of the nationalized organization, either at the request of consumers or on their own initiative. The committees or councils also have an advisory function.
Little Evidence Little more than two years ago, Mr. Herbert Morrison was claiming that the councils "not merely take up complaints of consumers with the boards, but enable the consumer to put forward suggestions and to take an active part in formulating the policy of the boards." The statement was based on little evidence. For the most part the councils, and not in the transport industry only, have failed to make any impression.
In their published utterances the committee seem to be reasonably satisfied with their work and with the state to which the Minister has been pleased to call it; but they must at times be puzzled to know whether their responsibility lies towards the Minister, the public or the Commission. The public cannot be blamed for regarding the committee as a typical piece of Socialist window-dressing. From this point of view it is surely a mistake for the Commission not only to have their own nominees on the committee, but also to pay the whole of the secretarial and other expenses.
As the committee are apparently to remain in being, the Minister of Transport might well consider making them completely independent of the Commission, nominally and financially. Even so, it is doubtful whether the committee will ever achieve what their original sponsors hoped. Unless Transport Man feels he has had some part in the appointment of their members, he is not likely to make much use of such a committee. As far as he can see, any point he puts forward could at most be the subject of a recommendation from the committee to the Commission; the right of the Minister to issue a direction on the recommendation would hardly ever be exercised. The public may feel that the complaint or suggestion can just as easily be put to the Commission direct. Should this approach be unsuccessful, the local M.P. may be able to help, or the point may form the subject of a letter to the Press. Strangely enough, the committee themselves frequently advise users to make direct contact with the Executives of the Commission.
In their recently issued report for 1952, the committee make particular reference to complaints of slow deliveries and losses through breakages put forward by the Federation of Associations of Specialists and SubContractors. The contention was that the methods now employed by the Road Haulage Executive meant more handling for each consignment, and that the advantages which manufacturers gained from employing private hauliers from door to door were no longer available.
Liaison Machinery The committee recommended the Federation to discuss "all of' their transport problems with the Executives concerned," and, where possible, to arrange liaison machinery throughout the country. "Our suggestion," the report adds, "has been adopted with satisfactory results." One would have liked to be told to whom the results were satisfactory, what extra work is involved in the operation of the "liaison machinery," and whether the R.H.E. have now completely changed the methods which were the original cause of the complaint.
On such questions the report has nothing to say. On another page, it leads off promisingly by quoting twin grievances ventilated by the British Furniture Manufacturers' Federated Associations. These were "the monopoly by the State of the haulage for hire or reward of newly manufactured furniture which had created grave and inflationary hardship to the industry and the British public; and the grossly excessive carriage charges and onerous carriage conditions unilaterally imposed by the R.H.E. on the industry." The committee sought further information on the matter, which was left in abeyance on the introduction of the Transport Bill.
The views of the committee are not stated at all on the proposal by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, a counsel almost of despair, that road haulage rates should be fixed by statute. After pointing out one or two difficulties, the committee suggested that other organizations representing transport users should be consulted. This brought the 'retort that the committee was "abdicating its responsibilities."
Without necessarily agreeing with the association's plan, one can understand their feeling of frustration. The committee were supposed to play the part of conscience to the Commission, to fill on a higher moral plane the role formerly played under free enterprise by what is known as the "spur of competition." Instead of this, the committee act much like a committee. They refer matters back, call for further information, pass votes of thanks and so on. As an information desk, a means for ensuring that complaints and suggestions are passed to the right quarter, the committee have done useful work. But it is no oracle that one finds on the threshold of the Ivory Tower—or, if an oracle, it is singularly silent.