AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

JANUS

17th May 1963, Page 58
17th May 1963
Page 58
Page 58, 17th May 1963 — JANUS
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

WRITES

The Labour party . . . has no real policy on road transport

FROM recent statements by leaders of the Labour party, particularly during the two major debates in Parliament, the impression becomes stronger that the party has no real policy on road transport, and would like to sweep the whole subject under the carpet. The shadow Minister of Transport, Mr. George Strauss, could find no better reply to the Beeching plan than to propose that it should be put on ice until there had been a thorough survey of the nation's other transport services and facilities, and until a national transport plan had been drawn up.

By this means, the Socialists may have avoided either accepting or damning the Beeching plan, but they also ostentatiously withdrew from the whole nasty transport mess. That at least would be the reasonable assumption. It is hardly possible to expect that any Government would allow the railways to sink further and further into debt at the taxpayer's expense. A plan of some sort had to be prepared, adopted and put into effect. Unless the Opposition is itself prepared to make constructive counter-suggestions, or point out why the plan is wrong, it must take some responsibility for the consequences. .

Needless to say, whatever the force of this argument, the Labour party could not accept it. But this will not prevent the Socialists from saying something different when the moment seems opportune. As Mn Harold Wilson put it: " Within the terms of reference that he was given, Dr. Beeching has done a competent and efficient job ". The Socialists will stilt consider themselves free to criticize each item of the plan as it comes into operation, and they have rather grandly suggested to the unions that the fight against the plan should be conducted not on the industrial but on the political front. The unions have apparently accepted this contention, although it is perilously near to being meaningless in the fight of Mr. Wilson's statement.

LITTLE CONSISTENCY

There was little consistency between Labour party speakers even on basic principles. Lord Morrison, whO opened the discussion in the House of Lords and might reasonably therefore be accepted as a party spokesman, stated categorically that he considered transport as a commercial undertaking. To treat it in any other way, he said, would be to invite "unlimited subsidies ". Mr. Wilson, on the other hand, condemned "narrow book-keeping considerations ". Transport was a social service as well as an industry. Here is the kind of contradiction that the Labour party may find embarrassing if and when it is in power. It matters far less when it is in the happy position of praising Dr. Beeching for his report while condemning the Government for acting upon it.

In the same strain, Mr. Wilson seemed to find nothing anomalous in maintaining that the whole field of transport should be surveyed before judgment was passed, and simultaneously passing his own prior judgment on road transport, or rather on road goods transport. It may be significant that he barely mentioned the growth of private motoring" and at once shied off the subject, for reasons perhaps best known to himself. On the subject of goods c8

traffic he was bolder. The only way to deal with this, hi asserted, was to adopt a policy which brought "into thi transport pool" the. profits 'Screamed off from rail ti road" and which ensured an economic division of traffic between the two forms of transport.

Once again, therefore, the Socialists appear to be getting or trying to get, the best of both worlds. They want nc action taken until there has been a comprehensive inquiry but at the same time they are certain what they will do ai soon as they are given the chance. An interesting positior would certainly arise if they had their inquiry and thc verdict turned out to be very different from their owr confident assertions.

One thing on which Mr. Wilson is positive is that hi party would remove what he calls the "artificial ceiling' from the expansion of British Road Services. This is in tin context a curious proposal. Mr. Wilson may be referrini to the licensing system, which artificially limits the growti of B.R.S. as well as other hauliers; or to the mixed feeling: with which the present Government might view the ver3 rapid growth of a nationalized undertaking whose wing: had been deliberately trimmed by the legislation of 195! and 1956.

Whatever the Government's opinion, there is no cleai evidence that it has found it necessary to apply the brala In B.R.S. expansion, and B.R.S. itself shows no sign! of a belief that it would find i1 an advantage to make substantial increases to its present fleet of about 16,00f vehicles. In common with many other operators, it expanding slowly by the general tendency to substitut4 heavier vehicles, and has acquired one or two privati road-haulage businesses. Its intention has been to rounc off its existing organization rather than to build a nev, empire.

To take B.R.S. out of the licensing system, if this is whai Mr. Wilson has in mind, would seem to be a curious wa3 of helping the railways, of which B.R.S. is one of the chiel competitors. For Mr. Wilson, however, licensing seem to hold an important key to the future. He suggests thai the regulations for A and B licences should be examined "including distance limits ". He is positive that tht number of C licences must not be allowed to expanc indefinitely. These problems, be claims, should be mach the subject of inquiry, and at the same time by some sleighi of hand implies that Mr. Marples is at fault in setting ut a committee for just this purpose.

Mr. Wilson, of course, wants the licensing inquiry to Ix part of the thorough survey proposed by Mr. Strauss. I+ also wants urban congestion and other subjects to be included. Why every aspect of transport has to be con. sidered simultaneously is never explained. Is it suggestec that the Beeching plan would have to be fundamentall3 changed to conform with a new licensing system, new towr -planning and so on? The Labour party does not seem tc think so. There should be every advantage, therefore, is beginning with a widely approved plan, which involve: some drastic changes in the railways, and considering how for example, the licensing system ought to be modified it the light of that plan rather than on the basis of the presen situation.


comments powered by Disqus