Scapegoats for the 13.T.0
Page 33
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MOUNTING expenses and Competition frOm road transport, especially from the .C-licensee, are blamed by Mr. Alfred Barnes, the Minister of Transport, for the loss of £20 m. sustained by the British Transport Commission in 1949. In the recent debate in the House of Commons on the Commission's annual report, he tried to minimize the failure of nationalization so far to solve the problem of the railways, by contending that had a private company been presenting the report, it would have claimed to have made a profit of £31 m. The suggestion was appropriately greeted with laughter.
Although the Minister was charged by one of his own supporters with being "calm and complacent," he cannot fail to be perturbed by the " progress " of nationalization. According to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, K.C., nationalized road haulage lost £ 1 m. in 1949, whereas under private ownership, the acquired businesses made profits. Mr. L. J. Callaghan, for the Government, denied this allegation, but added that: "What the Commission has had to take over in the last 12 months in road haulage undertakings has not been exactly the cream of the industry."
Long-distance Services to be Suppressed ?
It seems strange that the Government should have gone to such lengths to drive through Parliament an Act to acquire inferior businesses, unless the object were to suppress them. Indications of that intention have been given in the Commission's policy of integration and the Minister's statement in Parliament that long-distance services run by hauliers produced "ruinous and wasteful competition" with the railways "which, in the long run. benefits no element in the community." Competition between road and rail is in no way diminished by a change of ownership of the rival systems of transport, and the only inference to be drawn is that long-distance road services will be banished, The trader's much-vaunted freedom of choice will disappear with them.
This theme was taken up by Mr. Dalton, Minister of Town and Country Planning, during the debate in the House of Commons, last week, on the Address in reply to the King's Speech. He repeated the claim already made by distinguished Socialists that there were too many vehicles, on the roads. Apparently.to justify the Commission's .decision to revoke 5300 permits held by free hauliers, he alleged that many vehicles were running only half-loaded., .
That is a tacit admission that the State-owned transport system is not adequately employed. To bolster it up, uneconomic running is to be transferred to free hauliers, who are probably expected to go bankrupt and thereby to solve the road-rail problem for the Government: Maximum loading will not, however, be 'achieved if the Commission -sion 'has to acquire the goodwill and vehicles of The operatori whosetraffic is taken from them, and if it cemtinueS to run what Mr. Dalton believes to be a superfluity of vehicles. The Minister of Town and Country Planning seems to envisage the destruction of vehicles purchased with public funds from hauliers, because he said that "it is part of our purpose to get rid of this redundancy."
An Onslaught on the C-licensee Perhaps. however, he was thinking also of the large number of C-licence vehicles in this country. If he were, he would find support at least from Mr. C. C. Poole, who, during the earlier debate on the B.T.C.'s annual report, said that Mr. Barnes had "not the remotest conception of what is required of a nationalized undertaking to make it successful." Mr. Poole's solution is to remove the trader's right to run his own vehicles. In Parliament, he alleged that there was "a great, organized attempt to denigrate and destroy a nationalized undertaking," although he did not seek to identify the organizer, presumably because none exists.
He also claimed that C-licensees were illegally carrying return loads "to a very large extent" and said that he was collecting evidence of sabotage for submission to the B.T.C. It would be idle to pretend that ancillary, users never break the law by carrying for hire or reward, but the extravagance of Mr. Poole's complaint made it farcical.
He has reached the conclusion that there is not the traffic in this country for more than 650,0013 goods vehicles, whereas at the end of 1949 there were 801,000 and the number of C-licensed vehicles was increasing. His argument is based on the fallacious theory that transport cannot be economic unless it is fully engaged throughout its working life. It takes no account of the factors which influence traders in running their own vehicles. It ignores the importance to the operator of the convenience of having his own transport available at a moment's notice, of the specialized knowledge of the product required by ancillak users' drivers; and of the publicity value of a 'Smart fleet controlled by the user.
Traders Dissatisfied It is true that traders have increased their own fleets, to the detriment of the Road Haulage Executive, for the reason_ that they are not satisfied with the service given by the State road transport undertaking:.The restriction of the, trader's right to run his own vehicles will not improve that service, and if it be the policy to suppress longdistance road haulage, the strangulation of the C-licensee will not materially benefit the R.H.E.
In his enthusiasm for the railways, and for Socialism, Mr. PoOle is apparently willing to risk the prosperity of the whole of British industry. His reasoning is dangerously' plausible to the uninformed, and he may well gather round him a body of Socialist opinion that will increase the clamour for the restriction of the C-licensee. It is to the Minister's credit that he has so far resisted pressure by Mr. Poole to plunge the country into an even deeper morass by taking from the trader the control of his own transport. It is by no means certain, however, that he will continue to do so. At least he has not suffered a change of heart on the nationalization of road passenger transport. During the debate, he expressed regret that area road passenger schemes were not proceeding as rapidly as he had hoped. The results of the work of the Road Passenger Executive since its inception can hardly be expected to comfort him. Lord Hurcomb, chairman of the B.T.C., recently declared that the Northern Area scheme was not dead, but independent road passenger transport h.si scored a great moral victory in the Road Passenger Executive's proposal, after a year's investigation, to reduce the scope of the projected Eastern Area scheme. Nevertheless, the continued existence of the Executive and its " paper " schemes are a potential danger that only a change of Government can finally remove.
Integration by Force The road transport industry exists in a precari ous state. The Government that forced the Transport Act with indiscreet haste through Parliament must find some way of making transport operators and users fit into the pattern which has been laid down for them. If the shape of their wishes does not conform to the contours of the Socialists' predetermined plan, it may be altered by force. The tolerance for which Mr. Herbert Morrison-recently called in a party political broadcast has no place in Socialist doctrine.
• The Transport (Amendment) Bill is an indication to the Government that many of the electors are dissatisfied with .the plan for transport. Trade and industry must use all their resources to support the Bill, the provisions of which will restore to them at least part of the good service that they have lost.