1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
SEARCH FOR A FORMULA
Page 82
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IF THERE HAS BEEN some hesitation in publishing the final official details of the new transport legislation the reason may be the difficulty of finding the right formula for the explanatory statement which would normally accompany it. Like a lady trying out one hat after another in a milliner's shop the Minister of Transport and her supporting Ministers have tested various forms of wording with no great success. The arguments are not only thin but tend to trip one another up.
For a time it seemed adequate to say that because the railways were a great national asset their surplus capacity must be utilized to the greatest possible extent. The compulsory use of almost any long-standing institution could be promoted in this way. The public saw no more necessity for diverting goods to rail than for sending them by canal or by road for that matter.
The possibility that there might be a significant decrease in road congestion was ruled out by the Minister's further reassurance that only a very small proportion of road traffic was suitable for transfer to the railways.
As a step towards allaying the fears of trade and industry it was promised that rail objections to road transport licences would be valid only if the railways could give a service at least as good in every way as that of the operator they were supplanting. Furthermore, if the railways did not make good their boast the operator would have the right to demand the traffic back.
It is a curious economics view which envisages hauliers waiting in a kind of transport limbo in the hope that the railways would fall down on the job. Apart from this there was the obvious point that if the rail service was at least as satisfactory or even superior there was no need to line the path to the goods station with the corpses of operators driven out of business by unfair legislation. Compulsory direction of traffic was no way to win friends and influence people.
Even Mrs. Barbara Castle's undoubted skill in debate has not succeeded in reconciling the fact of unused railway capacity with the contention that the best possible service is there and that trade and industry will not use it. One or two attempts have been made to explain the paradox. They have not proved very serviceable.
Mr. Stephen Swingler, Minister of State, went so far as to blame the transport manager for the neglect of the railways.
"Some people are remarkably slow in seeing a benefit when it is dangled before their eyes," said Mr. Swingler. The country could not afford to see money wasted because "some people refuse, whether through ignorance or for some other reason, to spend their own money sensibly".
In the debate on transport in the House of Commons last week Mr. Anthony Barber made considerable capital out of these remarks. He described them as an example of "the pure milk of Socialist arrogance".
The criticism is bound to extend beyond party politics. No trader or transport manager believes himself infallible. He may not always choose the best form of transport for his traffic. All he would claim is that he is likely to make the correct choice more often than an elaborate licensing machine with a built-in predilection for the railways.
If the Government is marking time until it can find the proper convincing arguments this does not mean that the Opposition can afford to sit back and wait until the battle is joined. The recent debate showed little evidence that the Conservatives were in a position to produce a suitable plan to set against Mrs. Castle's proposals.
Had there been no need to take the railways into account those proposals would be embarrassingly close to what the Conservatives themselves would put forward. It was Mr. Ernest Marples who set up the Geddes Committee although its report did not appear until after the Labour Party had come into power. The basic recommendation that the licensing system should be abolished but that stronger methods should be used for ensuring proper standards of operation was in line with what many of the Conservatives had themselves suggested.
So far from her proposals being the pure milk of Socialism Mrs. Castle could say that they take road transport nine-tenths of the way towards the Geddes Utopia. The Conservatives are not finding it easy to disagree with her. Their strictures are reserved for the remaining tenth which in effect gives the railways an option on any traffic they would like to carry. The Conservatives have not made clear to what extent they disagree with Mrs. Castle on this fairly narrow front. The extreme to which they could go would be to urge that the special position of the railways should no longer be taken into account and that quality licences should be as freely available in the long-distance as in the shortdistance field. This would be a literal interpretation of the slogan that the customer should have complete freedom of choice between road and rail.
Is this what the Conservatives want? Mrs. Castle's plan has at least the dubious merit that it will bring some extra traffic to the railways, thus increasing their revenue and, it must be supposed, reducing their losses.
Abolition of licensing will if anything have the contrary effect. There will be some traders and hauliers, perhaps a considerable number, who will take the opportunity to move into long-distance transport. They will get traffic where they can and in many cases this will be from the railways.
If it came to the point any political party would hesitate before it allowed this to happen.
The rail problem cannot be shrugged off as an interesting example of the struggle for the survival of the fittest. There are too many people involved and nobody would be prepared to contradict Mrs. Castle's claim that the railways are a national asset. They will remain in being for a long time to come and the problem of minimizing their losses must be faced.
On the assumption that some kind of licensing system is necessary for traffic in which the railways have an interest the question to be resolved is whether the present system is suitable. Difficulties would at once arise if all restrictions were lifted in the short-distance field.
The trader would be free to carry his own traffic without limit but to carry for hire or reward only for distances up to 100 miles unless he held a quantity licence. Among many anomalies it seems strange that return loads would be in order up to that distance but not beyond.
Unless the Conservatives are prepared to follow the Geddes logic to the bitter end they must make up their minds what alternative they have to Mrs. Castle's plan.
Janus