Closed Shop
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HOPE that the Labour Party would call a truce on the present line between State ownership and private enterprise has never been strong. It becomes a little more attenuated now that the party conference have decided to have a full-scale discussion on nationalization next year. The temper of the party is moving towards the left, and those members who trim their sails to the prevailing fashion have joined the chorus of disapproval at any suggestion that the aims and objects of Socialism can be achieved within a framework of private ownership.
Trade and industry, and even some hauliers, might be disposed to agree that ownership does not tell the whole story. Nationalization made little difference to the railways, and British Road Services seem very much like any other hauliers, particularly since disposal. What operators and users dislike more would be the reintroduction of integration.
A frank warning of what this might mean appears in of all places) a contribution to one of the British Transport Commission's publications by Mr. G. W. Quick Smith, a member of the B.R.S. management board. He distinguishes between the "era of integration" that followed the Transport Act, 1947, and the "competitive era" that began with the Transport Act, 1953. Whatever reassurances the Labour Government and the Commission may have given about integration at the time, Mr. Quick Smith is under no illusions as to the implications.
" Integration in its fullest sense," he says, " must interfere with the user's choice to some extent." The C-licensee's freedom would limit the possibilities of integration. Any attempt to transfer traffic from road to rail by manipulating rates would drive the user to run. his own vehicles rather than pay an inflated price. "At the same time, he would have used public transport for those classes of traffic for which the tariff charges were less than his own costs."
Integration Impossible
Mr. Quick Smith concludes his digression on the subject of integration by pointing out that under the 1953 Act the freedom of A-licensees as well as C-licensees rules out any question of integration, "whether by price manipulation or otherwise." He does not say whether he thinks this a bad thing or not. He is content to chronicle the passage of events in which he has consistently played an important part. "The wheel has turned full circle and freedom for all is the order of the day."
In carrying out the order Mr. Quick Smith sees no difficulty. "Competition is not in itself a policy, but it can establish a situation from which a policy can emerge." Once it has emerged, B.R.S. will pursue that policy "with a confidence which is justified by their past record and their present determination to acquit themselves well." Does he mean that in the past they lacked that determination? Presumably not, for in Mr. Quick Smith's opinion B.R.S. would come out on top irrespective of the circumstances. No left-wing Socialist he.
His exact motive in dragging in the subject of integration is not clear. He is like an earnest and over-zealous dog let off the leash for a short period, that rushes madly about flushing up all sorts of creatures who would prefer to keep out of sight. In particular, hauliers and C-licensees cannot be pleased to have attention drawn to themselves in that context.
Mr. Quick Smith's digression seems to have been made to emphasize that integration is not the same as road-rail interworking. He appears to be on the point• of giving customers the further warning that they had better accept interworking lest worse befall. Naturally, he does not come to the point. Interworking between road and rail is so obviously sensible that it needs no threats to secure its general acceptance.
His intention is plainly to limit the scope of interworking to his own organization and the other services of the British Transport Commission. It is, he stresses, "common ownership" that provides the opportunity. "The Commission are able to offer to users a comprehensive service by road, rail or water, and in the new competitive world this should serve to enhance the attractiveness of their facilities." The inference is that independent hauliers will not have the same opportunities Friendly Rivalry
Mr. Quick Smith concludes that the confidence of B.R.S. in their comprehensive resources and in new techniques "is reinforced by the knowledge that within the British transport undertaking they will work in friendly rivalry with the railways, co-operating to attract to British Transport the maximum support of trade and• industry."
• This exclusiveness will not be relished by hauliers. Many of them work in conjunction with the railways, and the general wish of operators to extend interworking undoubtedly envisages that it would be with the Commission as a whole rather than with B.R.S. only. NOt as much has been done in this direction as had once been hoped. Liaison machinery set up some years ago included representatives of all the branches of the Commission concerned with goods transport. It has been little used except for dealing with licensing and the road-rail negotiating procedure, although hauliers and B.R.S. have kept in close touch on a number of other matters, including wages and the 20-m.p.h. speed limit for heavy goods vehicles.
Relations between hauliers and the railways have been surprisingly cordial so far as they have gone—more cordial in some respects, it has been said, than the relations between different branches of the Commission. If through liaison hauliers and the railways can work more closely together, the " attractiveness " of both to the customer should increase (according to Mr. Quick Smith). Any Government, whatever its political opinion, would favour such a development.
The impression—or perhaps it is no more than a suspicion—left by Mr. Quick Smith's article is that he would prefer the independent operator to be left out in the cold. He is perhaps not greatly in favour of comprehensive liaison, and would prefer that negotiations between hauliers and the Commission should as far as possible be channelled through B.R.S. There is no good reason for a closed shop of this kind. Every provider of transport has a part to play. If the performance can be improved by co-operation with another provider, no obstacles should be put in the way of direct contact.