AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal in the Sky.

20th June 1958, Page 59
20th June 1958
Page 59
Page 59, 20th June 1958 — Tribunal in the Sky.
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?

ONLY a military man would suggest, as did Sir Brian Robertson, chairman of the British Transport Commission, in his address at the Dublin congress of the Institute of Transport, that, because certain principles for the organization of the economy had been found necessary in war, there was a strong case for adopting them also in peace. Long before the last war ended, people had had more than enough of organization. The word had attracted to itself a number of synonyms, all of them uncomplimentary, and some of them unprintable.

The nation submitted to being organized from above, as they did to a good many other things, because of the general agreement that the war had to be won. As soon as it was over, people laid aside their uniforms, and became individuals once more. They preferred, as they had always . clone, to organize their own lives. They found nothing to attract them in military, or para-military, systems, however much these might appeal to the generals, Sir Brian confuses restriction with efficiency. Waste of transport resources, he says, is " quite inadmissible" in war. He goes on to suggest that even in peace it is " not tolerable beyond a certain point." Once again, this turns upside down the general ideas on the subject. If empty running is any criterion there was far more waste of road transport during the war than there is today. The main savings were made simply by not carrying goods regarded as inessential, by cutting down bus services, and so on.

Throughout his address Sir Brian seemed very much to be feeling his way. He made suggestions which he then qualified almost to the point of withdrawing them. His theme was transport organization, and he quickly transposed it into co-ordination. He touched upon the work of the B.T.C. as "an important instrument of co-ordination," although it encourages competition "in the field." The principle of freedom of choice for the customer he admitted to be sound; but he disagreed that the decision on the means for transport to be used could be determined by a "kind of Gallup poll" among users.

Extent of Controls Governments, he said, should have a transport policy, and should exercise sufficient controls to ensure a co-ordinated public transport service best designed to serve the needs of the country as a whole. When it came to the question of the extent of 'those controls, Sir Briah could say only that they should go "far enough to achieve a good result and no further:" Whoever decided what was far enough, it should not be the B.T.C.; nor was Sir Brian in favour of a systeni of controls over each form of transport analogous to the handicapping of horses before a race. The machinery he envisaged was a single tribunal, with sub-committees as necessary, to preside over the whole field of transport. The tribunal would certainly deal with licensing, and. perhaps with fares and charges if neces'sary.

True to form, Sir Brian did not follow even this idea to its logical conclusion, which would involve the extension of the licensing system to the railways, for the carriage of passengers as well as goods. It seemed almost as if, unwilling to end his address without the customary recommendation or two, he hit upon an idea that would cause controversy, but not political controversy, and that was not likely to be used. He had, therefore, said nothing likely to displease. For a change, he made no reference to the C-licence holder, beyond emphasizing, in his outline of the position in the U.S.A. and in France, that in neither country were restrictions placed on private carriers.

One virtue of his proposed tribunal, said Sir Brian, was that they would be free from political influence. Part of his attempt to practise the same virtue was his avoidance of the vexed but fundamental question of the ownership of the various forms of transport.

The idea of a tribunal is, in fact, a projection from the Ivory Tower that, if it were only tangible, would solve or by-pass most of the transport problems of the day. The tribunal would presumably have power to cope with the C-licence holder, and to impose such restrictions upon him as seem fit. Ownership would become much less important if the tribunal could control the activities of each section of the industry. Co-ordination from an austerely benevolent but impersonal source would ultimately develop into something closely resembling integration.

Suffered an Eclipse

The word is not one that Sir Brian uses if he can help it. He is perhaps too aware of the crimes that are committed or planned in its name. Under the Conservative regime, integration suffered an eclipse. The Labour party see, plainer than ever, the next term of office coming their way. They have declared their intention to renationalize long-distance road haulage, and integration is bound to come with the change of ownership.

Sir Brian knows this, and perhaps when it comes to the point he is not as keen on integration as he should be. An article in the journal of the National Union of Railwaymen shows that there is some cause for apprehenaion. It says that the workers, after the implementation of the Transport Act, 1947, did not plan efficiently to cope with the inevitable problems, of which integration was one. The problem will arise again with the next Labour Government, the article continues, and its working out may cause "considerable inconvenience and perhaps some hardship "—to transport workers, and not to transport users as one might expect.

Naturally, the article does not blame integration for the inconvenience and hardship. The workers themselves are partly to blame, because they are "railway minded" instead of "transport minded." There are economic objections, in that railway workers may lose certain benefits if, as a consequence of integration, they are transferred to British Road Services.

The suggestions that the article puts forward for dealing with these obstacles to integration cannot make pleasing reading for Sir Brian or for most other people. A united front is proposed with other unions, notably the Transport and General Workers' Union. Plans must be made well in advance to safeguard the conditions of all the staff that will be affected by integration. What concerted plans will be made is left to the imagination, and the imagination is not without material supplied by past experience.

Two other remarkable proposals are made. One is that the next Transport Bill should be so drafted as to make it impossible for the Conservatives to turn the tables once again. This may be difficult, but if it can be done, the article says, it will give "security to staff and management." The other proposal is to "insist that those who have shown whilst in managerial posts that they are opposed to nationalization should be removed." Security appears to be extremely one-sided.


comments powered by Disqus