Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Penny Whistle
AN election manifesto is expected to be crammed with promises, and both the Conservatives and the Socialists have said they will do more, if elected, than any six Governments before them. It is all the
more strange, therefore, to find in the Socialist manifesto, after an impressive catalogue of benefits with no suggestion of extra taxation to pay for them, a casual undertaking to renationalize the steel and road haulage industries.
The alleged reason is that public ownership of these industries " is essential to the nation's needs." Experts at reading manifestos will recognize the formula. What is really meant is that certain sections of the Labour Party have insisted on the inclusion of renationalization in the Party platform, and the public must be persuaded that it is good for them.
Sound political instinct has guided the Socialists to find a secluded corner for the expression of their preference for public ownership. A penny whistle is sufficient for what in 1945 merited a fanfare of trumpets. Nevertheless, users and providers of road transport should not be deluded into thinking that,.if the Socialists were returned to power at the end of May, they would forget about renationalization.
The manifesto discreetly forbears going into details, but the broad outline of the Labour Party's plan for transport is well known. It has been sketched from time to time by leading figures in the Party, and its most complete expression is to be found in a pamphlet entitled " British Transport" published by the Party a little over a year ago. According to the pamphlet, the exact steps to be taken by the next Labour Govern ment would depend upon the conditions prevailing when the necessary legislation was prepared, but definite opinions are given upon a number of points.
"Remove Restrictions"
The 1953 Labour Party Conference approved a revised policy statement that reads: "Labour will remove all restrictions which are aimed at preventing the British Transport Commission from developing a fully integrated public service of road and rail transport. We will ensure that the B.T.C. have adequate powers to reorganize road passenger services."
The pamphlet points out that, if the B.T.C. are to develop a fully integrated service, the main provisions of the Transport Act, 1953, must be repealed, and the Commission must be given power to reverse the process of disposal. The maximum price to be paid to the buyers of transport units will be "the amount originally paid to the Commission for the assets, less depreciation and plus the value of new assets added." In addition, the Commission need not buy back anything they do not want. They will again be freed from the obligation to hold carrier's licences, and may prefer to establish services with new vehicles rather than buy an existing undertaking.
The operator who escapes renationalization should not count himself fortunate, the pamphlet continues grimly. He will be subject to any general limitations on private operation " which the public interest demands." There will, for .example, probably be a return of the 25-mile limit, and everrwithin that miserable enclave he will not be safe from persecution. "When his licence expires he cannot automatically expect its renewal." If British Road Services can carry the traffic, "the need for his services will no longer exist"
Other commercial vehicle operators are also threatened. The carrier of abnormal indivisible loads may not keep the immunity he has hitherto enjoyed, "for it seems that economies in the use of specialized equipment would result from transfer to public ownership." The use of C-licensed vehicles is deemed in certain circumstances to be wasteful, and even socially undesirable." Consequently, "there are strong arguments for a restriction of C licence operation, either by making the grant of a C licence conditional on proof of need or by limiting the radius of C licence operation."
The reference in the policy statement to road passenger transport is also expanded in the pamphlet. Restrictions on the Commission's power to operate must be repealed, and their powers to prepare area schemes restored. "Experience of the abuse by certain priiran interests of the elaborate consultative procedure pro vided for in the 1947 Act indicates that a simplification of this procedure is desirable." Another suggestion is to give the Commission power to acquire any undertaking providing inter-urban express or stage-carriage services.
Greater Flexibility
Most favoured of all are the railways. The pamphlet inclines towards the retention of those provisions in the 1953 Act that allow greater flexibility in railway charging, and temporary increases in charges to Meet increased costs until the case for permanent increases has been examined. Furthermore, it is suggested that the Government should pay the Commission to cover the loss on such lines as have to be kept open for strategic purposes. • All these depressing developments, from the point of view of hauliers and of traders, may not necessarily be read into the laconic reference in the Socialist manifesto. The next week or two provides an opportunity to find out what the Parliamentary candidates think. In the meantime, it is as well to prepare for the worst, and to assume that the Socialists have not changed their minds over the past 18 months.
They have kept fairly quiet recently on the subject of road haulage. After a wretched start, the sale of transport units has made reasonably steady progress, although the comparative failure of the list of larger undertakings may encourage the critics to raise their voices. There has been little public outcry, certainly nothing like as loud or bitter as the protests that followed the acquisition of free-enterprise undertakings. Fears that are expressed are mostly for the future. Even the Trades Union Congress, in their recent letter to the Ministry of Transport, seem more concerned about what may happen than about what has actually happened.
To many of us it may seem odd that the " nation " needs public ownership of road haulage so much that it would also like to see hauliers dispossessed and restricted, and severe limitations placed on the liberty of the trader. It may even seem odd to the Socialists, for they have conveniently forgotten to mention these points in their election manifesto.