TOO PLAIN?
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NO wonder the Labour Party seem uneasy when organizations such as the Transport and General Workers' Union call for more nationalization. The subject is one which the party would like to keep wrapped up in cottonwool. The less definite the pronouncement,. the better it suits them. The last word in sibylline utterances must surely be this expression of opinion taken from the party's recent dottiment, " Signposts for the Sixties "; "Britain will never have an economic transport industry until the publicly owned transport authority is free to extend its road services wherever it can usefully do so." The impression—presumably that something is rotten in the .state of transport and that somebody is being unfair to the British Transport Commission—is conveyed in words that have been cunningly deprived of all meaning.
The trick may not be as easy as it sounds. Less skilful Socialists, who may perhaps be trying to imitate the master hand that drafted the document, occasionally slip out of the genuine gobbledygook and arrive at a meaning that may be more precise than they intend. In a recent letter to The Times, Mr. Francis Noel-Baker, M.P., has gone so far as to state that he sees nothing wrong in the Government having power to order every single trader and manufacturer how and when they may move their goods. This, he says, would be a "tiny price" to pay for getting the goods moving fast and cheaply.
FROM his manner of speaking, Mr. Noel-Baker almost seems to expect that traders would be pleased to have all the worries of transport taken off their hands. One can imagine him expatiating on the desirable consequences of his plan. Because nobody would be allowed to carry his own traffic, the duplication of transport that at present goes on in retail deliveries would at one stroke be abolished and there would be an end to the empty running by vehicles under C licence. It goes without saying that, under the No-el-Baker scheme of things, the railways would be allowed to carry whatever they pleased.' In these circumstances,, they could hardly fail to make a profit, so that there would be yet another intractable transport problem solved.
If he is not already a member, Mr. Noel-Baker should seriously consider joining the Road and Rail Association, whose chairman, Lord Stonham, was given the opportunity the other day of putting forward his views • in a radio programme. He would like to see road and rail working together, each of them carrying the kind of goods they are best equipped to handle. Most fortunately for the railways, Lord Stonham believes that his scheme can best be worked out by transferring traffic to them from the roads.
FOR the first time,he comes out clearly with what he calls his " most important" proposal, which is nothing more or less than the imposition of restrictions on C licence holders. Lord Stonham is perfectly reasonable about the whole thing. He has "no objection " to the trader using his own vehicles for local deliveries; but "most of the C licence
traffic on long distance hauls should go by rail." He would like the vehicles on C licence to be limited in radius or to be taxed at a special rate " or both."
Lord Stonham is apparently convinced that he has the support of the public. or at any rate of the motorist. His genial advice to the business executive is that he should look at the freight problems of his own company and make sure that, "for reasons perhaps of prestige, advertising or empire building," he is not maintaining an unnecessarily large fleet of vehicles to carry goods that could go more cheaply by rail. Other people are advised to .protest to their M.P. about obstruction, danger or delay caused by abnormally large goods vehicles, and to agitate for regulations limiting the size of those vehicles.
There is one flaw in the proposals of both Lord Stonham and Mr. Noel-Baker. They appear to assume too easily that they need only state their case and the traders will at once beat their lorries into railway trucks, or at least into Roadrailers. The evidence of the past and the present likelihood point rather to the fact that the users of transport cannot be convinced of the virtues of the "single planned, co-ordinated and integrated transport system" in which Mr. Noel-Baker sees Great Britain's "only hope." The public refuse to be swayed by theory and' obstinately cling to their own experience.
AN analysis of that experience in a somewhat specialized field is to. be found in the July issue of Which?, the journal of the Consumers' Association. For most people their only firsthand experience of goods transport comeswhen they have to move house. In order to arrive at suggestions for suitable prices and conditions, the association sifted information received from over 570 members. Because over 160 of them had referred to B.R.S..(Pickfords), Ltd., a separate study was made of that company.
On the whole, the survey shows up furniture removers, including Pickfords, in a good light. Of just over 500 removals carried out by firms other than Pickfords, more than 19 per cent. were judged satisfactory by the customer and 55 per cent, were considered very satisfactory indeed. Members expressed definite dissatisfaction with only 4 per cent. of the removals, and on the remaining 22 per cent. gave no opinion one way or the other.
THE verdict of the public on Pickfords was noticeably different. The results of 94 removals were studied, and it was found that 23 per cent. were judged satisfactory and 32 per cent. definitely very satisfactory indeed. But 19 per cent. were considered definitely unsatisfactory, the remaining 26 per dent, evoking no significant comment. According to the association, "this represents a significantly higher level of dissatisfaction and lower level of satisfaction than for the removals by the other firms considered all together." Lord Stonham and Mr. Noel-Baker should take note.
The purely subjective test of satisfaction was the best the association could do by way of placing furniture removers in order of merit. The variations in estimates and in circumstances made it impossible even to draw up a recommended tariff, although a list of prices is given ranging from .£6 for carrying the contents of a two-bedroomed house five miles, to £58 for a 360-mile journey from a thrce-bedroomed bungalow. Among the conclusions reached by the association was the advice to get as many estimates as possible and (somewhat quaintly) to " try to arrange a return load "—there was no hint on the commission that ought to be demanded for this service.