AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

COMMONS BATTLE ON THE TRANSPORT BILL BEGINS

21st November 1952
Page 30
Page 31
Page 30, 21st November 1952 — COMMONS BATTLE ON THE TRANSPORT BILL BEGINS
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?

BY OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT WHEN Mr. A. T. Lennox-Boyd, Minister of Transport, introduced " the Transport Bill for second reading, on Monday, he said: "This is a very different Bill. I am not in the least ashamed of the fact that we have profited a good deal by discussion and friendly argument in the course of the last few months."

The Bill had, he said, many " significant " changes. "I hope to convince Members on both sides, that it is a better Bill than it was before."

The Labour Government, he said, had abandoned any attempt to carry out an integrated passenger service scheme. None of the problems of integration was any nearer solution as a result of the 1947 Act.

He believed that the best way to secure good service was through decentralization. It should be the consumer who should make his choice as to which form of transport he would prefer to use by ordinary commercial considerations—and not have it made for him by a vast monopoly, however well-intentioned.

The Minister had been constantly urged that if the railways were freed from restrictions placed upon them when they were a monopoly, and if management were decentralized, they would have a reasonable chance of competing with road transport. So the Government had arranged in the Bill not only for the return to free enterprise of long-distance road haulage, but for its disposal and for security for those who purchased units, with eventual removal at a fixed date of the 25-mile limit, and greater latitude in the issuing of A and B licences. At the same time, the Bill arranged for a wide measure of decentralization for the railways, coupled with considerable improvements in their competitive position.

He was taking powers to control, if need be, the extent of the British Transport Commission's holding in passenger activities.

Much the most important change in the Bill related to railway charges. Britain still had the busiest railways in the world, and the best. He did not

apologize, therefore, for recommending the proposals on railway charges, even if they might break new ground. The clauses on charges would be scrupulously examined on the committee stage in the light of present conditions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd shared the feeling of a number of people that in the early days, some protection was necessary against a possible misuse of the new powers of the railways in their charges. It might be that in the passage of time, the country might accept the fact that these protections were no longer necessary, but Parliament had to deal with facts as they were to-day.

Equality for Hauliers The Bill maintained the right for coastal shipping to object to unduly low rates, subject to certain safeguards. " We felt it only reasonable that the same right should be given to road haulage." the Minister added.

Three conditions had to be satisfied. The Commission must be shown to be making charges less than the maximum, which, if persisted in, would result in loss. The B.T.C. mush also be shown to be doing this to eliminate competition.

It must obviously fall to the Government to concert with the Commission to produce a framework based on agreed principles that would enable the detailed scheme of railway reorganization to he worked out. Such a scheme would be debated in Parliament when produced, and meanwhile such reorganization as the railways undertook within their existing powers was entirely a matter for • their own responsibility.

Speaking of road haulage, Mr. Lennox-Boyd said he was advised that, according to the proper interpretation. the levy would be admissible as a deduction in calculating profits for income and profits tax and Excess Profits Levy.

Allowance for Expansion The Government proposed that the Commission should be allowed to retain a body of vehicles broadly approximate to what the railways had before nationalization, with an addition to allow what might have been the increase since that event. That was the meaning of the phrase "six-fifths of their former holding."

This would make the Commission the largest road haulage undertaking in

the country. " All who want to see what happens in friendly rivalry under different forms of transport will have the opportunity of seeing that now," the Minister commented. The B.T.C. would be able to retain a substantial part of Pickfords (Special Traffics)

In the 36 weeks to the end of September, the Road Haulage Executive's tonnage was down by 9 per cent. and vehicle-miles by 5-6 per cent., and in the past eight weeks, tonnage had fallen by 14 per cent, and vehicle-miles by 13 per cent., he said.

He hoped that with the restoration of individual and personal service to longdistance haulage, the steady increase in C licences would diminish.

Compensation Regulations Quickly

Requirements of the Road Haulage Wages Act and the Wages Council Act would be scrupulously observed. There would be compensation, and he would undertake that his regulations under the Act would not, like those under the Labour Government, wait for 2iyears. He would do his best to have his regulations published before the disposal of the road haulage vehicles began.

Mr. H. Morrison, for the Opposition, said that it would oppose the Bill with all the vigour at its command. A great deal of integration had gone on in the organization of the road commercial service. The quality of the rolling stock was much higher, road safety was greater and working conditions had been improved. There had been increasing co-ordination between road and rail.

"You cannot get proper co-ordination and integration if there is a. vast mass of separate-and conflicting ownerships all playing their own game. It is when you get common ownership that you can bring about the necessary changes," he added.

The Government was deliberately moving away from a comprehensive system of transport for Britain. It was throwing over former statements of chairmen of railway companies in favour of co-ordination between road and rail and the evidence of experts..

Why the " Violent Hurry "?

Sir Ralph Glyn siid that the Government must remould a good deal of the Bill. He was much concerned about its financial side, and thought that without some form of inquiry it was impossible to know what would be its financial consequences. He could not conceive the need for this violent hurry. Many of the large concerns which Might be willing to buy vehicles from the State would do so only if they had the time to consider the way in which they would use them, the garages and workshops. An inquiry composed of industrialists, commercial people and trade union leaders, but excluding politicians, should be set up to report within six months. If the Minister were to extend now the 25-milelimit to 35 miles and then take time to consider the financial clauses, he would have a far better Bill.

Sir Ralph pleaded that transport should be taken out of politics.

Lord Hinchingbrooke said that the concentration of the transport industry in a few hands in Germany hastened the end of the war and produced a complete freezing up of the whole transport system.

Mr. Ernest Davies said that to increase competition in transport led to wasteful employment of manpower and wasteful consumption of fuel and other materials. The Commission had just reached the point where a completely integrated parcel system throughout the country was ready to be put into operation.

Mr. Barnes Moves Rejection Rejection of the Bill was moved on Tuesday by Mr. Alfred Barnes, 'Probably the Government will force some kind of measure through the House, but I hope that the common sense of this Chamber will at least delete the forceil sale of British Road Services, which inevitably means an unnecessary loss of £20m., the consequence of which is to impose what I consider is a penal tax on a limited body of citizens," he said.

The country had too much mechanical plant, capital, labour and equipment invested in the whole field of transport. There were considerable economies which could be made in time. It was serious that something like 14 per cent. of the national resources was absorbed in transport of all kinds and that transport should he the biggest labour user apart from the civil and general engineering trades. The Bill would not create a steady economy, but spread chaos and waste. The whole of the men engaged in running transport were against the Bill, and a large proportion of managerial opinion' in the industry was against it, too. The Bill threw the country back into the condition of affairs which all practical expert opinion had condemned in the past, "I don't believe this Bill will stand up on the committee stage," he said. Referring to the levy, he declared: "It is outrageous, preposterous and indefensible. I hope every Chamber of Trade in the country will convey to Conservative M.P.s their detestation and opposition to that principle," he said.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, said that the Government had no intention of forgetting the advantages which could be gained by effective central control where this had proved itself to be to the common advantage.

Speaking of Scotland, he hoped that the Regional Railway Authority for Scotland to be set up would, with the "greatest practicable measure" of local autonomy and freedom of management, combined with increased flexibility, enable Scottish transport problems to be tackled vigorously and afresh.

The Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, was being reconstituted with representatives of Aand B-licensees, coastal shipping interests, and Commission members.

The Commission would be unable to acquire or retain any transport units, but there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commission from obtaining an interest in a road haulage undertaking by purchasing shares.

Monopoly Would Never Work Mr. Maclay, former Minister of Transport, said that complete monopoly of transport might be attractive, but he 'did not think anyone in the House 'believed it would ever work' or give proper service.

If the nation were to get the best out of road and rail, there must be some study at the earliest opportunity to allow a greater proportion of the national resources to go into capital investment. Railways had an immense future. If they could get the capital investment they needed, they would give road transport a difficult run for its money.

Mr. James Callaghan, winding-up for the Opposition, said the Labour Party, when it returned to power, would take over such units as were necessary for an integrated lOng-distance . public system. He put it in that way because the' Socialists did not know how much was going to be sold, -and because it 'might be cheaper not to buy some Of the vehicles, but merely to allow some of the licences to run out. The 1947 Act would not be their guide to compensation next time. There would not be any compensation for loss Of business, Or for businesses severed.

No one need go into this industry now thinking he is going to make a good bargain at the public expense. He isn't," Mr. Callaghan added.

Sir David Maxwell ryfe, Home Secretary, for the Government, replied that he would be more worried by these threats if he knew for which portion of the Labour Party Mr. Callaghan was speaking.

No Cream-skimming Under the licensing proposals in the Bill, he said, the Licensing Authority could estimate whether an application was a genuine one or a temporary cream-skimming device, and licences could be revoked if they were found to have been obtained by representations that were incorrect or had not been carried out.

The Bill received a second reading by 308-282 votes, a majority of 26. A29


comments powered by Disqus