War Footing
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EMBERS of the same family do not always get on well together. Observers have noted from time to time that there are differences of opinion between the railways and British Road Services. Integration as envisaged in the Transport Act, 1947, might , ultimately have produced domestic harmony within the Ivory Tower. The railwaymen and the men of the road might. have come to follow the higher vision and to describe themselves as transport men, brothers under the skin. One may -be excused for doubting.. Rivalry between road and rail is too ingrained, too fundamental to be charmed away by words in a piece of legislation.
It seems more natural for B.R.S. to get together with the independent hauliers. This has not happened so far. The railways have seemed more friendly towards thc hauliers than towards their own satellite, and the hauliers for their part have preferred the railways to B.R.S. This was to he expected. It was not the railways that had the delicate task of deciding whether a haulier should be allowed to Carry beyond a radius of 25 miles. Nor have the railways had to compose the facial expression appropriate to accompany the handing over of transport units.
However, there are signs of better relations between hauliers and B.R.S. . The 25-mile limit has gone. Hauliers have their own opinion about the tactics adopted to ensure disposal would not be completed, but their conclusion is generally that they Would have done the same had the positions been reversed. They do not blame B.R.S. for faking advantage of what they regard as defects of the Transport Act, 1953. .
. Now that integration, co-ordination and the rest have gone, out of fashion, it may well happen that the roadrail battle will be resumed on the old scale. The railways may prove to have done best of all out of the 1953 Act. They have their freedom, and money to spend. Like an elderly heir who at length comes into his fortune, they can take on a new lease of life, and for the time being • they are able to pay the instalments on the lease.
Call to Arms . Signs of battle are already in the air. Perhaps the first, clear call to arms sounded when the British Transport Commission issued their charges scheme for railway merchandise in March. The 1953 Act, they said, had the object "of enabling the railways to compete. effectively with road transport." They were therefore seeking the permission of the Transport Tribunal to get rid of the present system under which rates are determined largely in accordance with the value of the goods carried, and to substitute a system of maximum charges based on weight and " loadability." Below the maxima, they proposed to vary the rates actually, charged in whatever way. they pleased.
A more familiar broadside came from Mr. J. Campbell, general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, on the last day of the Trades Union Congress at Southport. Mr. Campbell's resolution began by regretting the Government's intention not to provide any aid to the Commission other than a Treasury guarantee on borrowings. It continued with a lament for the serious financial position of the Commission, attributed to the burden of compensation, arrears of maintenance, the Government's transport policy, and increasing costs, including interest charges c20 on fresh borrowings. The Government and the T.U.C., said Mr. Campbell, should examine the Commission's financial position, with a view to reaching stability and avoiding increases in fares.
Sweeping remedies were suggested in Mr. Campbell's resolution. The State should either take over all capital charges, less the amount that the transport industry could reasonably be expected to earn, or introduce a block grant scheme "to protect the Commission, transport workers and transport users against increased costs outside their control." There should be exemption from• fuel tax for public service vehicles. Restrictions on the Commission's power to manufacture rolling stock and equipment 'should be removed. Finally, the decision to denationalize" "the more profitable section of the Commission's undertakings" should be reversed.
Increased to Elam.
As Mr. Campbell's resolution was mainly concerned with fares, he did not find it necessary to mention the freedom the Commission hoped to gain by means of their scheme for merchandise charges. Neither had he much to say that was encouraging about the Commission's plans to spend £1,200m. on modernizing the railways. Two-thirds of the money, he complained, would be raised on the open market, at rates much in excess of those operating some years ago. As a result, the Commission's central charges within the next 15 years, which would in any .case amount to £57m., mainly paid . to stockholders, might be increased to almost flan. it was this obligation, "less what the industry could reasonably be expected to earn," that he proposed should be shouldered by the Government.
The resolution has not become part of the policy of the T.U.C. The general council are to have discussions with the Labour Party on the financial structure of nationalized industries generally, and what Mr. Campbell had to say will no doubt be taken into account. In spite of the reference to fuel tax on passenger vehicles, there is no doubt of the general effect of his recommendations. They Would enable the railways to keep their prices down by transferring some of their costs to• the taxpayer, who by this ingenious method would be compelled to pay for the railways whether he used them or not.
In view of . this onslaught, it might not be amiss to hear something from the other side. The requirement may be met by one of the resolutions down for discussion at the conference of the Road Haulage Association next month. It begins with the bold assertion that many of the railways have been redundant for many years, and draws from this the conclusion that the proposed expenditure of many millions of pounds on then) is a retrograde step and harmful to the nation's economy.
Such a proposal is a corollary to the Government's new, and perhaps temporary, policy of limited austerity. We must cut down expenditure somewhere, say the experts, and perhaps there is not enough to spare for modernizing the railways and for building new roads. As the railways cannot be treated any worse than any other nationalized industry, the easy way out seems to be to forget about the promises of more money for roads. In face of this danger, the road users may be wise to launch a counter-attack.