Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Act and the Actors
CRITICISM of the Transport Act, 1953, is now the fashion, in which trade and industry and the hauliers have joined forces with the Socialists, although on different grounds. Perhaps not enough allowances are made for the legislators faced with the problem of denationalization, for which there was no precedent. After two years the critics have been able to bring into focus the provisions they dislike, but they are not equally ready to say what better alternatives were possible.
An obvious target is the first section of the Act, which charged the British Transport Commission with the task of selling their own road haulage assets. It is not easy to suggest who else should have had the job. Auctioneers and dealers would have tackled it with more vigour and speed. but they were not the most suitable people to carry out such requirements as the need to cater for the small man and to avoid the concentration of power into too few hands. The Commission could have called in outside experts on sales and publicity. That they diclnot do so is not the fault of the Act, which could hardly be expected to bind the Commission to the exact methods they should adopt.
Inevitably the Commission were given plenty of scope for passive resistance, and they appear to have used it while keeping to the letter of the Act. They are reported recently as expressing the opinion that less than half of what they have to offer will be sold, arid one may suspect that the wish is father to the thought. The chairman and at least one other member of the board of management of British Road Services have sharpened the suspicion by supporting a movement they claim to have discovered for stopping disposal at the present stage. The next criticism concerns the terms of reference of the Disposal Board. This body, it is complained, should have been given much greater power to control the activity—or, as some people would say, the inactivity— of the Commission. There is a fairly general impression that the Board are doing little else than bestow a six-monthly benediction upon the Commission and thus shield them from the wrath of the frustrated prospective purchasers. .
Right of Appeal If in fact the Board are merely giving passive assistance to the passive resistance of the Commission, there is no warrant for this in the Act, which clearly expects the Board to have a say not only in what the Commission do hut in the way they set about their task. There is the right of an appeal to the Minister of Transport when a dispute arises. It is not altogether the fault of the Act that the Board have taken a somewhat narrow view of their functions, and that for the most part they leave the Commission both to make the pace and to set the stage.
Now that denationalization has approximately reached the halfway mark, there will be growing discontent that so little use is being made of the company procedure. The Board have stated plainly that large blocks of vehicles can usually be offered as units with equally good results and greater speed than by forming a company in order to sell the shares by public tender. This is also the opinion of the Commission. The Act provides a choice, and the choice has been made.
a B16
One reason for the decision is the comparative ease with which a unit that finds no bidders can be broken up or re-shaped. One would have thought, however. that by now the Commission and the Board would know from experience what combination of vehicles and premises was most likely to sell. The amorphous character of a transport unit can be a discouragement to the man who wants to buy a well-defined business, with staff and traffic. Esprit de corps and goodwill, even if they are of comparatively brief standing, have some meaning when a company is offered, but none at all with a transport unit.
To many people the present state of disposal is not satisfactory, but to lay the whole responsibility upon the Transport Act is like blaming the rules for a dull cricket match. The players may have something to do with it. Disposal at times resembles a too-friendly game between the Board and the Commission, who resent interference from outsiders. The atmosphere is redolent of the Ivory Tower. The game is beyond the vulgar restrictions of space and time. If a unit is not sold on the first round it goes up a square, and we settle down to wait for the next move.
Invisible Barrier Among the spectators are people poignantly interested in the result, especially if they want to buy a unit. They may be pardoned for working themselves into h frenzy, like moths trying to get into a lighted room, or a pools addict waiting for the six o'clock news. They feel themselves, the subject of one of those niglitmases in which the dreamer sees a leisurely sequence of events separated from him by an invisible barrier that paralyses the will without dulling the apprehension—something of a hypnotic effect.
The Disposal Board are not very helpful at this stage. Under the spell of the Ivory Tower they have become ingrown. At one time they were eager for advice, and made one appeal after another for prospective purchasers to say what they wanted. Perhaps they are still willing to talk things over with traders, hauliers and possible customers, but the sparkle has gone out of the interchanges. The Board have become disillusioned. Not enough people made known their requirements when they were asked, and more often than not those who did were no longer interested when the Board produced something on the lines of what they had asked for.
What may be lacking is the technique of the salesman. The man who buys sometimes knows exactly what he wants, but usually he prefers to look at what is available, The Board may have found the demand disappointing for large companies in the abstract. If actual companies are formed and offered, the response may reasonably be surprising.
A good deal depends upon the results of the special list 5.4, covering some 150 units in England and Wales. each with its own depot and vehicles ranging in number from seven to over 200.' If the bulk of these units is sold, then disposal is set fair for the rest of its voyage. Against the contingency that sales will not be good, the Board and the Commission would do well to have plans fully prepared for re-deploying some of the unsold units in the form of companies.