'Of the Labour party's proposal JANUS for road haulage it is impossible WRITES
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to make sense.'
LIKE a witches' brew, the Labour party's policy on transport appears to be made up by contributions at more or less regular intervals from divers hands. To the road transport operator or user, each item that goes into the political pot is as unpalatable as the baleful salamander's eye, the spleen of a frog, the two drachms of dry dragon's blood, and the other ingredients of the unholy cauldron. In addition to this, the powerless spectator has up to now had no clear idea of the purpose for which the spell is being wound up, although he is apprehensively convinced that it bodes no good for him.
The respect accorded to a witch depends upon the extent of the belief in her potency. In the same way, or so it would seem, because the forecasters give the Labour party the best chance it has had for a hang time of winning the next general election, any statement from the party is given greater authority and received with more deference than would have been the case when the Conservatives were in the ascendant. Largely as a result of Mr. Harold Wilson's reaffirmation of clause 4 of the party constitution, many of the commentators are noticeably becoming more polite about nationalization and are even trying to find something in its favour.
A short time ago, what must have been an inspired leak led to the simultaneous publication in a number of newspapers of a number of hints on the direction in which Labour party thinking on transport was moving. None of the points gave any hope of a fundamental switch in party policy. In spite of this, even papers which had been critical of that policy in the past now seemed prepared to agree that there was something to be said in favour of the latest version. One or two leading articles advocated far more drastic steps than appear to be in the minds of the Socialists, or than they have as yet openly threatened.
DEED WITHOUT A NAME For their precise intention still remains a deed without a name. Two main points emerge from the recent Press reports. There is a threat to discourage C-licence operation by increasing licence fees or taxation; and there is a promise to encourage the expansion of British Road Services by the acquisition of any road haulage undertakings that they would like to have.
What would be the reaction if Mr. Marples announced a similar plan? He would be accused vociferously of imposing yet another restriction and of engineering a road haulage monopoly. Can he think of nothing else, the critics would say, than stopping people from doing what they would like and helping big business to get a stranglehold on the little man? These same critics have kept silent, or have not objected, when the tentative proposals of the Labour Party have been made known. If the truth be told, however, they seem to have peculiarly little merit.
The chief emphasis has been on the suggestion for dealing with C-licence holders. It is clear that what is wanted is some penalty which would persuade the trader to send his goods preferably by rail, and failing that by B.R.S. or even by independent hauliers while they last, rather than in his own vehicles. Less clear is whether the penalty would be applied to all C-licensed vehicles except retail delivery vans, with the idea of ensuring that as much traffic as possible was transferred to the railways, or whether only the heavy long-distance vehicles would be handicapped.
Whichever method is adopted, there are obvious disadvantages which cannot be hidden whatever the political reasons for doing so. If all vehicles were taxed, including those for which the trader had no alternative, the price of every commodity would be affected, as the Traders Road Transport Association has pointed out. If only a comparatively small proportion of vehicles were concerned, there would be a negligible relief in congestion (one of the benefits claimed for the suggested new tax), and one may suspect that hardly one ton of traffic would be won for the railways. They would have to bear the inevitable resentment of the customer who was being pushed into their arms against his will, and in any event, as the T.R.T.A. has also emphasized, cost is not the sole, or even the main, consideration determining the trader's choice of transport.
CONFLICT ON DETAILS Of the Labour party's proposal for road haulage it is impossible to make sense. The various reports conflict on the exact details. Will B.R.S. be given the right to expropriate any business it likes at an arbitrary price, or will it be expected to buy in the market? What happens if the business it wants is embedded in a diversified group with an interest in other activities in which B.R.S. would not wish to dabble?
B.R.S. would certainly not wish to take over an inefficient undertaking, with poor vehicles and next to no good will. It is to avoid this kind of thing, or so one is led to understand, that the Labour party is coming round to the idea of selective acquisition. This can only mean that B.R.S. would be content with nothing but the best—and nobody could blame it, especially in view of the suspicion that its own expert opinion is opposed to expansion along the lines suggested. What it amounts to in effect is that the reward of the haulier for being efficient is to be nationalized. Like the holy man of the East, the highest state of being to which he can aspire is extinction.
"Signposts for the Sixties," which is still the most up-todate statement on home policy issued by the Labour party, set out a number of reasons, one sure if another fails, which would justify taking over a business or an industry. The indications are that, since it was adopted in 1961, the party has been progressively moving away from this extreme position. But even in the Signposts document it was not suggested that efficiency could be a reason for imposing public ownership. The more one considers the matter, the more likely it seems that the recent inspired accounts do not represent a serious attempt to lay down a definite party policy on transport, but merely an exercise in kite-flying. If this is so, the Socialists must have been more than pleased at the general Press reaction.