UNCERTAIN
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
OPINIONS on transport con-le at us from so many quarters and in so many guises that we may well imagine we are watching a merry-go-round, always a little uncertain what we shall see next. It may be a favourite hobby horse reserved almost exclusively for one rider who takes no notice either of jibes or encouragement from the onlookers. Other people are more willing to
' change mounts if they see something they like better, although their taste may remain controversial
Not many are content with a plain unvarnished point of view,but there are exceptions. Mr. Gilbert J. Ponsonby, for example, in a letter to 7'he Times, has suggested mildly that a proper 'relationship between road and rail can be established without the elaborate structure of common ownership and control that threatens to arise whenever there is talk of co-ordination of transport—let alone integration. It is up to the railways, he says, to provide fast and cheap services between a limited number of stations. Road operators, whether nationalized or not, should then be given every inducement to use those services for the only valid reason—because it would be good business to
do so.
This calm comment on .a controversial subject contrasts
sharply With an article in Fairplay by Mr. A. Desmond ' Pelly, chairman of the coasting and home trade tramp . section of then:K.' Chamber Of Shipping. He is concerned -.
at the. growing difficulties of the coastal shipping trade, . vvhich he, regards as essential from both the economic and strategic, VieWpoint. The only way he can see of protecting the industry is to have a closely co-ordinated transport .sYstern covering services by road, rail and sea. The ' Gos:ternment must "create conditions of fair competition," .tout hauliers ,.should be organized so that they can take part in the conference arrangements set out in the Transport • Act, 1953.
he reference, incidentally is to Section 30 of that Act. Which amended the functions and membership of a body -set up by the Transport Act, 1947, under the title of Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee. In 1953 the terms of reference, were enlarged so as to include road haulage matters, and provision was made for the Minister of Transport.to.appoint representatives of the road haulage industry as members of the committee, the functions of which were then stated to include taking steps "to secure the establishment and maintenance of suitable arrangements for promoting consultation between persons affording services and facilities for the carriage of goods by coastal shipping and by rail, road and inland waterway."
For the most. part, these provisions have remained a dead letter, which is possibly just as well if, as Mr. Pelly , seems to suggest, the road haulage industry would have to be reorganized in order, to put them into effect.
Jostling each other on another part of the transport merry-go-round are the interests with' strong views on ownership of the road transport industry. Even on what might seem a clear-cut issue there is almost every possible shade of opinion, and no 'lack of lung-power in voicing them. Only from the British Transport Commission themselves is there an official silence, but the medley of views outside tempts one to suppose that discussions must rage endlessly within the privacy. of the Ivory Tower.
The hauliers are openly divided in their views. The national council of the Road Haulage Association at their meeting yesterday can hardly have failed to discuss denationalization, but can easily have failed to arrive at a decision. They did not have an easy task. There are two main obstacles that the hauliers favouring denationalization will have to overcome before• they can bring their fellow hauliers round to their own way of thinking.
In the first place there are as many arguments, many of them practical arguments, in favour of leaving things as they are as of dismantling British Road Services and returning them to free enterprise. It may seem odd that hauliers themselves should attach any weight to the restraining arguments, whatever their validity. Is it possible to imagine any other industry that would not be unanimous in urging the dissolution of a State-owned organization in direct competition with it? The fact remains that many hauliers. while not approving the principle that animates B.R.S., sec great virtue in their continued existence.
Even if the practical objections are overcome, there remains the question of expediency or of possibility. Parliament alone can sanction anY further measure of denationalization, with the doubtful exception of the parcels and meat companies, so that hauliers must persuade the politicians before any action , can be taken. There_ are a few.M.F.s whose zeal for private enterprise equals that.of the more fervid hankers,' and who might be prepared to vote for a further instalment of disposal. But most Conservative M.P.s, and especially. those who take a Particular interest 'in transport matters, are inclined to follow the principles implied in the .Government's White Paper. and.to accept that in future B.R.S. will be working • for the Treasury.
Inconsistently consistent, the Labour Party, who. find it hard these days to agree amongthemselves Ort a wide variety of subjects, are at one on the contentious theme of road transport. On nationalization in general they run true to form and show a wide divergence of views. The diehards cling to the dogma that the more industries the State can take over the better. Other Socialists see more attraction, or think the public will see more attraction, in the idea of taking over only a section of an industry, with the idea of using that section as pace-maker for the rest.
The basic situation already exists in road transport on both the goods and the passenger. side. When they were in power the Socialists had difficulty enough in their attempts to organize road passenger transport, and if they ever returned to power might be content to leave well alone in that field. This would not be their attitude towards road haulage. which they remain determined to renatianalize should the opportunity, come their way, One reason for this 'is plain. With perhaps a little showmanship; the road passenger services of the Commission could be made to seem as if they were setting the pace for the independent firms. The task would not be so easy in road haulage. where, according to Socialist theory, B.R.S. should long ago have out-distanced their competitors.
With little hope of convincing either of the main political parties that denationalization is a policy worth the pursuing, the hauliers who favour it still feel the necessity for jumping on the merry-go-round and adding their voice to the cacophony that tempts us at times to shut our ears and seek some quieter spot.