°Utica' Commentary By JANUS
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tale of Three Ministers
CHE general report on the Parliament now at its last gasp is that, after nearly four years of life, it is a jaded and spent force. This does not appear be the case so far as transport legislation is conmed. Perhaps no previous Parliament has had so any or such tedious debates on the subject. There we been numerous false starts and vexing delays. dverse criticism has come almost impartially from both les of the fence, but the Government have contrived roughout to give the impression that their transport fficy is making progress, even if at times it has seemed be moving in circles.
Three names have been added to the long list of linisters of Transport. After Mr. Barnes had served olidly through two Socialist administrations, Mr. J. S. faclay was soon succeeded by the volatile Mr. Alan ennox-Boyd, who brought a formidable and remarkily agile mind to bear on a subject to which he was rgely a stranger. In due course, Mr. Lennox-Boyd :turned to the colonial affairs that are his abiding terest, and Mr. I. A. Boyd-Carpenter became Minister Transport.
An early experiment was the appointment of Lord eathers to co-ordinate the work of the two Ministers of ransport and of Fuel and Power. In practice, the overlord" system had little effect, and after a while was quietly abandoned. Traces of the military cast E mind that designed it may perhaps still be seen in the .creasing frequency with which generals are called in to II top positions in the British Transport Commission id its branches.
When the Socialists were in p3wer, one had the impreson that they were pursuing a line of policy with the ctless precision of a mathematically minded steam)11er. The impression was largely an illusion. There ere differences of opinion among the Socialists, and Ley changed their minds as frequently as anybody else. t least they kept up a facade of consistency, whereas ie Conservatives much more often betrayed hesitancy ad an inclination to vary the target. Their first attempt a Transport Bill was allowed to run to a standstill, ad a number of important changes was made during le second attempt.
Further Transfer
Particularly noteworthy, in view of subsequent evelopments, was the role of the railways in the ;overnment's plans. A White Paper published in May, )52, said that the expansion of road haulage following le liberation of hauliers and the relaxation of the censing system "will no doubt result in some further ansfer of traffic from rail to road which cannot be ffset by countervailing economies in railway operation, icluding the closing down of redundant capacity." The
.ansport levy was originally intended to make good
le loss to the railways, as well as to cover the loss on enationalization.
By the time the Transport Act, 1953, had become Jaw, ie use of the levy as a railway subsidy had been waived, ad the sting largely taken out of it, although it remained 1st as much a source of ivitation to road operators as efore. The ultimate policy for the railways was that ley should be given greater freedom to compete, and acouraged to modernize their equipment. This was in
line with the Conservative policy for trade and industry as a whole.
At the party conference last autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer coined the phrase "investment in success," and prophesied that, with good management, the standard of living in this country would be doubled in the next quarter of a century. Soon afterwards, plans were announced for the expenditure of £1,200m. on the modernization and re-equipment of the railways. Almost at the same time, the Minister of Transport gave the House of Commons details of an expanded road programme that would ultimately cost approximately £200m.
As this sum did not take into account whatever was spent by road users on their own vehicles, an attempt was made later by the Government to prove that the proposed treatment for road and for rail was very much the same. The point has been disputed, but it is at least clear that the Conservatives regard the two forms of transport as competitors likely to remain in the field for some time. The ideal is to provide equality of opportunity to capture the increasing volume of traffic likely to arise from an intelligent investment in success.
Not Consistent
Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not been entirely consistent. The Chancellor has a ready means for controlling competition between road and rail. By manipulating the fuel tax, he can bring about substantial' changes in road transport rates and fares, and thus drive passengers and goods on to rail, or attract them away from it. In his first Budget, Mr. Butler brought the fuel tax up by 71d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon, with the result that annual revenue from this source alone is now about £250m., twice or, thrice as much as the total actual or promised expenditure on the roads.
At the time, the Chancellor was more concerned with the balance of payments than the balance of competition. "Since the main objective of the Budget is to relieve our balance of payments difficulties," was his apology in 1952, " I must pay particular attention to a scarce product which costs us foreign exchange." He has had considerable opportunity since to reconsider the matter, but the life of the present Parliament ends with the tax on petrol and oil fuel still at 2s. 6d. per gallon, the highest it has ever been.
Unfinished business includes the Road Traffic Bill, which must start again from scratch in a new parliament. This is as well, for the Bill, in spite of revision in the House of Lords, has a number of unsatisfactory features. In particular, the provisions for testing the condition of vehicles are over-elaborate; the parking clauses are not likely to solve the parking problem; and the proposed severe penalties for certain driving offences may not have the effect desired.
There have been many changes in the transport industry since the last General Election, but a good deal remains to be done to put the Conservative policy into full effect. Disposal of the nationalized road haulage assets has reached no more than the halfway stage. Nothing has been done to return to free enterprise the Commission's road passenger undertakings. There is at least a road programme, but little actual construction has begun.