1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
An 11-letter word meaning. .
Page 110
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Whenever a Conservative politician hears the word "integration" he reaches for his dictionary. There must have been scores of occasions in public speeches and in debates when an MP has quoted from Chambers or Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary to demonstrate that whatever the Socialists may think they are doing with the transport industry it is certainly not integration.
The Minister of Transport herself, who uses the word freely, might be hard put to it to say exactly what she means or whether she means the same thing each time. Within the Labour Party integrated transport has acquired almost the status of a myth. Its function as a war cry and an incantation was well-established long before it was enshrined in statutory form as the main purpose of the 1947 Transport Act.
As the word acquires magical properties so apparently does it grow farther and farther away from any definition to be found within the covers of a dictionary. There is still dimly visible the accepted meaning of integration as the combination of parts or elements into a whole but it is increasingly hidden behind the preconception that such a combination is good in itself and must be carried out quickly and if necessary ruthlessly.
First duty
Part I of Mrs. Castle's Transport Bill is entitled "Integration of Freight Transport Services" and the very first sub-section 1(1)(a)(i) sets out as the first duty of the proposed National Freight Corporation the provision in conjunction with the railways of "properly integrated services for the carriage of goods within Great Britain by road and rail".
The NFC could well have been spared its pompous title and this commitment to the messy doctrine of integration. As it becomes clear later in the Bill the Minister is handing over the operation of a number of activities at present carried on by the Transport Holding Company and the railways and is asking the NFC to co-ordinate them. It is so apparent that the NFC would do this in any case that it hardly seems necessary to say so.
The new Bill does not close the subject at this point There is also sub-section 1(0(aXii) which instructs the NFC as an additional (and not an alternative) duty to secure that "goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic". The proviso is meaningless. Transport cannot be efficient or economic in itself. There must be a basis for comparison.
On the other hand Mrs. Castle could hardly lay down that the railways should be given the preference only when they are more efficient and more economic than other forms of transport. Where this is the case the NFC would surely use the railways without her bidding. Otherwise the service would not be "properly" integrated or coordinated.
The intention
No doubt what is really intended is that where the railways have a service the NFC should use it. This is the interpretation made by transport users and operators. As the Minister pointed out in the White'Paper on the transport of freight the proposed system of quantity licensing is "designed to promote carriage of the traffic by rail". But this seems a far cry from "proper" integration. The two duties laid on the NFC are incompatible.
Mrs. Castle has avoided one mistake made by her predecessor in 1947. She has not resurrected a British Transport Commission with responsibility for the whole of nationalized transport.
On the other hand she is no nearer to the solution of the problem of what happens when the NFC and the railways fall out. In spite of disclaimers they will have the power between them to eliminate most of the competition from independent operators and even from traders using their own vehicles. There will still be the possibility of competing with each other.
When the NFC or one of its subsidiaries wishes to carry the so-called bulk traffic or to carry general traffic beyond 100 miles it will have to apply for a special authorization and in this case the railways alone would have the right to object. In all other cases where there is no objection the Licensing Authority will grant the authorization automatically. A curious exception is to be made where the NFC is the applicant.
Section 70(5) states that the Licensing Authority shall grant the application "only if and so far as he considers that it would have been granted if any objection reasonably open to the [Railways] Board.. . had been made by them; and the Licensing Authority may for that purpose require the Board and the Corporation to give him such information and explanations as he may reasonably require".
As it stands the clause appears to give the Licensing Authority the right to stir up trouble between the NFC and the railways. An alternative inference is that without his sharp eye upon them the two organizations might be running some unspecified racket in collusion—what the Ministei would describe as "improper" integration.
The clause might offer some protection to the haulier who is unfairly deprived of business. His application for a special authorization could be successfully opposed and immediately afterwards a subsidiary of the NFC might apply to carry the traffic by road. Lack of objections in this second case should properly arouse the suspicions of the Licensing Authority. He would become more easily aware of what is happening if all applications were published. The rejected operator might well be the right person to spot the contravention.
Special authorizations provide one field for possible disputes between the NFC and the railways. They will have the opportunity to argue the matter before the Licensing Authority who may have the help of an assessor appointed by the Minister. An appeal would be heard by the Transport Tribunal.
Other differences of opinion, one imagines, will find their way to the new Freight Integration Council. It is expected to concern itself not only with nationalized road and rail but with the Docks Board, the Waterways Board and the air corporations. It would be difficult not to agree with Sir Stanley Raymond that this egregious body with its impressive membership will be no more effective than the Nationalized Transport Advisory Council which was created by the 1962 Transport Act and, as he points out, "has never met under the existing Minister".
Mrs. Castle's verdict on the existing Council may be estimated from the fact that she abolishes it in her new Bill. She may have disliked its terms of reference which were to advise her on questions "relating to the co-ordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalized transport undertakings". If her opponents regard "integration" as almost a rude word she may have much the same opinion of "co-ordination".