AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Unbelievable gobbledegook but amendments fail

2nd February 1968
Page 62
Page 62, 2nd February 1968 — Unbelievable gobbledegook but amendments fail
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Mrs. Castle rejects free choice for customers

• The first attempt to make a fundamental change in the Transport Bill failed during committee discussion of the measure.

Mr. Peter Bessell, the committee's sole Liberal Member, tried to remove the words which will give power to the National Freight Corporation to set up a haulage system of its own. Although receiving Tory support, his amendments were rejected by 16 votes to 12.

Nothing was more needed than an integrated transport system, said Mr. Bessell, but he had to oppose by every means at his disposal the Government's intention to acquire powers to enable it to provide freight transport services.

Under the Bill there was nothing to prevent the NFC purchasing a fleet of lorries, licensing and putting them on the road and competing fairly or unfairly with existing hauliers.

There was nothing to prevent the NFC taking away compulsorily or otherwise, haulage by manufacturers or producers competing quite unfairly with the Railways Board—although he did not believe that would be the Corporation's intention.

It was quite wrong at this time to give the National Freight Corporation such sweeping powers, said Mr. Bessell.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Labour, Nuneaton) asked why some opponents of the Bill did not come straight out and say that all they wanted was a purely advisory National Freight Corporation. He was concerned that if these amendments were passed the NFC would be left with even more of the rubbish.

Mr. Huckfield firmly supported the Corporation having powers to provide its own transport services—and to go even further. He wanted the NFC to be in a very strong bargaining position so that it could go along to certain users and say, "If we take your Manchester, we must also take your Birmingham".

This was how some of the private carriers had been bargaining in the past, and this was the kind of bargaining he would like to see open to the Corporation.

Mr. David Webster (Tory, Weston-superMare) called it absolute nonsense to give the Corporation these powers, when at the same time crippling blows were being dealt the road haulage industry.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Labour, Preston South) said Labour Members did not need to go to the committee in sackcloth and ashes because it was their opinion that nationalization should grow. The Bill was necessary because of the failure of private enterprise.

He agreed this was an awkward time in the affairs of the country to introduce a Bill such as this, and perhaps in ordinary circumstances the Government would not have been prompted to make these radical changes. Because of the position of transport today, improvements must be made.

Opposing the amendments, Mr. John Morris, Parliamentary Secretary to the MoT, said they were part of a plan which would completely change the concept of the NFC. The Corporation would become a mere shadow of this concept, a kind of development loan corporation with vague powers to promote coordination. Any scope for practical and effective integration of road and rail services would vanish completely.

In practice the NFC would at vesting day operate through its subsidiaries, and would not immediately need the operating powers in the Bill, he said. But it would be short-sighted to deny the Corporation the freedom to organize itself on a unitary basis.

By 16 votes to 12 the committee also turned down a series of Tory and Liberal amendments to the clause giving the NFC the duty to secure that goods are carried by rail "whenever such carriage is efficient and economic".

Basic idea of the amendments was to ensure that goods would go by rail only when fair comparison showed this to be an efficient and economic method.

If an amendment on these lines were not carried, the wording of the Bill was unbelievable gobbledegook, said Mr. Edward Taylor (Tory, Cathcart). Who decided when rail was efficient and economic—something more specific was wanted. The Opposition wanted comparison and competition on a basis seen to be fair. If the Government went ahead with its plan, it wart bound to ruin a large proportion of road haulage firms.

Mr. Huckfield said that Licensing Authorities, as they were at present constituted, were not sufficiently qualified either administratively or technically to be able to evaluate some of the very complicated decisions they would have to make.

He had in the past attended a fair number of Licensing Authority hearings for applications and decisions. He had heard some pretty fanciful evidence conjured up by the British Railways representative and indeed by the BRS representative. On hearing some of this he knew that after a period some of the figures put forward and some of the promises made simply could not be adhered to.

Mr. Morris admitted that some of the amendments had, on face value, certain attractions. But there were implications that there would have to be competition in order to enable the matter of rail efficiency and economy to be proved. This would be quite contrary to the White Paper, where it was said that the object was to eliminate wasteful and inefficient competition between publicly owned road and rail services for the same traffic.

The committee rejected amendments designed to ensure that the Corporation stuck to its primary duties and did not branch out into other, profitable, spheres.

When the committee discussed the NFC in general terms. Mrs. Castle said it was no answer to say that the customer must have a totally free choice, without any attempt to rationalize. The whole tendency of industrial organization today was for the customer's freedom of choice to be more and more circumscribed by mergers and regroupings. These gave the economic strength to survive.

Rejecting Opposition statements about the NFC as "grotesquely wide of the mark", Mrs. Castle said there was nothing sinister about it having operating powers; it needed maximum flexibility in the development of its structure. "I have not wanted to lay down the rigid structure which would be hamstrung by my preconceptions or prejudices", she said. "I want the NFC to pay its way." It must therefore have the same freedom as private enterprise to put out new transport ventures.

Mr. Walker asked how much of the £300m. borrowing powers given to Mrs. Castle would be used for acquisitions. She replied that this would be a matter of commercial judgment.


comments powered by Disqus