How Far Will the Tories Go?
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LAST week, I pointed out that as the prospect of a General Election and a change of Government drew nearer, certain hauliers were not altogether in favour of complete denationalization of road transport and saw some advantage.in the more indigestible portions of the Road Haulage Executive remaining under State control.
A similar shift of opinion may be traced in the public announcements by the Conservative Party on the subject of denationalization. Before the 1950 election, Conservative policy was enshrined in the document entitled "The Right Road for Britain," in which nationalization had a chapter to itself. The Conservative Party would undertake no further nationalization and would restore free enterprise "where that is practicable."
The rest of the chapter made plain that practicability was restricted to iron and steel and road transport. "A Conservative Government will stop any further plans for nationalizing omnibus and tram undertakings and wherever possible will return those already nationalized at the time of the General Election to their former owners, whether local authorities or private enterprise. _ "A Conservative Government will proceed to sell back to free enterprise those sections of the road haulage industry which have been nationalized. Operators will have to obtain A or B licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. But new entrants will have to prove that business is available and that it cannot be as cheaply and effectively handled by existing carriers of goods whether by road or rail. The limitation of distance on private road hauliers will be progressively eliminated.
"The present freedom of C licences will remain • untouched."
This was generally taken to mean that the R.H.E. would be disbanded as well as the Road Passenger Executive, leaving the British Transport Commission with the railways and, presumably, its canals, docks and hotels, as well as the London Transport Executive.
Tipped the Balance
The election just tipped the balance against the Conservatives and they had no opportunity of carrying out their plans. There is nothing to be gained from an analysis of every statement by a Conservative on nationalization since that time. The latest official utterance, made in the House of Commons on July 31 by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, is sufficient to indicate how the policy has changed.
The Conservatives, said Mr. Thorneycroft, intend to abolish the Docks Executive, the R.P.E. and the Hotels Executive, three bodies which together "represent half a million pounds' worth of top hamper on the transport industry." The policy for dealing with the rest of the industry was summarized at the end of Mr. Thorneycroft's speech.
"We intend to abolish the ridiculous restriction of a 25 miles' limit upon the private road haulier. We propose also to give an opportunity to those who have been driven out of the business to come back into that business. We propose to reorganize publicly owned transport—the railways, publicly owned road • haulage and the canals—in regional boards of a size
at .which there is some possibility of finding some body ,big enough to run them. . . We propose to wind up the functional execUtives."
Any attempt to expand Mr. Thorneycroft's statement into a detailed programme would be misleading, but there are several obvious divergences from the policy laid down in "The Right Road for Britain." The hesitation about the complete denationalization of passenger transport has been overcome. Widespread opposition to area schemes, added to the inactivity and apparent futility of the R.P.E., has encouraged the Conservatives
to envisage a clean sweep. , Complete denationalization is no longer contemplated forthe R.H.E. Hauliers who have been driven out of the industry as a result of the Transport Act will have an opportunity of getting their businesses back_
Shift of Policy
The shift of policy is in no way a breach of faith. There must be two parties to a promise. The ex-hauliers cannot expect more than to have their businesses returned to them, and the obligation to the survivors is limited to the abolition, of the 25-mile limit and the licensing of nationalized road vehicles. Although Mr. Thorneycroft did not specifically mention this latter point, it is presumably still a part of the Tory policy. Other spokesmen have gone further than Mr. Thorney croft. Mr. R. A. Butler and Mr. Reader Harris have both shown themselves not averse tO the handing back of the railways to free enterprise., official policy Of a party must be more cautious than individual members. Denationalization means that people have to be found willing to purchase the assets that the State is relinquishing. If the necessary caPital be not forthcoming, the State must continue to carry the burden', The Conservatives, as Mr. Thorneycroft has said, have
their own plan for running transport. This plan involves radical changes in the structure of the B.T.C. The Execu tives will no longer be needed. Transport will be organized geographically rather than functionally. Quite rightly, Mr. Thorneycroft does not go into details, and it would be wrong to endeavour to analyse the details out of his summary of policy. The prospect that he opens up is a lively one. Smaller, more inanageable local Commissions would be given the task of building up a service covering all arms of transport. . They would compete on equal terms with the reinstated hauliers and road passenger operators under free enterprise.
It is strange that the Conservatives should, by a
totally different route, have arrived at a conclusion not unlike that reached by the hauliers who support the new doctrine of anti-denationalization. Both policies envisage a hard core of goods vehicles remaining within the Commission. As many of the possible claimants will not ask for their businesses back, the fleet remaining to the Commission will certainly run into five figures. Stripped of all superfluities, it will be a power to be reckoned with.
On the other hand, it may be argued that the purpose
of the Transport Act was to take over long-distance road haulage and establish a State monopoly. As such. it could be understood, even if not always approved. The vehicles that were acquired to put the monopoly into practice will seem anomalous when it no longer exists.