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 
. . brain-washed by the propaganda fro in the left '
Page 122
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
. A LMOST certainly one of the speakers at the Labour Party conference in Scarborough this week will have repeated the moth-eaten jibe that the Conservatives are in the pay of the road transport industry and frame their policy accordingly. For an appropriate commentary on the allegation it is only necessary to read the list of resolutions on transport which have been submitted for consideration by the Conservative Party when it holds its own conference next week in Blackpool.
The proposal selected for debate is reasonable and sensible. It welcomes the Beeching report as a blueprint for the future role of the railways but emphasizes that no closures should take place unless there is an alternative, adequate and efficient public transport service available. There are 24 other resolutions on the order paper, however, and many of them could easily be mistaken for those that got away at Scarborough. They -demand—save the mark! —an integrated transport system and the forcible transfer of traffic from road to rail; and they refer disparagingly to the "hidden subsidies" received by road transport.
Lord Stonham should be pleased. If Conservative Party policy were to be based solely on these resolution conferences, it might not be very different from the views put forward in the memorandum sent to the Prime Minister by the National Council on Inland Transport shortly after it was formed. Transport operators who have taken the challenge from Lord Stonhano seriously are proved justified when they see how successful he has been in creating a fifth column within the party to which they have formerly looked with confidence for support.
Operators have at times criticized the publicity sponsored by the Road Haulage Association and other bodies on the grounds that it merely wastes time and money in preaching to the converted. It is too easily forgotten that conversion can work in both directions. Whatever plans the road transport industry may be making for the next general election should perhaps in prudence include the re-education of those members of the Conservative Party who, on the evidence of the conference resolutions, appear to have been brain-washed by the propaganda from the left.
NOT SO EXTREME?
Their opinions may not be as extreme as their resolutions indicate. They begin with the same basic facts as everybody else. The railways are losing money and also losing traffic. Road operators are apparently prosperous but road congestion is increasing all the time. If only a sufficient volume of traffic could find its way back from road to rail, the problem of congestion would be eased and the railway deficit might even be converted into a surplus.
Many Socialists see no moral or economic problem here. They would ensure that the transfer takes place, either by forbidding the carriage of the traffic by road or by imposing a prohibitive tax on the carrier, justifying it by obscure calculations of track costs, wear and tear and hidden 1457, subsidies. The Conservatives for the most part do not find it so easy to take this course. They do not like bolstering up a dubious policy by imposing more and more controls.
The brutal Socialist solution still has its temptations. Those Conservatives who are attracted are likely to look for a method which does not offend too much their basic philosophy. Although it is by no means clear in the conference resolutions, what many Conservatives would like to see is the voluntary abandonment of his vehicles by the long-distance C licence holder in particular.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST
The national interest would be the inducement. The railways are a national asset. If they could be made prosperous, the taxpayer might be saved a subsidy and the need for road expenditure might become less urgent. Unfortunately, the argument from pounds, shillings and pence is just as misguided here as when it is used to support a rail Channel tunnel against a combined road and rail link. The trader who responded to an appeal on behalf of the railways has presumably been using his own vehicles because they are more convenient, less expensive and so on. In these circumstances an altruistic switch to rail would make his business that much less efficient and that much more expensive, and it would also place him at a disadvantage with his more hard-headed competitors. His own interests would suffer and the national interest gain not at all.
The proper solution is clear. The railways must adapt themselves to the changed situation, give up the services where they can no longer compete and improve their efficiency over the rest of the network. The time for persuasion is when this has been achieved. A powerful campaign should be launched to attract the trader's traffic. The appeal to him should be on grounds of service rather than sentiment. He should be convinced that it is better for him and for his business that he should get rid of his own vehicles and use the railways. Once this stage has been reached the national interest looks after itself.
This would seem to be the policy which Dr. Beeching is pursuing. In addition the beginnings have been established of co-operation between the railways and road hauliers. This is helping to meet the other major criticism that the two forms of transport are working in watertight compartments when it could be an advantage for them to work together, perhaps within an integrated system.
The resolutions advocating this and other equally unpleasant possibilities are not likely to be discussed at the Conservative conference, much less approved. Road operators should not for this reason decide that they can safely be ignored. The road transport associations have no political affiliations, but many of their members are active Conservatives. They should make sure that their local party organization and their local M.P. or Parliamentary candidate are made aware of the facts about road transport and are put on their guard against the insidious dangers which the offending resolutions reveal.