Cat and Mouse
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By JANUS
NOT often remembered is the fact that nationalization of road haulage by the Socialists did not end with the Transport Act of 1947. The coal, gas and electricity undertakings owned a considerable number of vehicles even when they were acquired. In the years that followed they, unlike the Road Haulage Executive, have substantially augmented their fleets. The Coal Board in particular now has many hundreds of lorries.
The ultimate intention of the Socialists was rather that the nationalized boards would gradually reduce the number of their vehicles and pass the traffic to the R.H.E. The boards had other views and made good use of the right to increase their fleets. No doubt they liked the British Transport Commission no more than most other transport users. Possibly, the sentiment was heartily reciprocated in so far as the Commission are users of coal, gas and electricity, but they could do nothing about it.
Effect on Free Hauhers
As the fleets of the boards grow, s does their demand for hired transport diminish. This Ias helped to make things difficult for the R.H.E. and fqr the hauliers under free enterprise who specialize in the kind of service the boards require. For some carriers the loss of this work has been a catastrophe. Particularly hard-hit are operators whose businesses have largely been built up on coal haulage, and whose licence conditions and environment may preclude them from carrying much else.
To some extent they are suffering from one of the accepted hazards of their calling. Under nationalization or free enterprise the customer has the right to put his own vehicles on the road. It is a safeguard he values, and in the last few years has frequently exercised.
In practice, he almost always has good reasons for taking what might prove a very expensive step if it were mistaken, The normal trader wants his goods carried as cheaply and efficiently as possible. If the work can be done better on his own vehicles than by any other method, he cannot be blamed for using them. Even the haulier that his action may displace would not deny him the right to take it.
Is Coal Board Transport Economic?
Has the haulier any more justification for grumbling at the fleet increases of public corporations such as the Coal Board? There is, indeed, a considerable difference and it affects the whole basis upon which the consumer chooses whether or not to employ his own transport. The Coal Board, with their man ramifications and variety of conditions, must find it almost impossible to know whether, over the country as whole, their lorries are saving money, but the decision to buy vehicles may be made at a high level as a matter of policy, or as a whim.
As a monopoly, the Coal Board can play a policy of cat and mouse with the coal haulier, because they are his sole customers. As a nationalized undertaking, they can experiment without limit in building up a fleet of vehicles. Any losses they may make ultimately. fall upon the public.
There is no easy way of telling whether the Coal Board's deficit of over £8m. in 1952 would have been less had there been more frequent use of hired transport. Fluctuations in requirements must mean that during the summer months a good deal of the equipment is idle.
There is a fairly widespread opinion that the Coal Board are not likely to be running their own transport very efficiently. This should at least be the opinion of the Government. The mainspring of the new Transport Act is the conviction that road haulage is inefficient under public ownership. If this be the case with the R.H.E.—which at least had a certain number of transport experts on its payroll—how much more so must it apply to coal, gas and electricity, for whom road transport is merely a sideline.
The replacement of efficient operators by the inefficient fleets of the boards would mean a waste of men, money and materials. New vehicles are still scarce, and the country can ill afford it if they are not put to the best use. High transport costs, whether by road or by rail, will contribute towards putting up the price of coal and other fuels. The Government are not completely responsible for the profit and loss of the nationalized bodies, but they cannot altogether ignore the question.
Nationalization of coal, gas and electricity was not intended as a roundabout method of taking over a large section of the road haulage industry without the payment. of compensation. Road transport was taken over by a separate process, which the new Act is designed to undo. The Government believe that road haulage should be in the hands of independent operators, and to this end are taking great pains to sell off the R.H.E. It would be -ironical, even farcical, if, while one section of the industry was being returned by an elaborate process to free enterprise, another section should be wiped out, and the work it has done in the past transferred to other vehicles owned by the State.
Government Inquiry Suggested Few people would suggest that the boards which now control the sources of fuel and power should be given back into the hands of private owners. The nationalization of those industries is a major and permanent part of the notable revolution carried out by the Socialists during their five years in office. On the other hand, nobody believes that the boards are functioning as well as they should do. There are frequent demands for investigations, for committees of inquiry and for the probing of various persistent rumours and accusations.
The Government, having for the time being finished with their legislation for transport as a whole, might find it useful to have an inquiry into the transport operations of the nationalized boards. The findings might provide support for the decisions embodied in the Transport Act, 1953, and the public might be astonished by some of the evidence obtained. At the same time, the activities of the boards in the transport field might reveal faults which could be corrected over the whole organization, to the benefit of everybody concerned.