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 
PTAs 'political chicanery'
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
says former supporter
by Derek Moses • The provocative paper "I wonder ...!" by Mr. Hilditch (CM last week) presented to the MPTA Conference gave rise to a heated discussion. This was opened by ClIr. Neville G. Trotter, chairman, Newcastle upon Tyne traffic, highways and transport committee, who spoke of "those terrible authorities", the PTAs, which they were going to have thrust upon them. As Newcastle was to be one of the guinea pigs it might be the last opportunity a representative of the city would have to address an MPTA Conference. It was a sort of "funeral address".
It was only fair that they should ask to have reasoned arguments put before them as to why this change should take place. None had been given. PTAs, thought ClIr. Trotter, should only be supervisory, co-ordinating and stimulating bodies and if it was felt that they should have some teeth they could achieve this by taking licensing powers. It was a great mistake that they should get involved with operation.
ar. Trotter said that, in company with his fellow chairmen at Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, he had approached the Minister and begged that, if he was determined to go ahead with the takeovers he should at least delay them by one year in order that the new Authorities could spend the first year drawing-up a plan so that by the time the takeover took place they would at least know what they were trying to achieve. As with all previous arguments ClIr. Trotter was afraid to say that the Minister felt that he knew best and nothing was to be done on the lines they had suggested.
Mr. L. H. Smith (Leicester) said that he was a firm supporter of more one-man operation and believed it was a sensible answer to an increasing proportion of their services. He did not believe, however, that it was the complete answer and the $64,000 question was where to draw the line. In the UK transport was cheaper than in America or on the Continent and yet at the same time there was a considerably greater proportion of o-m-o on those continents. At first sight this seemed a paradox but Mr. Smith believed the answer was a much greater utilization of public transport in Great Britain. Before rushing blindly into full o-rn-o the industry should consider the effect on passenger utilization of flat or zonal fares.
The proper bringing together of control of fares, routes and general co-ordination could not be achieved unless one had ownership, declared Mr. C. N. Tebay, assistant secretary, regional development, Ministry of Transport, in a defence of PTAs. It seemed to them, he said, that the chap who owned the buses was in a strong position. He was the chap who had been given the power to dictate the fare structure, the pattern of services, the quality of service and it did seem to the Ministry that there was no satisfactory means of getting that unless one did have this body, the controlling body in the powerful position of having its own undertaking, its own finances, its own decisions, made by local men, who would form at least 75 per cent of the Authority.
A defence of the LMC/BMH merger was made by Mr. J. S. Leese, who stated that he was speaking for Leyland, Motors Ltd. It had been given Government blessing because it was essential for Great Britain to have a motor manufacturer which could compete with American, Japanese and European manufacturers. It was true to say that the merger was not conceived from a Leyland/ Daimler point of view.
Mr. Leese pointed out that the lack of an AEC rear-engined double-decker resulted by a decision taken, after market research, by AEC before it became part of the LMC. Leyland Motors Ltd. had spent many thousands of pounds on the development of a rapid-transit single-decker with a floor height of only eight inches. This project had been dropped due to lack of customer support. He did not call this stagnation.
As for the possible eclipse of Daimler, Mr. Leese said that it seemed "very highly improbable" to him that we should see this. Daimler had a very important part to play.
The shortage of labour was dictating the introduction of one-man operation, said Mr. A. Burrows (Liverpool). In five to 10 years' time, when o-rn-o was firmly established, the industry would be paying the driver his present wages plus those of a conductor.
Aid. F. S. Lester (Luton), who spoke in favour of PTAs at the previous conference, said that he had been the victim of a confidence trick. He was now convinced that PTAs were just political chicanery.
Aid. Lester thought computer technology had a large part to play—in Luton the busmen's wages were calculated by a computer.
Mr. John Rostron (Grimsby) said that Mr. Smith's comments put the clock back 10 years. The services on one-man buses were far superior to those with two-man buses. Furthermore, with 0-m-o. every passenger had to pay and fare dodging was arrested.
ISA and productivity
Thursday's business session was divided between the presentation of Senator Tull's paper on the background to the introduction of the Industrial Stabilization Act in Trinidad
and Tobago and a discussion on productivity
introduced by Mr. John Rostron (general manager Grimsby/Cleethorpes). Because of the response to Senator Tull's paper, and the many questions he had to answer, the latter discussion had to be cut short.
Mr. E. R. L. Fitzpayne (Glasgow) said that the seeds of communism were poverty and injustice. The industry must not adopt the trappings of communism. There should be no trouble with the trade unions in Glasgow because in order to be an employee of the transport department an individual had to be a member of the appropriate trade union. If an employee left the union, he gave himself the sack.
On the other hand, Aid. W. Afker (Bury) said that he believed in the fundamental right of every individual to join the association of his choice or stay out. But there were two sides to the coin, and if an employee chose to stay out of the union he should not accept the benefits negotiated for him by the unions. Aid. Alker spoke of mammoth trade unions with their hands in numerous industries. There should be one union for each major industry.
Aid. F. S. Lester (Luton) said that there could be no industrial settlement in this country through legislation by political parties. Mr. Ronald Cox (Edinburgh) said that, speaking personally, he did not believe in any legal enforcement of trade union membership. Legislation, in some form or other, was long overdue to prevent wildcat strikes which had done so much damage to this country.
Mr. Rostron introduced the discussion on productivity under seven heads. He said that 70 per cent of the costs of traffic operation went to staff in wages and 78 per cent of the cost overall. There had been no increase in traffic speeds and there were still ways of improving productivity. The function of transport was changing, he said, and the calculation of passenger habits was a very difficult exercise, as so many factors were involved.
Mr. J. Harrison (Blackburn) said that productivity was a question of trying to make unproductive work productive. There was a new opportunity for Blackburn, following Mrs. Castle's intervention, but negotiations were at a very delicate stage. He was not prepared to discuss the situation there at the present time.
Clir. D. G. Lewis (Birmingham) said that passengers would get half the benefit of increased productivity. There was no fall in passengers in Birmingham.