Political Commentary
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Hybrid Cultivation
By JANUS
LONG before the Disposal Board have given up hope, various official and unofficial consultants are jostling each other in order to propose alternatives for finishing the operation. In particular, an idea put forward from the Conservative back benches during the debate on the Transport Bill has been revived. Mr. Aubrey Jones and Mr. Ian Harvey suggested that, where companies were formed, part only of the shares should be sold, so that the British Transport Commission would keep an interest in the undertaking. The later development of the idea is that the shares should be divided equally. The arguments in its favour are that it follows the pattern set in passenger transport even before nationalization; and that it will placate the Socialists into making no further changes of ownership.
Dividing the Control
The arguments are misleading and over-optimistic. The comparison with passenger transport overlooks the fact that goods transport operation before nationalization did not follow the pattern of joint ownership. The railways' road vehicles were then, and are now, subsidiary to the main activity. Where bus and railway services are complementary there is something to be said for dividing the control, but the scope on the goods side is limited. Division of the shares on the lines suggested would be a confession of failure by the Government. The purpose of returning road haulage to free enterprise is to encourage competition with the railways. The presence of B.T.C. directors, backed with B.T.C. money, on the hoards of the new companies would damp competition down. The Transport Act 1953, provides for the sale of shares "in one parcel," and the provision is essential to the Government's policy.
There is no real justification for supposing that the Socialists will accept the 50-50 proposal as a permanent compromise. They would support it in the present Parliament, for the step is in the direction they wish to take. Legislation is not like a treaty, and the Socialists would not feel themselves bound to go no further. On he contrary, they would regard the suggested compromise is a sign of Conservative weakening, and proceed with heir own plans more enthusiastically than ever.
Unobtrusive Manner
Half-measures in denationalization would make the task of the Socialists easier. They need only pass a Bill to give the B.T.C. a major interest in the joint companies. They might prefer to re-establish their control in some such unobtrusive manner. Their policy no longer proclaims nationalization as a panacea. Instead they talk of "social ownership," or somewhat more vaguely of "industrial co-operation "in industries not yet ready for the full treatment. To keep the companies in being after depriving them of independence would give the impression of competition without the inconveniences. Nor could the Conservatives subsequently do much about it. The plan appears to set up a structure which could be renationalized and redenationalized as often as the Government changed complexion. In this kind of tugof-war the Socialists have the advantage that they are not risking their own money. The public would soon grow weary of the sport, and the• B.T.C. be left in possession.
a22 A compromise that eases the overworked fingers of the political shufflers may not be the best for either the providers or the users of transport. There are some things about British Road Services that trade and industry have found pleasing, notably the regular trunk services between large towns. The company structure in the Transport Act should help to preserve these services and to sharpen them with competition. The halfway measure now being canvassed would make no great difference from the present position. It is of the kind in which one side abandon their principles but stop short of adopting those of their opponents.
The hauliers' attitude towards the idea ranges from suspicion to indignation. They have waited for their freedom with growing impatience, and will lose what little faith they have in Parliamentary pageantry if the procession they have resigned themselves to watch does not take place. They at least have no illusions about renationalization. Whatever attitude the Socialists adopt towards the hybrid companies it is proposed to form, they would no doubt still feel the same about the 25-mile limit.
Court Unpopularity
They would also not change their views on the C-licence holder. In fact, there is no reason why their policy should be affected in any way by concessions in Conservative policy. It is not so much the method of denationalization as the result that counts. If it can be proved successful and to the liking of the public, the Socialists will be unlikely to court unpopularity by bringing in more amending legislation. The danger of halfhearted denationalization is that it will not make sufficient difference for the public to care or to protest against another change of course.
Understandably, the Government do not want the stream of disposal to dry up, but too ostentatious an insurance against failure is not encouraging. The procedure in the Act may not be perfect. The section dealing with the formation of companies was something of an afterthought, and Parliamentary discussion was cut almost to nothing by the protests of those people who thought it should not be cut at all. Once the section became law there were obvious advantages in giving it effect as quickly as possible.
More Security
The policy should still be not to hamper the process. Perhaps the most difficult of all the Board's tasks will be the sale of the large companies. It will not be encouraged if the possible buyers have the impression that, by bolding off for a little while, they will get more favourable terms. Some of them may like the idea of sharing a company with the B.T.C. It may appear to offer them more security, and the likelihood that they will retain their freedom to operate whatever happens, to anybody else in the transport industry.
The Government may be afraid of losing face should the sales not be complete. Such a fear, if it exists, is all the more reason for caution in making changes in the plan. Any alternatives must be recognized as in keeping with the spirit of the Act and as an improvement on the present organization. The plan for equal shares does not seem clearly to satisfy either of these requirements.