Revising the Bill
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER making ourselves well acquainted with the Transport Bill introduced in July, some of us may
need a little time to define our attitude towards the newcomer who is destined to be groomed for an ultimate place on the Statute Book, and for whom the earlier Bill has merely played the role of stand-in and decoy duck. Reports from some sources hint that some features will be different, and in particular that greater freedom to vary charges will make it unnecessary or undesirable for the railways to become pensioners on the levy, which will consequently lose its place as a central feature of the Bill.
More revolutionary is the suggestion that, instead of road haulage being denationalized, abolition of the 25mile limit will provide the setting for competition on equal terms between nationalized vehicles and those. operating under free enterprise. A Bill fashioned on these lines would have a close family resemblance to the Transport (Amendment) Bill which had its second reading 18 moritha ago under a 'Socialist Government, only • to be thrown out at the committee stage.
"Fairly and Squarely"
At first glance the idea is attractive. It appears to hoist the Socialists with their own petard. They have frequently urged the value of having public and private enterprise competing "fairly and squarely" in the same • industry. They should not therefore object to a measure calculated to clear the field for a genuine trial of efficiency.
In fact, it is certain that they would object, just as they opposed the amending Bill and just as more recently they refused to share responsibility for the Government's plans for steel. It is hard to believe that anything will come of the suggestion. As a means for alleviating some of the effects of the Transport Act, it had its merits when the authors of that Act were in power. It may also evade some of the immediate difficulties of denationalization. But it cannot provide that permanent solution of the Transport problem which Mr. Lennox-Boyd recently declared to be his aim.
A Fantastic Wheel
The main reason for creating the Road Haulage Executive was to provide the road arm of the integrated transport system. Although a comparatively minor cog in a fantastic wheel, it was given the right to sweep from the roads almost all other professional, carriers except those confining their activities to the 25-mile circle.
The Conservatives have gone on the record as firmly rejecting integration. Unless it be prepared to swallow its own White Paper, the Government cannot retain the R.H.E, except in complete independence of the British Transport Commission. When the goal of integration is abandoned, the R.H.E. loses its excuse for existing. It is leviathan out of water, a cog without a wheel.
From its representatives .these days one hears brave claims of the ability of the R.H.E. to take on all corners and beat them in open competition-. This was not what the same or other spokesmen said to Lord Leathers only a short time ago. "Even a modest relaxation of the
c16 25-mile limit," he told the House of Lords in May, "would have depressed the revenue and depreciated the value of the R.H.E.'s undertaking to such an extent that they could not have continued. I have that information from inside."
Even under present conditions, the R.H.E., following its small profit in 1951, is not doing so well this year. With the relaxation of controls on free-enterprise hauliers, nationalized road transport is likely to fare even worse. The decline may reach the point where the R.H.E. is making such losses that there will be a demand for its ending.
Substantial Gap At this stage the problem will loom up again of the ways and means by which the Treasury is to get back the amount paid for the " goodwill " of the acquired undertakings. This amount is generally reckoned at £30m., although £40m. and even £50m. have been menr tioned. Nobody knows how much of it would be paid back under the proposals in the present Transport Bill. The plan for a levy presupposes that there will be a fairly substantial gap.
• Certainly there would be no goodwill whatever attaching to a R.H.E. which is allowed to run itself to a standstill in competition with hauliers on equal terms. Moreover, the vehicles and premises would be coming on to the market at a most unfavourable time. Any loss that might be made on the sales as envisaged in the Bill would very likely be doubled were the process delayed until the R.H.E. was unable to continue as a going concern.
Earliest Opportunity.
Possibly by that time there would have been a change of Government. Almost certainly the Socialists would take the earliest opportunity td clap the 25-mile limit on again, and, if the situation of the R.H.E. were sufficiently desperate, would not hesitate to restrict the C-licence holder. Were we living in a rational world, it might be possible to persuade the Socialists that the failure of the R.H.E. was the best possible reason for getting rid of it. With the world as it is, the Socialists are bound to have, or to invent, arguments to prove the opposite. On the other hand, should the R.H.E. thrive on competition, this would encourage the Socialists to get rid of the competition altogether, and to go ahead with the nationalization of other industries.
The present Transport Bill is a little ramshackle, but the items it contains all bear a necessary relation to each other. If it can be made-to work, the result should be worth the trouble. To lift the 25-mile limit without also carrying out the logical consequences of such a step will merely postpone more decisive action. Sooner or later, the Government would have to introduce another measure to deal with the transport situation. Introduced by the Tories, it would be the second bite at the cherry, with less hopes of getting a good price for the R.H.E. Introduced by the Socialists, it would probably mean the complete elimination of free enterprise from the transport industry.