Critical Pilgrims
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LORD HURCOMB'S meeting with representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, when it takes place, can have only good results The Association's memorandum on the integration of transport by road, rail and inland waterway summarizes the opinions of trade and industry with some vigour. It deserves close consideration, not only by the British Transport Commission, but by the public generally.
One sentence in the document is worth particular examination as an example of the complete change in the transport climate as a result of nationalization. The Commission's duty, the memorandum avers, "should be interpreted as meaning ' efficient, adequate and economical' from the point of view of those who use the transport system."
Platitudinous Comment
In other words, the main purpose of the Commission is to deliver the goods. Isolated from its context, the Association's comment appears platitudinous. It is rather like saying that the duty of the miner is to dig coal, the purpose of the butcher to sell meat, and the function of the cow to give milk. A few years ago, in fact, the statement would have been taken wholly for granted. The public was chiefly concerned about the quality of the service it received. The provider of transport was left with the problem of working out the methods that paid dividends. If the result were displeasing, the customer went elsewhere.
The Association finds that this happy state of affairs no longer obtains. When the CommisSion fails to come up to scratch, there is nowhere else to go. With the best will in the world, the Commission is almost forced into a position where the wishes of the customer take second place. It not only has a monopoly, but is obliged by the provisions of the Transport Act to follow a certain course of conduct and to evolve a system based upon specified principles. ,
High-flown Mood
Much of the Association's memorandum is an attempt to shake the Commission out of its high-flown mood. There is no beating about the bush. The present integration policy of the Commission "is an imprudent and inopportune move in the direction of rigidity." It "will not prove adaptable to the infinite variety of modern trading conditions." There are "grave doubts as to whether any freedom worthy of the name is, in fact, to be allowed at all." Stress is laid on the need for giving road transport its rightful place: "However disagreeable the fact may be, road transit is often cheaper and sometimes more efficient than rail, thus it is in fact a competing method of transport. The Association therefore expresses the hope that it is not intended to eliminate the competition of road transport where this entails the preclusion of its relative cheapness and efficiency" Trade and industry stress that the duty of the Commission is towards its customers. Some of the workers appear to hold the opinion that its main duty is towards its staff This is one interpretation of the inquiry into the financial structure of the Commission which is being • €16
made by Mr. Harold Wilson, M.P., at the request of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. Points that Mr. Wilson is expected to consider include the compensation paid to former railway and road haulage shareholders, the financial implications of integration and the burden of maintaining uneconomic railway lines which are needed for defence purposes.
The Same Medal
The main object of the Unions, according to "The Times," is to justify their view that wage increases could be met by a reorganization of the Commission's finances, rather than by further increases in fares and freight charges, or by measures to obtain more economic and efficient working. The investigation by Mr. Wilson and the criticisms by the Association are two sides of the same medal. The customers and the staff both want something from the Commission, and both feel at liberty to explain how the Commission should be run in order to give them what they want.
From time to time, the Commission complains at being expected to justify its policy and actions, whereas the operator under frec enterprise is under no such obligation. One gathers from a note of asperity in its annual report and other public utterances that the Commission is growing a little tired of the constant flow through its hermit's retreat of rather critical pilgrims. They have been used to a wide variety of choice, and cannot be reconciled to living in a one-horse town.
Folies Bergeres Because the Ivory Tower is the sole place of entertainment, they seem to expect a superior version of the Folies Bergeres. They call for the dancing girls, and pass merciless comments upon their dresses, their voices and their legs. After the performance, the exasperated onlookers take the management on one side to give it a few elementary lessons in show business. Meanwhile, the back-stage mechanicals have not been sparing of
their own criticisms. Less clothing and more leg, in their opinion, would mean a bit more money to spare. And they call in an expert to prove it for them.
Harassed in this way, the Commission may be pardoned for imagining that the years before nationalization were the Golden Age of the haulier. According to this theory, the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933 was devised for his special benefit. He could charge what he liked. He could carry what he liked, in accordance with a process usually described as "taking the cream." His customers adopted towards him the deferential attitude of the modern housewife to the butcher.
The average haulier has a somewhat different recollection. He found, and still finds, that the customer calls the tune. He gives the haulier instructions and sometimes goes so far as to tell him what payment he will get. Refusal or failure means the loss of the customer. It is true that the haulier is not generally expected to listen to a lecture on the way to run his business. He would no doubt resent it, but not nearly so much if it were the price to pay for a .monopoly.