THE CHALLENGE OF TOMORROW'S TRANSPORT
Page 67
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By FRANK
. . or Look Back in Anger BURRAVOE WHAT are we marching towards in inland transport? At this stage of the political battle, let us see how the opposing armies are forming up. First, eyes right. Below is a statement from a report of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on the subject of transport nationalization. It is signed by Sir Arnold B. Gridley, chairman of a powerful Conservative committee:—
"Each form of transport should concentrate on the role for which it is specially fitted. hi connection with railborne traffic, railhead points should be established in all important centres and, as far as possible, the railways should handle traffic between those points in full wagon loads. The function of distribution to and from railhead and short direct hauls of under, say, 30 miles should be the special province of road transport, though it is not suggested that road transport should be restricted to such short-distance hauls. There should be full co-operation so that both road and rail would have an interest in seeing that traffic was induced to pass by the most economical route. Representatives of road and rail should be interested in obtaining traffic for either form of transport. Road transport would have to assume the obligations of common carriers, which at present are only shouldered by the railways. The continuance of the present arrangements would make it impossible to put railways on a sound financial basis, since it would leave the road hauliers free to select the cream bf the traffic and place the railways at an impossible disadvantage."
Eyes Left Now, eyes left. Here is an extract from a report prepared by the Transport Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party:— " There can be no exemption from nationalization of ancillary users as a class. It would mean either present holders of C permits (licences) would be exempt and no fresh licences issued, or that anyone would have to be given the right to carry his own goods. The former would create a privileged class of ancillary users, those who were lucky enough to have licences today, and the latter would endanger the successful and profitable operation of the nationalized Road Haulage Board. If anyone could carry his own goods, licences would be applied for whenever it was profitable to operate one's own transport and the State would be left to carry the less profitable. The nationalized scheme would be undermined as the general level of charges would be higher since the profitable traffic would be skimmed off. . . ."
Let no one be alarmed at the above statements. They are not tracing shots fired in the present political battle. They were made soon after another General Election— that of 1945—when operators of goods vehicles had only just escaped from the wartime bondage of a 60-mile distance limit imposed under the Defence Regulations. Within a few months of their being elected, a Labour Government had produced a transport nationalization Bill.
Memories are notoriously short. Just as we do not remember many of the incidents of the war, so are we apt to forget what that Bill contained. There were four main provisions concerning road transport which make interesting reading just now, when the same subject is one of the issues over which politicians are fighting again. Here they are:— 1. Compulsory acquisition of haulage businesses whose vehicles " consisted to a predominant extent of ordinary long-distance carriage for hire or reward ". Long distance under this provision was declared to mean "the carriage of goods by the person carrying on the undertaking for a distance of 40 miles or upwards in one goods vehicle or a succession of goods vehicles, in such circumstances that the vehicle, or, as the case may be, one or more of the vehicles is, at some time during the carriage, more than 25 miles from the operating centre ".
2 Aand B-licensed vehicles not compulsorily acquired as in (1) above were prohibited from carrying goods for hire or reward for more than 25 miles from their operating centre, unless under a permit from the British Transport Commission.
3. C-licensed vehicles (and B-licensed vehicles too. insofar as they carried goods otherwise than for hire or reward) were to be limited to 40 miles from their operating centre unless they had a special permit to go farther—the permits in this case being issued, not by B.T.C., but by the Licensing Authorities. (Certain types of vehicles, such as bulk liquid tankers, abnormal indivisible loaders and so on. were to be exempted from one or other or all of the above three provisions.) 4. Road passenger transport was to be dealt with under area schemes "devised for the purpose of promoting or facilitating the promotion of the co-ordination of the passenger transport services serving the area, whether by road or rail. .."
What Happened to Them It is even more interesting to see what happened to these four items. Items (1) and (2) were duly enacted (with a few minor alterations) in August, 1947, and put into force a little later, only to be respectively reversed and cancelled when the Conservatives gained power at the election of 1951.
In a scene of great excitement in the Commons, item (3) was abandoned by the Labour Government before the Bill reached the Statute Book, apparently as a result of a tempestuous campaign of criticism which the clause created both in and out of Parliament.
Item (4), although enacted, never took wings. One single
area scheme (for the North East) was sketched roughly on the drawing board. but it never reached the machine shop, let alone the hangar.
Precisely what Labour would do with road transport this time if it won the current election is by no means clear. Through the misty vapourings on this subject in the recently published Party manifesto, only one definite signpost is discernible. It points in the direction of slackening, if not entirely removing, the reins on British Road Services, soi that the organization can increase the number of vehicles it operates. Presumably this means that the nationalized concern is to be put in a privileged licensing position.
But there are good grounds for believing that this easement would have little or no effect. The difficulty of B.R.S. lies, not in getting more carriers' licences or being relieved of the obligation to hold any such licences at all, but in getting traffic for the vehicles which it has already under licence., When that truth becomes better known, as it soon would do, a Labour Government would certainly want to administer another shot in the arm of its favourite son.
By that time there will be two complicating factors. The Geddes Committee will have reported (it was set up nearly 18 months ago); and its recommendations, whether unorthodox or conventional, negative or positive, trivial or far-reaching, will have to be either rejected or adopted. That is one factor which may influence thought—unless minds are already set in concrete. The other feature is the full-scale, whole-hog inquiry which Labour apparently envisages: into road transport (passenger and goods), rail, canals, docks, ports, coastal shipping, air—the lot. Nothing short of a Royal Commission could sit on that clutch. And the average Royal Commission takes how many years to hatch, its eggs
Will impatient Labour back-benchers and transport unions be content to wait so long? The sort of discipline needed to make them do so has not yet been invented. Time may be limited.' With good conduct, Members could be expected to serve the full five years, but long before another election came round, they would want to see at least some movement towards their ideal of an integrated, co-ordinated and sublimated transport system.
Much more likely are they to insist on quick relief for the nationalized side of inland transport. Another dose of the 1947 brand of acquisition of road haulage businesses being unpalatable, experience says that with all the haste of panel doctors they will write out the other familiar prescription, Legible to anyone who understands their philosophy. The words will spell restriction for private enterprise goods vehicle operators by the imposition of a distance limitation on any or all of the three classes of licences. The only real question is: what will be the distance? Judging from the past, the choice will lie between 25, 40, 50 or 60 miles. Which of these is the pin likely to pierce when the pricking process starts? If Labour wins, that is?