Tory and Labour Policies Clarified
Page 53
Page 54
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Morrison Expounded their Respective Parties' Views on Transport; Mr. Churchill Referred to the Wastefulness of C-licenceOperation; Government's Proposals Supported on Division and Opposition Amendment
Rejected
IAST week the House of Commons discussed the Govern' .4
ment's transport policy. The first point which the Minister of Transport, Mr. A. T. Lennox-Boyd, dealt with when he rose to move that the House approved the White Paper, was criticism that there had been no con. sultatidn with the interests concerned before its publication.
He quoted remarks made by Mr. Alfred Barnes, Minister of Transport in the former Socialist Government, in 1946, to the effect that when dealing with an .industry which . affected the whole trade, amenities and convenience of all citizens, it was a major difficulty to discuss and disclose important matters of policy before they had been submitted to Parliament. Mr. LennoxBoyd said that the Government now hoped to go further into consultation with. interested bodies than Mr. Barnes was able to do.
Obligations to Men He said that he was fully conscious of his obligations to the men and women engaged in the transport' industry, and 'then referred to the situation as. the Government found it when it took office. The previous Government, with the best Intentions, devised proposals that it' hoped would 'lead to an efficient transport system..•Its theory was that if road and rail facilities were put under one authority, 'there would be a public advantage, provided that the authority had the mass of vehicles and the power it thought it ought to enjoy.
"It is, of course, a perfect theory that all transport can be co-ordinated in one great whole, but in practice, as I think most. reasonable opinion would agree, it does not work out that way." Four and a half years of experience had given no sign of the future structure that was to be enjoyed. Although there had been a few illustrations of agreement between road and rail as to what was .suitable traffic 'for either, there was no indication that these would influence channels of traffic ih the future.
Impossible Task
"It is an essential background point," the Minister stressed, " that the Government cannot be accused of breaking up an integrated transport system either in present being or in future prospect." The British Transport Commission had worked with zeal but had had an impossible task to discharge in making transport an end in itself rather than taking traders' needs as paramount and makingthe transport .system correspond to those requirements.
There had been an increase in Clicensed transport because users were not obtaining the service they needed from the Road Haulage Executive. The Socialists tried to draw ancillary users into their maw, and although a provision in the Transport Bill to restrict them was withdrawn, there had been steady sniping at C-licensees ever since.
"I would ask C-licensees and others to remember this, and to remember also the continued threat to this sort of independence. When people are considering a levy as part of the broad plan to which I shall come, they might well regard this levy as a small price to pay for' freedom for some road hauliers and security for all."
The Opposition could not make capithl out of the resentment of workers' organizations to the White Paper. There were 16 resolution's down for hearing at the Scarborough conference of the Labour Party, last year drawing attention to managerial functions being more rigid and dictatorial in nationalized industries than under private enterprise.
Hypocritical Pretence
It was hypocritical to pretend that the men were solidly behind the State system and did not wish a change. In regard to the 80,000 people who were working for the R.H.E., it was believed that most of them would be as before, absorbed in private enterprise, and the Government would certainly take steps to see that such as might not be were fairly treated, The closest touch would be kept with the Trades Union Congress.
There were two passible solutions to the road-rail problem, said Mr. LennoxBoyd. The first was to try to plan the whole operation of transport so that the most apPropriate means was used for conveying traffic of different kinds. This was what the Socialist Government intended and directed the B.T.C.
to do. It had totally failed. .
The alternative was to try to provide for each trade what, from its own experience, it knew that it needed. It demanded a fair balance between road and rail.
"We shall never get a wholly fair balance between road and rail in this world.asserted the Minister. "If
we arrived at a fair balance one way, a rise in the cost of coal or a rise in the cost of fuel oil would throw the whole plan out of gear."
In fairness to the road transport industry, it should be remembered that it paid an enormous taxation— some £350m. a year. "The railways, on the other hand, and railway sympathizers—and\ we are all • railway sympathizers—regard the commoncarrier obligations as being a great handicap on them, and look with irritation and resentment and with fury at what many of them regard as the road haulage industry taking the cream of the market."
What the trader paid for his transport was not the only basis of choice. Other considerations were speed and safety, and it was altogether wrong to look at matters concentrating solely on trying to equalize the burden between road and rail, rather than first finding out what industry needed and then trying to frame a transport system to meet those requirements.
No Risk to Rail Road and rail could not he left to fight out their battle on their own. If road' haulage lost, a large nuniber private people in the new set-up would go out of business. If the railways went out of business the country would lose an irreplaceable asset. The Government's plan envisaged an agreement between road and rail based on each others' advantages, and did not involve the risk of ruining the railways.
The and' the Road Passenger Executive would disappear. There would be 4 top-level body to look after broad policy on railways, London Transport, docks and canals and the equity holding of the B.T.C.-• in passenger services.
The London Transport r Executive would remain, probably but not necessarily, as an agent of the ,13.T.C. Licensing would prevail over a diminished field. The road passenger services which the Commission provided would be subject to the ordinary licensing' procedure, but those services operating in London would be subject to the old jurisdiction which prevailed in the days of the London Passenger Transport Board only as to rates, said the Minister.
Great Difficulties The Government would be glad to see former long-distance road-haulage operators return, but there were great difficulties in the way of giving them priority. It was important to secure a substantial number of moderate and small people back in the business by seeing that there was a large number of small units offered for sale. The R.H.E. would be broken up into units as near as possible on the pattern before natiOnalization.
Reserve prices, fixed by the realization agency, would be placed on vehicles. Account would be taken of the physical market value, the value of the A licence that went with the vehicle, and of the fact that a going concern was being transferred.
The road-haulage industry did not lend itself to large-scale enterprises, being essentially an industry of small operators. The railway companies were divested of their road-haulage interests on nationalization. "It is not the intention of the Government that those interests should be restored," he said.
Turning to deal with retention of the 25-mile limit, Mr. Lennox-Boyd said that he hoped that all who would still be restricted by it would realize that its retention was a first step in restoring freedom to road haulage. It was the Government's intention to raise the limit eventually, but it was considered that in the early stages of transfer it had to be retained, for if raised, it would prejudice the sale of assets as there would be reduced protection to those who purchased them. The permit system would be administered more 1 iberal I y.
Seeing Difficulties "I would remind all who will find themselves prevented from being allowed to go beyond the 25 miles for a period to realize that their difficulties must be seen in the light of the freedom from nationalization that they have enjoyed, which is entirely due to their having declared themselves to be short-distance hauliers," said the Minister.
He continued: "I am anxious that it should be realized that there must be the protection for a period for all who are coming into long-distance haulage which will enable them to get started under conditions of relative protection:' That protection could not be indefinitely extended, nor would it be wished in an industry which had never been frightened to take commercial risks.
The precise form that the levy would take would be discussed with local authorities who collected excise duty. It would not be charged on vehicles weighing less than one ton unladen. The Transport Tribunal would have the task of deciding the volume of traffic which had been diverted from rail to road, by considering how far rail -traffic in any one area had declined in comparison with the general level of productivity, how far there had been an increase of road traffic in the area and what evidence there had been of the actual transfer of contracts.
Levy " Indefensible "
Mr. Herbert Morrison labelled the White Paper as " disgraceful " and "contemptible," and refuted its contention that no progress had been made towards the integration of transport. The levy was indefensible if it were to subsidize the railways. It was not liable to stimulate efficiency. If it were a penalty upon road transport it was an additional burden. In any case, a sum of istm. was ridiculous and a fleabite in relation to the railways' problems.
He feared that the levy would be the beginning of a big new tax on road transport and if it were the resort of B20
the Government for doing •something for the railways, having restored road haulage to private enterprise, it. would have been preferable to have continued with co-ordination rather than impose a new tax -upon one section of the transport industry to help another. It was a preposterous proposal which would be ineffective in helping the railways and annoying and irritating to the road industry.
The whole of the workers in the transport industry were against the Government's proposals, said Mr. IvlorriSon, who deprecated the absence of consultation with the B.T.C. before they were made. The B.I.C. was a public concern in which the future of nearly Iro. workpeople was involved.
Mr. Morrison did not deny that the road transport industry had done a good job, but by its nature and the large numbers of separate and conflicting private ownerships, there had to be a scramble for traffics, instead of orderly catering for them. It was surely commonsense, he contended, to marry the advantages of road and rail transport and cancel the disadvantages of each. • We shall return to public ownership such operable units as are necessary for a co-ordinated transport system. We reserve the right to leave in the hands of private owners, services or vehicles which for any reasons are not needed or because of neglect are not worth having," declared Mr. Morrison. He then indicated the broad principles which Labour would follow in working out necessary financial arrangements.
No Exploitation It would be determined that the public did not pay again for what had already been obtained out of the state funds. . Moreover, if the present Government imprudently sold transport at knock-out prices, Labour would not allow the nation to be exploited as a consequence. In the case of assets which private owners dissipated, such assets would be acquired again on terms that would not involve the public in foss. Compensation would be paid, but only on terms which would fully safeguard the public interest.
Sir Ralph Glyn begged the House to realize that the greatest evil that could befall a great industry was to become the play of party politics. He had many friends in transport, and he had not met one who approved the White Paper.
"I have tried hard to understand how it is going to work. I feel that there are more blemishes than benefits about it. I think the proposal With regard to the levy is going to be quite disastrous for the relationship between road and rail services," he said. The major cause of railway inefficiency was the action of politicians over generations. The railways had fought hard to retain road haulage undertakings under their control and it was essential, if an efficient rail service were to be attained, that a certain amount of road transport should be allowed to them.
What was to be done, he asked, with undertakings which had been voluntarily acquired? The parties concerned
bad concluded bargains and it was ridiculous to upset them. There was great need for care to be taken in distinguishing between compulsorily and voluntarily acquired undertakings, and those that passed to the B.T.C. through railway nationalization. If road transport were to be denationalized, he thought that a similar course should he followed with the railways.
Mr. Churchill confessed that the White Paper was a guide rather than a cure. It expressed aims and policies, but was capable of being influenced and affected by public opinion and by consultations that would be made, The Government was under no obligations to the Road Haulage Association. This did not compare with Labour's kinship with the Co-operative movement " without whose influential counsel, I doubt very much whether C licences would ever have existed at all."
Carefully Prepared
The White Paper, which illustrated the fallacy of doctrinaire nationalization as opposed to the fertility of regulated private enterprise, was not a hurriedly produced document. It had been before the Cabinet for several months and when it became apparent that denationalization of road transport was even more urgent than that of steel, it was decided to lay it before Parliament. A Bill would be introduced in July.
A transport system, whether properly integrated or not, existed to serve the community and must not be judged by its quality of integration but by the quality of its service to the public. It was believed that the liberation of a 20th part of the country's commercialvehicle fleet would enable goods services to be interchanged in an easier, more flexible and more convenient manner than at present.
A thoroughly bad arrangement was in being now. Over 800,000 C-licence vehicles were being run without limit as to distance, but were allowed to carry only the goods of their owners. Many could carry only half-loads and most ran empty on their return journeys.
Industrialists would not have taken the expensive course of operating C-licence transport if they could have got from the State long-distance transport services the facilities that they were entitled to expect.
Wasteful Misuse When . the former Government exempted C-licensees, nationalized 41„000 long-distance vehicles and restricted 110,000 Aand B-licence vehicles within the 25-mile radius, it condemned the overwhelming proportion to a thoroughly wasteful misuse of the country's hard-pressed resources. It was remarkable that the consequence of nationalization should have been a doubling of all licensees.
There was no development of road transport, said the Prime Minister, which could replace the services rendered by the railways, the nationalization of which was accepted by the Conservatives.
Turning to the road transport levy, Mr. Churchill said that £4m. a year was not mdch to put upon the broad backs of liberated road transport "The levy meets the actual purchase price of the goodwill, and it will increase, in the future only if new traffic is taken over
from the railways. In this, it offersthem a solid security without hampering private-enterprise road transport at all. Thus we believe that road and rail . . . might all livehappily together in this field to the advantage of everyone," he said.
More Evi3
The more that sales of the R.H.E.'s assets were prejudiced by talk of renationalization, the more the evil that would take place. Mr. Churchill thought that it would have been only common prudence for the Opposition to wait and see what the situation of the transport industry was to be before committing itself.
"We believe," he said, " that in less than the lifetime of this Parliament the benefits of a liberated road transport system, combined with successful railway administration, would make it seem foolish to renationalizeroad transport in the future."
There was no intention of cramping the natural expansion of road facilities.
The Government, was so muddled, said Mr. Ernest Davies, that it was handing out freedom to road haulage with one hand and. with the other, restricting those already operating
within the 25-mile limit. He .wondered what the small haulier, who was going to suffer from additional competition, was going to pay the levy and had had the fuel Lax increased, thought of the fulfilment of the Government's pledge to abolish the 25-mile limit. ,
Mr. Cecil -Poole declared' that the Prime Minister had said all that needed to be stated about the position of C-licensees. The Government was pleading that whilst road transport was over-saturated, involving a wastage of economic effort, there should be more vehicles on the road.
Regarding the levy, Mr. Poole wanted to know why the railways should receive charity from their competitors, and called upon the Minister to free them from their onerous conditions. He asked how one could determine the traffic lost by rail to road.
The former Minister of Transport, Mr. A. Barnes, did not believe that the earning capacity of R.H.E. vehicles was worse than when they were acquired, because they had been improved. Yet the Government was stating that it did not expect to receive a price equal to what was paid for them. What did the levy mean if it did not tell every potential purchaser that he could buy R.H.E. assets at less than current market price?
He denied that it was because of pressure exerted by the Co-operative mov em e nt that C-licensees were excluded from restrictions in the Transport Bill.
Mr. James Callaghan, formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, said that former hauliers would not return to road transport. The people who were coming in were big financial interests. He saw no reason why, anybody who possessed road haulage interests should automatically expect to be nationalized when a Labour Government returned to office. Some might well be left if their vehicles were not needed..
Proper Action
The Parliamentary. Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Mr. Gurney Braithwaite, submitted that the Government acted properly in disclosing its intentions first to the fiouse of Commons before consulting the B.T.C., the trade unions or professional associations. There was op mention to sell assets below market price. This was lower .than the price paid upon acquisition, which included goodwill.
There might be special cases where it would be advantageous to allow the railways' to buy rbad transport interests and these would be considered. The Government, having been criticized by the Opposition and with "very, considerable vehemence" by road hauliers, was convinced that it had acted in the national interest.
A Government motion that the House approve the White Paper was passed by 305 votes to 283. An Opposition amendment was rejected by 307 votes to 283