The Transport Knot

By JOHN COLE

0 NE of the reconstituted Cabinet's most diffi- cult decisions this winter will be about the railways. With the National Union of Railway-

men's conference now over, and Dr. Beeching's maps on the density of freight and passenger traffic being issued to soften up the public for what's to come, the battle between extremist followers of 'profitability' on the one hand, and `public service' on the other, has been joined.

The more sane union leaders know that 'not 'an inch' will not really suit them as a slogan in their campaign against closures, but where a man's livelihood is involved, the vested interest is strong. The better redundancy agreement which the British Transport Commission is now willing to negotiate may take some of the sting out of closures, but since the heaviest redundan- cies will, inevitably, occur in areas where alter- native jobs are hardest to get, like Scotland and rural Wales, severance pay will not dissolve the problem for the unions.

If the whole argument this autumn takes place at the level of leather-lunged extremism, much of the blame must lie with Mr. Marples. Allow- ing for all the exasperation which any dynamic Minister of Transport must feel at the chronic problem of railway finances, the remit given to Dr. Beeching—to make the railways pay--begs all the questions. If Mr. Marples really believes in it, he should bring in a Denationalisation Bill right away, sell off the few lines that anyone is prepared to take on as commercial propositions, and scrap the rest. This would be an act of political suicide, as well as of economic irrespon- sibility, but at least it would follow the same logic.

But instead of looking at the transport ques- tion on some over-simplified businessman's rule of thumb, the Government should be studying it against the full backcloth of national life, present and planned. It should be formulating and seek- ing the answers to a long series of difficult and complicated questions about the kind of country which it is possible and desirable to create-- why and how we move about, the immensely intricate calculation of comparative costs as between forms of transport, the pattern of in- dustrial development, population shifts and their reflection in the housing problem. and the likely effects of entering the Common Market.

The words 'fair comparisons' must have a frightening connotation for Mr. Marples, ever since the Ciuillebaud Committee on railway pay produced its famous report, but he should not shy away from the phrase when it comes to studying the respective merits of road and rail in particular sets of circumstances. The compari- sons made in the past have often been grossly unfair. if the Minister could overnight wave a magic wand and produce a comprehensive system of motorways, with free-flowing urban

- entrances and exits, the question facing him might be comparatively simple. He could just find out whether a road or rail vehicle was cheaper to run and settle for that.

But in the real world w hat must be measured are the direct and indirect costs, not only to the freight-owner or passenger. but to the country. In many cases this will mean comparing the construction and maintenance costs of an ade- quate road against the maintenance cost only of an existing railway track. Nor, when consider- ing the cost of the intolerable traffic delays which trouble many large cities, is it enough to argue that a 'C' licence holder, for example, still finds it cheaper, even after paying his driver to queue

for several hours at a dock gate, to send his goods by lorry rather than train. Another question which must be asked is whether the country (which phrase includes other exporters) can afford the congestion that he contributes to.

But the Cabinet will also have to ask a number of questions with much wider implications, re- volving principally round the now deeply dis- turbing drift of population from north to south. The fundamental one is whether the transport system should simply follow or should attempt in any way to mould the pattern of population. Ministry plans for the motorway network show no wish to lead, and the order of priority, based on the MI and the Lancashire Motorway, will inevitably cause further concentration of industry, population and housing in what the planners call 'the Coffin.' Although in the case of roads Mr. Marples will be building up, while in the case of railways he will be closing down, the same fundamental question remains—should the Government treat the railways as pioneers or camp-followers? This is really a test of whether the conversion to planning in the reign of Mr.

Selwyn Lloyd was genuine or not. If the Govern- ment intends to decide the future of transport on the narrowest economic equation, then it

should have the courage of its conviction's, close down the National Ecomonic Development

Council, before it gets ideas above its station, save a bit of money by winding up the Board of Trade's distribution of industry division, and tell Ford and BMC that they can extend in Dagenham and the Midlands instead of Mersey- side and Bathgate after all.

This is the point, however, at which the arrival of Mr. Reginald Maudling in Great George Street is immensely encouraging. The likely pat- tern of the railway controversy is this: Dr. Beeching will probably produce his proposals for the railways about November. If present in- dications are not grossly misleading, the Govern- ment will find the extent of pruning that he recommends politically unthinkable. The worst thing which could happen then is that the com- munities which shout loudest to have their rail- way services maintained will get them, regard- less of economics, need, national planning or anything else.

The sensible alternative is for Mr. Marples to take Dr. Beeching's plan as merely a basis for a fundamental examination' with his Cabinet colleagues of the' role of the railways in the Britain of the future. The railwaymen may as well face at once the fact that, even on this basis, the curtailment of lines and services will be a swingeing one across the board. On many branch lines, passengers and industry have both voted so decisively with their feet that nothing can save them. But what would be unforgiveable is to allow the railway decisions to be taken in isolation from others affecting national planning. It is time for Mr. Macmillan to establish quite firmly that Mr.

Marples, Mr. Erroll, the President of the Board of Trade, Sir Keith Joseph, his new Minister of Housing and Local Government, and Mr. John Hare, the Minister of Labour, are all working for the same firm. Much evidence from Scots, Nor-

*thumbrians and others who have to negotiate

with Whitehall in industrial development ques- tions suggests that it has often been hard to believe in the past that these departments were all on the same side. There are even frightening rumours of difficulty in bringing officials round the same table.

This nonsense and bumbledom must surely be stopped. Mr. J. N. Toothill, a member of the NEDC and the architect of the Toothill Report on the Scottish economy, suggested the day before the Cabinet reconstruction that a senior Minister should be given responsibility for draw- ing together the work of various departments concerned with economic development, much as Mr. Butler was given the special task in Africa.

The man for this job is clearly Mr. Maudlin& If Mr. Marples wants to subsidise some services which the chairman of the BTC thinks should be closed, the Chancellor will be the man who has to find the money. He ought only to be asked

to find it for something that he is convinced is worth while. Such decisions cannot be taken in the Ministry of Transport, without consulta- tion with anyone else. If they were, a running battle with the Treasury would be inevitable.

There are all sorts of theories about where

the Chancellor stands on planning, but if one follows the motto of the new Minister without Portfolio--`Deeds, not words'—there can be no doubt that Mr. Maudling is a strong-minded man who will not shrink on doctrinaire grounds from supporting interference with business or the free movements of the market where he thinks fit. He was after all, the President of the Board of Trade who scattered the motor in- dustry extensions over Merseyside and Scotland- With Scotland and Ulster, Right, Left and Centre, businessmen and trade unionists, de- scending on London in successive weeks about the unemployment crises precipitated by their faltering coal and aircraft industries; with Lan- cashire cotton still in the doldrums; with the shipbuilding employers issuing more of their

Cassandra-like wails about the future—there can

be no doubt that the regional situation is de- teriorating. The road to expansion will not be open until the ridiculous blockages created by over-full employment and unemployment, exist" ing side by side, are cleared. As the chairman of a strong Cabinet com- mittee on economic planning, Mr. Maudling. could see that the railway knot was disentangled in the way best suited to the economy as a wil°1 In the process, the Government might learn :

how complicated and far-reaching a matter

nomie planning can be; how impossible it is i.!; a single Government department to handle 1.1_ and, almost incidentally, how ludicrous it is rty.. try to run an incomes policy when the Treasury has never heard or some of the lessons that

._

Ministry of Labour officials were taught at their mothers' knees.