Janus comments
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Variations on a political theme
UDGING from the freedom with which Icy impugn the political purity of the Road Iaulage Association, the Socialists have iven up any hope of winning votes from auliers. A more serious problem is the xtent to which the campaign by hauliers nd others against the Transport Bill is laying a part in influencing the electorate i general against the Government.
Time after time during the debates in oth Houses of Parliament Labour MPs ad peers have made the point summed up nly last week by Lord Shepherd when he dd that much of the case against the Bill id been made "on evidence and support –financial support—of the RI-IA". Few eople believe this and what is worse from ie point of view of the Government even wer people think it matters.
Nevertheless the road transport industry as been right to keep as far away as is asonable from party politics. Individual )erators and their supporters are entitled , hold what opinions they like. As an 'ganization they must steer a course as mr as possible to the middle of the stream.
Molt time
Whether this policy can be pursued indetitely is another matter. The task is partidarly difficult whenever a general election Troaches and the main parties announce idely differing plans for dealing with ansport. Operators and indeed users must el that they have a collective as well as an dividual interest. They have a preference r one party or against another and this is Lund to be reflected in their publicity.
Recent events in Parliament have ineased the likelihood. Whether they realize or not the amendment on quantity ensing passed by the Lords must proice a situation at the next election from ich operators cannot stand aloof.
The amendment sounds innocuous. It erely provides that the appointed day on iich the provisions for special authorizaau shall take effect must not be earlier an the last day of 1971. This is 3years gad but in any case quantity licensing aid not be introduced for some conierable time. The Government has prosed more than once that the Freightliners 11 first have to prove their worth.
What is significant about the date chosen the peers is that it will come after the xt general election. The Conservatives ye promised to repeal the provisions for antity licensing and a change of Governmt would mean that implementation had iectively been postponed to the Greek lends.
The Government may find it difficult to ride how best to deal with the amendmt. At one stage it was thought possible hough not likely that the House of Lords add delete sections 71 to 81, that is to say whole of that part of the Bill concerned th special authorizations.
rocking amendment
In some ways this would have suited the wernment better. It would have had a xl deal of support for saying that the mge was so drastic as to be a wrecking amendment. The opportunity would have been there for a general attack on the House of Lords for thwarting the will of the public as expressed by the elected majority.
The immediate cause of the subsequent battle would speedily have been forgotten. Inevitably the Commons would have won and the cause of democracy would have been vindicated by the passage of the Bill without alteration.
This might not make quantity licensing any more popular and another Government could just as readily have abolished it. The victory would have been for the Commons but not necessarily for the Labour Party.
The Government need not have taken up the constitutional challenge preferring to wait for an even more favourable occasion.
Outright rejection of quantity licensing would have given them room to manoeuvre. They might even have gone a long way towards accepting the proposal.
This is improbable but not as improbable as it may seem at first sight. A decision to abandon the scheme for special authorizations, albeit at the behest of the House of Lords, would have silenced what has been the most persistent opposition to the Bill.
Agreement to such a course would have been found most difficult within the Labour Party. Mr. Richard Marsh, having so recently been appointed Minister of Transport, might have been prepared to accept even so drastic a change in a measure not of his own devising and has in any case shown a tendency towards softening the rigours of quantity licensing.
Political fantasy
This is no doubt an extreme political fantasy. The ironical situation would have followed of a Socialist Government under pressure giving road operators the complete freedom proposed for them in the report of the Geddes Committee appointed under a Conservative Government.
The difficulties of the railways might thereby have been increased. By the time this had become apparent a general election would have taken place followed perhaps by a change of Government. The Conservatives might then have found it neces
sary to introduce themselves some form of the quantity licensing they had so strenuously opposed and in order to combat this unwelcome legislation road operators would be seeking the support of the Opposition.
There would have been other measures open to the Government had the Lords thrown out sections 71 to 81 root and branch. The actual amendment provides much less scope. The Government can do little else but either accept the proposed date or reject it. In neither case are the omens promising.
If the amendment is accepted there will certainly not be a moratorium on discussion of quantity licensing until after the next election. January 1 1972 will be a day of mourning for road operators and they would find it difficult to hide the fact—even if they were so disposed—that mourning would be turned to joy if a new Government were elected.
Organizations representing operators would be under strong pressure from their members to bring this point prominently to the attention of the public. If it was right to wage a strenuous campaign against quantity licensing when the Bill was passing through the House of Commons it must seem equally right to renew the offensive at election time when the public are in the best position to make their opinion felt.
Much the same thing will happen if the Government rejects the Lords amendment. The appointed day for announcing the introduction of special authorizations will in due course be announced. it may well be uncomfortably near the election date. The Conservatives are bound to make the most of the fact that they will rescind the offending provisions when the electorate give them the opportunity and operators are almost equally certain to add their voice to that of the Conservatives.
Back to square one
What this adds up to is that operators who over the years have tried doggedly and sometimes painfully to extricate themselves from the toils of politics will find that they are back to where they started. This may well be regretted by the more thoughtful of them.
There seemed hope a few years ago that the two sides in Parliament were coming sufficiently closely together to make it possible for the transport industry to pursue a reasonably even course irrespective of changes of Government. Operators and users were no longer demanding further denationalization and the Socialists for their part were maintaining that they had no wish to put operators out of business or to extend the boundaries of nationalized transport.... In a sense the situation has not changed. The Government insists that the Transport Bill is in no way intended as an attack on hauliers or on other road operators and users.
Neither operators nor users can agree with this reading of the Bill. They have had no alternative but to seek the support of the public thus inevitably making common cause with the Opposition. The alliance is bound to continue beyond the next election.