AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE TRANSPORT GANG

24th November 1950
Page 53
Page 54
Page 53, 24th November 1950 — THE TRANSPORT GANG
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

in Parl iament

R. Reader Harris, M.P.

IN the course of a session, the House of Commons deals with a huge variety of subjects. It is impossible for a Member of Parliament to make a detailed study of each one, and, although he is interested in everything that comes up in the House, he has to limit the number of subjects in which he specializes. If one thing be certain, it is that a Member should keep his mouth shut in the House of Commons unless he has expert knowledge of his subject.

Each of the two main political parties has Parliamentary committees which deal with the various subjects which come up for debate in the House. In the Conservative Party, these committees are loosely formed bodies which, at the beginning of each session, appoint a chairmanand one or two secretaries who arrange weekly or monthly meetings. Any Conservative M.P. may attend. There is no question of election to the committee. The times and venues of these meetings are circulated with the k■eekly "Whip," sometimes with an indication of the special business to be discussed.

Two Dozen of a Kind In practice, certain M.P.s attend meetings of a number of committees with some regularity and thus become associated with particular subjects. In the case of transport, there are about a dozen Members on each side of the House who attend their party committee meetings and endeavour to take part in transport debates.

The Conservatives' front-bench expert on transport is, of course, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (West Derby, Liverpool). His interest in transport problems is too well known to be written about here. He has for long been a staunch opponent of nationalization of road haulage and if the time Comes, he will take a leading part in the de-nationalization of the industry.

People are beginning to realize how important transport is to the life of the Nation. It is the spider's web which links the manufacturers, the shopkeepers and the public, and, therefore, whenever transport problems come up for debate in the House, it is an "occasion." Sir David is almost certain either to open or wind up.

The chairman of the Conservatives' transport committee is Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth). He has the two attributes of a good chairman, a sense-of humour and a knack of getting through the agenda quickly. In the Caretaker Government of 1945 he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and his speeches in the House are both informative and entertaining.

Lord Hinchingbrookc (Dorset South), who is vice-chairman, is prominent in all debates on transport. After working as a factory hand, he became a director in a group of electrical engineering companies. He knows the importance of transport to British industry.

There are two secretaries to the Conservative transport committee —Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon) and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro). Mr. Renton is keenly interested in road haulage problems, and has often put forward in the House the views of the Road Haulage Associa

tion. • Mr. Wilson is a railway expert. As a solicitor, he was senior partner in the parliamentary and legal section of the Great Western Railway—a post from which he resigned before getting into Parliament, because of his strong feelings about. nationalization.

An Authority Another prominent member of the Conservative transport committee is, of course, Sir Peter Bennett (Edgbaston, Birmingham), who is surely an authority on road transport. Whenever he speaks in the House you can be sure he is voicing the opinions of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and very well he does it. In 1938 he became a member of the _panel of industrial advisers to the Prime Minister, and during the war was, among other things, Director-General of Tanks and Transport at the Ministry of Supply.

Sir Austin Hudson (Lewisham North) is also a former Parliamentary Secretary tb the Ministry of Transport, and during the Caretaker Government of 1945 was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel. He can be relied on to take an active interest in any thing to do with road transport.

Mr. Stephen MacAdden (Southend East) is knowledgeable on transport matters, but specializes in fighting for the rights of those who travel by rail or road daily from Southend—a long-suffering section of the public whose interests need strong representation in Parliament.

Railway Specialists

Lady Tweedsmuir (Aberdeen South) is a staunch battler for the rights of hauliers in Scotland, and Sir Woven Wakefield (Marylebone) interests himself in road haulage for the express purpose of seeing that the public gets a square deal.

Other railway experts include Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon), who has served in road and rail transport all his life. At one time he was on the staff of the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., and later became a railway director. There is also Sir David Robertson (Caithness and Sutherland), who is a director of fish and cold-storage companies and is intensely concerned to see the railways prosper.

On the Socialist side, there is, of course, the Minister of Transport himself, Mr. Alfred Barnes (East Ham South). He is well liked on all sides of the House and seems to do his best to keep transport problems on a non-controversial plane.

Mr. C. C. Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr) is extremely knowledgeable on transport matters. He began his working life on the L.M.S. in South Wales and is, I suspect, not so happy as some of his colleagues about the nationalization of the road haulage industry. In any event, he has said: "There is no case to be made out for the nationalization of transport unless in the process a co-ordinated and integrated transport system can be produced," and on March 15 he said to the Minister: "You have not done it yet, you cannot do it on the way you are travelling, and you never will do it unless you alter your path." Mr. A J. Irving (Liverpool, Edgehill) always speaks fluently and sensibly where the railways are concerned. He has many railwaymen in his constituency, and he is genuinely concerned to see that they get a better deal out of nationalization.

I always listen with interest to • Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea West), who has had 40 years in the railway service and can be relied on to talk some good Sense on railway matters. Another railway expert is Mr. J. Harrison (Nottingham East), who was an engine driver and a member of the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen. the "transport gang," of which the foregoing is by no means a complete list, is a friendly crowd. All members wish to achieve the same end but have different ways of going about it. Everybody wants the railways to cease being a liability to the Nation; everybody wants a properly integrated system of transport; nobody wants to see fares or freight charges on either the roads or railways increased, but the Conservatives and Socialists have entirely different approaches.

I am of the opinion—and I think that many on both sides of the House will agree with me—that the railways are a dying industry. Road transport has become so efficient, and the roads of the country are bound to improve out of all measure in the next 20 years, that it is going to be difficult for the railways to compete on equal terms.

There are few subjects, however, which divide the. Conservatives and Socialists so sharply, because road haulage is the one nationalized industry which the Conservative Party has said it will denationalize if returned to power. Fhe ways and means and difficulties connected with this project form no part of this article, but they certainly serve to keep transport well to the fore in the deliberations of the House.


comments powered by Disqus