1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
The speeches by Labour peers illustrated the inconsistency of the Party's policy'
Page 114
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE burning transport question at the moment is whether the Labriur Party still intends to disrupt or even destroy the independent road haulage industry if it is returned to power at the General Election. In.winding up, the recent debate in the House of Lords on the promising theme of problems of transport, it was almost to be expected that Lord Blakenham would put forward the prevailing political uncertainty as a major problem. He had not one but a series of questions to ask? Would a Socialist Government renationalize road haulage? Would hauliers' left under free enterprise be restricted to a specified radius? What about restrictions on the C licence?
For some reason or another Lord Morrison found this line of attack 'paiticularly irritating. There were so many other more important matters, he suggested, on which ConServative peers had been culpably vague in the course of a 44 hour debate: He found no difficulty, moreover, in answering Lord Blakenham's multiple question in a single sentehce. " It is well known ", he 'said, " that we are in favour of long-distance road haulage being made publiclyowned and fitted in,. with proper co-ordination, with railway services."
Lord Morrison no dOubt supposed that he was reporting faithfully the policy of his party. Other Opposition• speakers even in the same debate might not have agreed with him. The speeches by Labour peers illustrated the inconsistency of the Party's policy. Lord Lindgren asserted that it was to give British Road Services a free hand by relieving them of the necessity of asking the licensing authority for additional vehicles. He appeared not to forecast that independent hauliers would. be legislated out of business, but hinted that the main reason for setting up the Geddes Committee might have been to look at the problem of the C licence.
A more direct attack on the C licence came from Lord -Stonham. He was in favour of a drastic increase in goods vehicle taxation, which he thought should discriminate in favour of A and C licence holders operating within a limited radius. Beyond that radius there should still be discrimination against the C-licence holder and against "very heavy lorries ", but presumably not against A-licence holders in general. In spite of his bias against the long-distance commercial vehicle, Lord Stonham did not propose nationalization as the solution.
HESITANT LORD MORRISON In opening the debate Lord Morrison himself seemed to have different ideas from those with which he ended. He was not "wedded to universal public ownership ", he said, if it could be shown that the work was done better by other means. Public ownership of the railways was unavoidable, but there might be "room for co-ordination in a mixed system within limits." The meaning is not as clear as it might be, but it can be said that Lord Morrison was a good deal more hesitant at this stage than he was later about the virtues of nationalization, His annoyance in the closing stages may be a symptom of the general uneasiness of the leaders of his party about c50 their policy for transport. Naturally the Conservatives have not failed to see this 'vulnerable point in their opponents' armour and are likely to bring it increasingly to public notice as the election campaign begins to accelerate. The recently issued guide for candidates sums up the Socialist ideal as a fully integrated transport system and goes on to ptint out that "Labour spokesmen usually avoid any precise definition of what this means in practice ".
However vague the proposal may be in detail, the effect will be very much the same. "Distance limits" threatened. by Mr. Harold Wilson would cripple many private hauliers.There, would be heavier taxes on C-licence holders, or traders would not be allowed to run their own vehicles. The inevitable effect of all this would be a rise in road transport costs, "which at present account for some 10' per cent of total marketing costs ".
CAUSE OF THE RETICENCE The cause of the Socialist reticence on transport is clear. The' course of events sketched in the Conservative .handbook has a considerable appeal to a public who have learned to mistrust the high-flown aspirations of nationalization. Denial by the Labour Party that its policy will have the effect suggested will carry little conviction, especially if it sharpens suspicion by refusing to be more precise. Here, is an issue on which one side holds mast, if not all, of the cards. • The Conservatives could do worse than pursue' the matter to the limit and make transport as important an election subject as possible. , Road operators can hardly avoid the same approach. In every election campaign since the war they have found themselves compelled to choose between two sharply contrasted policies. They have invariably found that the Tory Party at least offers them hope for the future, whereas the Socialists promise nothing much better" than extinction. Their choice in each successive campaign can hardly be surprising. Nor is it likely, that the Labour Party would make much effort to ameliorate its plans for transport, in view of the , fact that the operators would still prefer what the Conservatives offer them.
As an electoral force road operators are not negligible. There may be many more than a million owners or directors of haulage companies or of firms with their own vehicles Few of them look favourably on Labour Party policy for transport. The opposition of the great majority and very often of their wives is an electoral handicap of which the Socialists must have taken account. What would disconcert them more is to find this already formidable opposition actively spreading its point of view among the general public.
If the Conservatives believe they can attract votes by displaying the ineptness of Labour Party policy, the people directly affected should be all the more willing to arouse public opinion. One may expect an enthusiastic response from every class of operator to a campaign which will show the individual voter the unfortunate but inevitable result of carrying out what so far appears to be the programme of the Labour Party.