Countering Labour Party's Transport Plan
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FORMULATION of a counter-plan to the Labour Party's scheme for State ownership of Britain's transport services as propounded in the recently published booklet, "Post-war Organization of British Transport," was decided upon at a general meeting of members of the Yorkshire Federation of Road 'Transport Employers, held in Leeds last week. This decision was the outcome of a discussion on a statement prepared by a committee of the Federation in reply to the Labour proposals.
After criticism had been voiced on the grounds that the statement did not put forward an alternative policy as against the Labour Party's plan, a resolution was adopted approving the reply so far as it went, but directing that a circular be sent to Federation members inviting suggestions for a post-war policy for the organization of Britain's transport services.
Mr. J. S. Hutchinson (Huddersfield), making the point that the committee's statement did not offer an alternative policy, said it merely expressed dislike. of the Labour proposals and gave certain reasons why it was suggested tbey would be ineffective. He thought there had been too much haste in issuing the reply to the Labour plan.
Mr, Frank Thompson (Leeds). chairman of the Federation, said the committee's statement was not intended as a full and final answer to the Labour proposals. Answering the complaint of too Much haste, he said: " There was Ma indication of action in this matter by other road-transport operators' associations, and we thought it was time someone struck out in reply to the Labour Party's booklet."
Mr. J. F. Archbold (Leeds) suggested that the formulation of a postwar policy was a matter for the Road Transport Federation projected under the Perry scheme. Immediately the Federation came into being, it should get to grips with that task.
Not Fully Representative Mr. Archbold said he agreed that the Federation should put forward its views on such matters. If it could stimulate interest by suggesting a postwar policy, that was all to the good; but he thought it was entitled to speak only for itself, and not on behalf of the road-transport industry as a whole.
Mr. H. Walker (Brighouse), replying to the latter point, claimed that Yorkshire was very representative of the industry. Suggesting that such a vital matter as the Labour proposals for State ownership should not be allowed to drift while the industry was waiting for the much-delayed consummation of the Perry scheme for unification of. road-transport operators associations, Mr. Walker added: " I want something done now," Did those who complained of too much haste suggest that it was too soon for operators to say they did not want nationalization of the industry?
Mr. H. Woodfaead (Queensbury): In this document issued by the Labour Party it is suggested that we cannot do our job. Surely that accusation should be answered, even if no alternative plan be put forward.
Mr. H. H. Beaumont (Ripponden); supporting the call for constructive ideas as against merely negative opposition to plans such as that put forward by the Labour Party, suggested that after the immediate postwar period, the road-transport industry was likelY to enter upon a very lean
time. He thought it probable that more vehicles would be available than were needed to carry the traffic on offer, and, in his opinion; some form of drastic control would be necessary if road haulage was to have a decent place in industry.
Recalling what he termed the chaotic conditions which prevailed in road haulage before the introduction of licensing of operation, he asked, "Who would like to revert to the position in which anyone could enter the business in competition with his next-door neighbour? "
Mr. Jackson suggested that if the Federation was to formulate a post-war transport policy. a vote should first be taken on the nationalization lisue. This suggestion was adopted, the vote showing a unanimous verdict against nationalization.