SAFETY VALVE
Page 74
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
COMMENTARY by JANUS
WITH perhaps one or two exceptions, the resoluti3ns set down for discussion at next week's conference of the Road Haulage Association are unlikely to arouse much passion among hauliers, let alone set Brighton front on fire. They are sincere, and useful so far as they go. They propose some reasonable improvements in vehicles, in the roads, in the Association and in the licensing system. Some of them may arouse controversy and may even be rejected by the conference. Others could very well be accepted unanimously without the need for discussion.
In this respect the conference will be very much like its predecessors, and not for the first time members may go away wondering whether resolutions are really the right fare for a function of this kind. Whether the subjects are domestic to the Association or concerned with the operations of members, they must almost inevitably come within the purview of one or other of the Association's numerous committees. If a resolution is passed, it will go sooner or later to the appropriate committee, who are not bound to implement it unless it has their agreement.
Rejection of a conference resolution is not likely to occur frequently. If a fairly large body of hauliers are in agreement on a point, a smaller body of the saine complexion should reach the same opinion. However, the possibility of divergence is there. In such a case it has to be acknowledged that the conference has no authority. The governing body of the Association is a national council of over 100 members, who have the final word on what should be the official policy. Each committee takes its authority from the council and must ask the council to ratify its decisions.
THE conference does not come into this picture at all. It is a fortuitous gathering of Members, usually with a preponderance of representation from that part of the country in which the function happens to be held. A vote at the conference is in no sense to be compared with a referendum for which, in any case, there is equally no provision in the Association's constitution_ This is possibly just as well when it is remembered that, according to reports, the people of Jamaica recently elected a government in favour of federation while rejecting it in a referendum.
Outside the scope of the majority of the resolutions are many subjects of interest and of importance to hauliers. Before too long, the Minister of Transport will be introducing into Parliament legislation designed to give effect to the Government's White Paper on the nationalized transport undertakings. Without attempting to discuss a Bill of which the provisions are not known, many hauliers all the same might like to express their views on the kind of policy the Minister should follow and the kind of safe-, guards road operators would like to have.
Even more significant in the long run may be Britain's application to join the Common Market. If it is accepted —or perhaps even if it is not—the increased pull from the Continent will certainly mean that the British economy will change direction, although its structure may not necessarily alter a great deal. The links thus established must be transport links, and in the forging of them it is vital to hauliers that their needs should have the consideration to which they are entitled. It is true that one resolution at the conference is concerned with this point, but there may B40 not be sufficient time to consider all the implications. The growth in international transport, the Government's plans for the railways and the developments of the last few years combine to make it feasible that there should be an overhaul of the licensing system. Keen minds within the Association are no doubt already working on 'this problem. It would not be a bad thing to allow individual members through the medium of the conference to put forward ideas of their own and defend them against criticism, without necessarily having to push them to a vote.
The rank and file have the opportunity once a year to make themselves heard. Their wish to do so may be hampered by finding nothing on the agenda that tempts them to speak. The value of the conference as a safety valve is in this way diminished. A more discursive set of subjects for discussion might produce better results and justify the self-denying ordinance under which on some occasions the leading members of the Association refrain from taking part. The debate on denationalization at the 1960 conference may have contained some awkward moments, but it certainly did not lack fire.
•
11 AVING said all this, I must admit to the difficulty of framing a satisfactory formula for a conference at a time when there are so many unknown quantities. Almost the only predictable elements were the decisions on road transport taken at the political conferences that have just ended. There is still more speculation than fact about many subjects, including the new legislation for transport and for traffic, and the Common Market.
The proper time to modify the conference procedure might come later. With a little more information available there might be more scope for the kind of debating society discussion for and against art extreme view. The rival claims of a Channel bridge and a Channel tunnel could be canvassed in this way and some useful ideas might be thrown up. If there is to be a construction joining Britain to France, its main justification would be commercial rather than tourist, so that the views of commercial operators ought to be taken into account.
NORMAL user is another subject on which the discussion might be more significant than the conclusion. A-licence holders are prepared to speculate tirelessly on the pros and cons of normal user, but few of them would relish having to make a deliberate and solemn choice between retaining or abolishing it. The same kind of problem confronts hauliers asked to give a categorical opinion of nationalized road transport.
With so many possible changes in the national economy and in other directions, it may ultimately happen that hauliers will find it necessary to draft an entirely new policy. This was the situation that presented itself to them over 10 years ago after a large number of them had been nationalized. At that time the remnant were compelled to draw in their horns, but left in no doubt their determination to reverse the position at the first opportunity. On the next occasion, if the political situation allows, they may be coping with a rapid expansion over many new fields. A statement of policy framed to meet the new circumstances could well be tested in the cut and thrust of a conference debate.