`Road operators1 I should prepare their defences now'
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FLEXING their muscles in advance of the General Election campaign Koper, some of the prospective candidates may be tempted to choose road transport as a suitable subject for -testing the reactions of their supporters and of the opposition. The continuing series of. roadside checks of heavy goods vehicles helps to keep the issue topical, and one or two Labour party candidates have already found that it fits very -well into a general diatribe against free enterprise.
On the whole the leading members of the party are not seeking to make direct political capital out Of the -results of the checks. They are Content so far to draw attention to the apparently unsatisfactory state of maintenance of a large number of goods vehicles arid to leave the public or the Geddes Committee to come to their own conclusions. Less important members with a name to make see no reason why they should not argue that there has been a conspiracy by the Government to cover up the glaring misdemeanours of road operators; that none of this would have happened had British Road Services been left in full possession; and that independent hauliers are more concerned with making money than with looking after their vehicles.
Although this line of argument isill-inforined and even childish, it may make an impression particularly on the growing number of electors who would like an apparently rational excuse for driving the heavy lorry off the road. If the attacks are not answered as soon as they are made, ather political speakers will be encouraged to include the !herne in their repertoire. Road operators know how mportant the coming General Election may be for them ind should prepare their defences now,
Whatever doubts there may be on the precise transport 3oticy of the Socialists, one thing at least is certain. They will not go out of their way to say kind things about the taulier under free enterprise. They will be more likely to Titicize him whenever the opportunity arises. It is mere :ommonsense for him to anticipate the criticisms. He has ertainly every right to point out where they are misguided.
lauliers Ashamed ?
Even the hauliers whose records are good may be shamed on behalf of their industry at the sorry state of ffairs revealed by the checks. They have no obligation to ccept every conclusion drawn by the critics. What in ffect is being said by those Labour party candidates who ave come into the open at this early stage?
Their starting point must be the proposition that B.R.S., ieir fitters and their drivers look after their vehicles better ian the independent operators and drivers of the vehicles hich a future Labour Government might or might not ampel B.R.S. to take over. Without establishing whether le proposition is true or false, the critics enlarge it into ie suggestion that renationalization, or whatever form of striction or control is adopted, will have a significant medal effect on the standard of maintenance of goods !,hicles in general. Clarified in this way, the argument is ludicrous. It amounts to an assertion that some change of ownership or control of at the most 1 per cent of the 11 m. goods vehicles on the roads will be reflected in the general standards of vehicle maintenance and presumably in the accident statistics. The difficulty of pressing home an attack along these lines is increased when it is remembered that the original proposition may be false. There is no evidence that the vehicles which might or might not be taken over are less well maintained than those of B.R.S. If the truth could be established it would more likely be found that the standards of reputable long-distance operators (including B.R.S.) are second to none.
And the accusation for what it is worth cannot be made solely against the operators. It must go all the way down the line, and include the traffic controllers, the maintenance staff, the drivers and even the customers. All of them to a greater or less degree have some share of responsibility for making a vehicle dangerous. Is it suggested that nationalization would suddenly make all these interests virtuous, or that the drivers, for example, need the warm cosy protection of the State rather than the support of their unions or reliance on their own sense of what is right?
The unions, who might well have a .decided point of view, are not likely to express it. They are 'committed
to renationalization or to some form of restriction on long distance road haulage under free enterprise. They would be reluctant to embroil themselves in disputes with can didates of what they consider their own party. The individual driver must be left to make his own protest and one would like to see this happen.
The man who works for an independent firm usually does so out of choice. He may even have made a conscious decision when the business in which he is now employed was bought back from B.R.S. He should resent as much as his employer the suggestion that he is no longer as con cerned as he was to drive a well-maintained vehicle. It amounts to saying that he values his own neck less than he did. He relishes the insinuation no better because it comes from the political party which normally receives his vote. He would not be wasting his time by making this clear to any candidate who seems prepared to blacken his reputation for the sake of a debating point.
As I have said. the Labour party leaders have not so far taken this line. In the debate on road safety in the House of Commons on June 23 Mr. W. T. Rodgers, M.P. for Stockton-on-Tees, who raised the subject, said no more than that the Minister of Transport's lunatic fringe must be "a very big fringe indeed". He did not suggest that nationalization would be the cure. However, if lesser luminaries on what I am tempted to call the lunatic fringe of the party receive a successful response from. mingling the two issues, more and more left-wing politicians may adopt the same tactics. Road operators would do well therefore to silence the attacks as soon as they are made by challenging the candidate to say exactly what he means and to substantiate it.