Justice Demands Impartial Inquiry
Page 19
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ROAD transport in Britain has never had an easy path. From its commencement it has been impeded and restricted by successive Governments. Only the energy and initiative of its supporters, combined with an increasing degree of appreciation from the people, have enabled it to make progress and to become a mighty servant of industry and the public.
If road transport had not fought its way through the past 50 years or more and, in a great measure, succeeded, despite intense bureaucratic opposition, the Nation would not have been in a condition to fight' and win the second world war and, possibly, even the first, for it would have been strictly limited to low transport speeds and vehicles of inadequate size and power.
The motor-vehicle, equipment and accessory 'factories, which contributed so greatly to our . victory, would have been either non-existent or developed on such a small scale that they would have been virtually useless to cope with the colossal demands war made upon them. It is of vital importance that every person in this country should remember these salient facts., It was only free enterprise, at least in this sphere, which provided that narrow margin which saved U5 from the heel of the dictator. If the industry had been in the hands of the Government, of whatever political complexion, road transport could not have grown as it has done, and our fate might well have been sealed.
State as a Business " Enterprise " Now, our present legislators intend to go farther than all previous Governments and take complete control of vitally important sections of our industry. If they do this, all effective opposition to any unwise and restrictive legislation, or• proposed legislation, as it concerns road haulage and public passenger transport, will be quashed. There will be virtually no critics, for people within the meshes will speak at their peril. It will be impossible to impose any of that pressure which has proved so advantageous in the past. The Government will be the be-all and know-all of transport—a situation the contemplation of which appals us. Governments are transitory organizations, and their Ministers are seldom, if ever, experts in the particular subjects with which they deal. Only the Ministries and Departments continue and possess the knowledge necessary to carry on the processes of Government; even they, however, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as business institutions. Yet, if nationalization comes about the transport industry will be in their, in many instances, unwilling hands.
What a future for such a hitherto virile industry as ours, one in which every component member is striving to institute improvements and give better service! Such efforts are to be replaced by the clammy fag of bureaucratic methods and the dither and uncertainties of the policies of successive Governments.
An Unconvincing Government Case Last week, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry 'of Transport, brought to the attention of the Members of the Institute of Transport what he termed basic and inescapable economic factors regarding the grounds for the Government's nationalization policy as it concerns our industry. He claimed that it had nothing to do with doctrinaire prejudices; that every effort made in other ways to co-relate road and rail policies and rates had failed, for the reason that there were inherent fundamental difficulties between the two sides, and that the criteria on which they based their rates have little in common; also that the latest ideas would appear to contemplate substantial increases for ,low-grade' traffics, including coal or other basic materials. ,.
He stated that the main difficulty lay, in the . separate financial entities, and suggested that if these were to disappear it would be possible to devise a far more co-related and satisfactory rates structure; this would be possible under common ownership. Road and rail interests, however, believe that a satisfactory solution can be attained without nationalization, and they demand an impartial inquiry into the whole matter. This, of course, is the main purpose of the petition which will, at the crucial moment, be presented to Parliament. Trade and industry and millions of members of the general public are also extremely dubious as to the immediate and ultimate effects of State ownership. No one, except the rabid Socialist and blind supporter of the Government, can view the situation with equanimity. If nationalization be imposed without such an inquiry, it will be a scandalous thing, one not worthy of the good name of this Nation.
How can the British people, and all those other countries which are watching with intense interest developments which are occurring here continue to believe in our vaunted claims of freedom and fair play if this decisive negation of such principles be brought into being. The ,Government cannot possibly show that it has proved its case, despite any claim by its representatives. It is con-, tinuing to act in a manner which indicates beyond doubt that its sole reason for this drastic move is political expediency.