Deferred sentence
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WIDELY varied reactions are likely to the little man introduced by the Conservatives as Transport "Bill" dressed in traditional civil service gear with a huge spanner in one hairy hand, an equally large bag of "your money" in the other and a mask on his face.
The average man will see him as the epitome of a great train robber and to the average driver he will seem the symbol of blindfold justice seated on the bench when motoring offences are under consideration. Transport "Bill" conforms equally closely to the average haulier's pre-vision of a vehicle examiner welcoming him into a Government testing station.
These images are not those that the Conservatives expressly wish to evoke. Their personification of the Bill as a hijacker in pinstripe trousers is coupled with the warning of more expense, less efficiency and a proliferation of "men from the Ministries". Taxes and other cost increases are given the main emphasis.
This line of approach makes it possible to attack the Bill on a wide front. As I pointed out last week nearly all the proposals in the measure embody some financial provisions, and these will all mean in the last resort that the public will have to pay more.
The incitement to murder "Bill" may be going too far. Taken literally it would not be practical politics and might not be in the national interest. At this stage it would be too much of a humiliation for the Government to abandon the legislation completely.
One possibility
While none of the proposals may be perfect some of them are concerned with aspects of the transport scene which urgently need attention. There is just a possibility that these items can be retained for consideration and the remainder at least postponed for a year or more. Sentence would be deferred.
Not much hope can be offered that this will happen. Two Scottish Labour MPs, who are members of the committee of the House of Commons now considering the Bill, have put down amendments to delete the provisions which would impose quantity licensing on the heavier vehicles.
If Mr. James Bennett (Glasgow Bridgeton) and Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee West) were to pursue the matter to a division and vote for their own amendments the Government would be in danger of defeat. In fact, this is not likely to happen. Before the crunch comes the two MPs will decide that they have gone as far as they dare on behalf of their many anxious constituents and that honour has been satisfied.
What is significant in the incident is that some Labour MPs at least do not consider every part of the Bill as sacrosanct and are prepared to look into the possibility of deleting certain sections.
In spite of what has been said about the interdependence of the various proposals there was no overpowering reason for submitting the Bill in one piece. It could have been chopped into more convenient lengths which could then have been discussed one at a time.
The evidence
Evidence that this is so is provided by the number of unspecified "appointed days" some of them clearly dependent upon events still to happen. To lay down precisely what must be done when one of those days arrives is to count one's chickens before they are hatched. With Governments as with individuals it is usually best to declare an intention without being committed to it. If circumstances change in the meantime there is little difficulty in modifying the plan to meet them.
No doubt has been left by the Minister on her wish to reduce maximum driving time from 11 to nine hours in a day. Part VII of the Bill sets out precisely what is to be done when the time arrives. The hope is that there will be no major increases in operating costs and no undue hardship to drivers. This presupposes discussion between the two sides of the industry leading to agreement on increased productivity. In her White Paper on the transport of freight the Minister indicates that this will have to be done before the new law takes effect.
The direction taken in discussions of this kind cannot easily be foreseen. It might be found, for example, that agreement is possible if the new limit were to be 10 hours or if certain exceptions were allowed. Legislation would be most helpful at this stage and could lead to definite progress whereas agreement might be found impossible on the basis which the new Bill would solidify.
Quantity licensing is another item which could wait its turn in the legislative queue. Earlier sections of the Bill provide for the drastic reorganizing of the nationalized road and rail transport organizations. The railways are promised what may be thought extravagant financial assistance to liquidate their debts and to subsidize those services on which they seem unable to make a profit. A freightliner company will be formed to develop what already seems a profitable and expanding service.
Nobody can tell what will be the effect of these changes. They may of themselves not only make the State-owned services selfsupporting but attract as much traffic as those services can reasonably handle. No further legislation would then be needed to meet the Minister's avowed aim of protecting the railways.
On the other hand if the outcome is less happy the Minister has still kept her options open. She can take steps either for a more drastic reorganization of the railways or to restrict competition.
This would be the ideal moment for a new look at the licensing system. The railways and the Freight Corporation would have been put through their paces. Their limitations as well as their virtues would have been exposed. If it still seemed necessary to bleed road transport for the public good the Minister ought to know by that time exactly where the cuts should be made so as to cause the least pain, hardship and loss of efficiency.
A more delicate surgical instrument could be used than Transport Bill's brutal spanner.
Under the present proposals it is likely that many highly efficient hauliers will be put out of business and that many traders will have their transport arrangements disrupted all to no good purpose. When it comes to the point the railways may find that the traffic for which they have fought in the traffic courts is not suitable after all.
Their success in winning traffic would tend to be measured not so much in terms of their efficiency as according to the skill of their advocates. True assessment of their improved standards would be obscured. This would not happen if amendments on the lines proposed by the two Scottish MPs were accepted and the proposals for quantity licensing were taken out of the Bill. It would be necessary to retain the present system for the heavier vehicles. Fresh proposals could be put forward in due course in the light of experience.