GEDDES DISCIPLE
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHAT Mr. Peter Walker, MP, had to say the other day on the subject of road haulage licensing amounts to complete acceptance of the main proposals in the report of the Geddes Committee. It is possible that he was stating the considered policy of the Conservative Party. He is the Party's leading spokesman on transport matters, he Was speaking at Swinton Conservative College and his expressed intention was to outline "some of the current thinking" within the Party.
Mr. Walker may have been under the impression that he was breaking new ground. He noted that the Geddes report had advocated the complete abolition of licensing and failed to add that this shorthand version of the report did not indicate that what the Geddes Committee had proposed precisely was to replace A, B and C licences by permits held "subject to good behaviour as regards all aspects of safety of lorries". This almost exactly describes the plan which Mr. Walker is now putting forward in different words.
TWO LICENCES It is true that he suggests two different types of licence. Any person wishing to operate a lorry for the haulage of his own goods would be free to do so under Mr. Walker's system. In other words there would still be an equivalent to the present C licence. The haulier wishing to ori'erate for hire or reward would first have to obtain what Mr. Walker calls a "probationary licence". It would not become a full licence until after a period of either one or two years during which the probationer would be subject to frequent checks on vehicle maintenance standards. He would also have to show "by production of appropriate evidence" that his operations were solvent and that he was "aware" of the legal conditions governing employment in road haulage.
In practice it would be impossible and invidious to restrict the probationary licence to the haulier. Mr. Walker's entirely praiseworthy objects are to improve road safety and to bring about the abandonment of restrictive practices. These objects are equally important whether the operator is carrying his own goods or those of other people. If the tyro haulier ought to undergo a period of strict surveillance the same thing should apply to the trader who decides for the first time that he wishes to run his own vehicles.
Any endeavour to keep the two types of operation separate in this context must produce anomalies. Exemption of the
C-licence holder from a period of probation might be taken to mean that his standards are superior to those of the haulier. On the other hand the existing Clicence holder who wished to obtain a full licence would have to become a probationer irrespective of his years and width of experience. The existing haulier would thus be elevated above him. It would be difficult to justify this distinction.
Much as Mr. Walker would like to preserve it, any legislative mould into which his proposals were poured would obstinately produce only a single pattern at the end of the day. The pattern would be indistinguishable from that put forward as a model by the Geddes Committee. Mr. Walker may not have realized this or may be reluctant to admit it. The dislike of hauliers for the Geddes report is notorious, only a little less so than their dislike of nationalization. They are a sufficiently powerful interest to make their support worth while for any political party.
The Conservatives may fear that that support, which was very much theirs at one time, is now slipping away. Mrs. Barbara Castle commands respect as a Minister of Transport and she has done nothing so far to make road operators consider her too unfriendly. The main test will come with the publication of her Transport Bill. According to the White Paper on transport policy it will provide for the continuation of licensing. If the terms are broadly acceptable to hauliers, Mr. Walker's difficulty in putting up a convincing opposition will be increased.
STRONG DETERMINATION His determination to fight the Bill strongly is evident from all his public utterances. In his recent speech he said that the Conservatives had been carrying out a fundamental examination of major transport problems. He has a team of 15 MPs dealing with different aspects of the task, and study groups have been set up composed of "leading academics, parliamentarians, industrialists and transport operators". His aim at Swinton was no doubt to present as part of a general picture the conclusions reached up to the present.
There was more than a hint that the conclusions are provisional. They may be affected to some extent at this stage by the fact that the study groups are still engaged on specific items. Mr. Walker's speech was the less effective for lack of a focal point. He covered a wide range of subjects, including the private car, road haulage, passenger transport, the railways, international links and traffic in towns. At no time was it clear what general principles he was applying.
FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT The fundamental conflict facing all legislators on transport is that between planning and individual freedom. There is almost universal agreement that a national plan must be devised to control as many aspects of transport as possible and that there must also be local planning. Such a plan is likely to find the most ready acceptance from the public if it interferes as little as possible with their right to do as they please. On the other hand the plan which can most easily be put into effect is equally likely to be the one which imposes the most restrictions. Whatever proposal is put forward has to lie somewhere between these two extremes.
The White Paper leans noticeably towards the side of compulsion and control. The impression has been strengthened by many of the steps taken subsequently by Mrs. Castle, such as the formation of Conurbation Transport Authorities. In spite of this, the ambiguity of much of the White Paper and the open mind revealed by some of the Minister's speeches encourage the hope that too much will not be sacrificed in the interests of a rigid national plan.
Apparently Mr. Walker intends to come down strongly on the side of individual freedom. His plan for road haulage licensing provides an obvious example. In dealing with the motorist he insists that the politician's task is to cope with the problems introduced by the car and "not to seek methods of restricting the movement of the motor car itself". What Mr. Walker has not so far established is what happens when the need for some restriction seeks out the politician. Nor does he seem to have given sufficient attention to the possible consequences of abolishing the licensing system, whether in the interests of personal liberty or not.