Place Principles Before Platitudes
Page 31
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Many Leading Men are Hinting at Further Control of All Forms of Transport, and this Danger Must be Fought Before it is Too Late
By
"Tantalus"
TPress various statements made by responsible individuals have appeared recently in the columns of the HERE which indicate very clearly the direction in which the wind is blowing • in respect of the future of transport. For instance, Mr. F. J. Burrows, president of the National Union of Railwaymen, at the annual ineetiktg held some days ago, asserted that plans for the unification of the railways are already under way, and he. envisaged in the future public ownership or some form of controlled industry.
If to be assumed that Mr. Burrows—by virtue of his position—has his finger on the political pulse and, therefore, his views must be regarded seriously. Then, coincident with the above statement, there appeared also in the Press an even more significant paragraph of only eight lines by the political correspondent of a leading evening newspaper, which summed up:the position. He wrote as follows:— " The Government is considering a comprehensive policy for the future eo-ordination, and direction of railways, roads and coastwise shipping as one national service after the war. All three services may be brought under a single supervising authority." So far there has been no evidence. of any official denial of the views so expressed.
• The majority of observers will agree, proliably, that there must be some definite grounds for such strong inslications of Government policy. As the old adage has it There There is no smoke without fire." If the future should prove such prognostications to be correct, the large numbers of operators who, in the past, have expressed apprehension of some such development will have ample confirmation of their fears. As a matter of fact, there has been apparent Ariengst members of the industry a real measure of uneasiness since the inception of the Road and Rail Conference, Frequently one heard some such phrase as " We are being sold to the railways." S'uspicion regarding. the Conference still exists and throughout there has been considerable speculation as to the motive which prompted the ardent desire of certain leaders of the industry to embrace, the railways as a long-lost brother. The question arose as to whether any such scheme might he intended to serve as the foundation stone of an altogether more ambitious structure in which road-transport would figure with little prominence.
Are the Industtys Representatives Putting Their Backs Into It?
If the policy of the Government be the unification of all transport, has such conclusion been reached after consultation with and by agreement of the representatives of the road-transport industry? Have the Advisory Committee, the Road Haulage Committee and the Standiag Joint Committee been consulted on so important an issue? Or are operators--without primary consultation—facing an actual fait accompli regarding which only their representatives and not they themselves have specific knowledge? Having received some warning of the Government's intention, now is the time to act, before it is too late. Members of associations should press their representatives on the various Government committees for a definite and unqualie fled statement as to whether or not they have been consalted in the matter by the M. of W.T. Until they know the true position members should not rest content; they should not permit themselves to be lulled into a sense of false security by assurances lacking in substance and foundation. It must be rernembered that if time proves the indications of future policy to be correct, the freedom of operators will be lost for ever; in fact, the_individual will become merely a cipher.
The question as to whether road-transport is to be nationalized or controlled by a board is immaterial, In either event operators would lose their freedom as individuals. The last war witnessed the birth of modern transport; it will indeed be ironic if this war should sound the death-knell at a period when its usefulness is so vital and essential as a national asset..
In this war the outstanding significant feature is the fight for a restoration of personal freedrIm for all the united nations such as we in Britain and America have always enjoyed. How often has England been quoted as an example of democracy endowed with freedom of speech, thought and religion. Members of the road-transport industry earnestly desire freedom to earn a living and to reap the just reward of hard work, initiative and enterprise resulting in business expansion. This, in the past, has been the prerogative of every man.
It is evident from the article of Mr. J. F. E. Pye, published in the issue of "The Commercial Motor" dated July 10, under the title "Force the Government's Hands," that all is far from well in the industry. It is positively staggering to read of a state of depression in the third year of the war; particularly so when one recollects that after his recent return from the United States, tip Minister of Production stated that in this country we should shbrtly reacds the peak of our production. To this end every individual engaged in the war effort should be all out towards such achievement. Yet there is depression in the road-transport industry Is the Present Depression In Haulage a Result of a Deliberate Policy?
Now Mr, Pye is a well-known figure in the transport world and his views merit respect and serious consideration. Therefore, if the state of affairs described by him presents a true picture—which there is no reason to doubt—this is most deplorable. In point of fact it is incredible that road-transport should be idle or wasted diking a period when factories and works are producing larger quantities of war material than ever before. The conclusion is that the present depression in the industry is in no way accidental but is, in fact, the outcome of a definite policy planned with that object in view. One must agree with Mr. Pye that the blame rests with the Government, and the M. of W.T. as the responsible department concerned. There is, indeed, much to support this contention, although, unfortunately, in doing so it involves going again over some old ground.
Operators still remember the attempt of the M. of W.T. in the early days of the war to impose by restriction a radius limit of 30 miles upon road vehicles, which could result only in forcing traffic on to the railways. It was not long before conditions at the railway marshalling yards and depots became so congested and chaotic that roadtransport was " permitted " to ptay a bigger part with a view to relieving rail pressure. It will also be remembered that at that time strong protests wersmade to the Ministry on the ground that any policy of road-transport limitation was prejudicial to the national interest. The reason for any such limitation as propounded by Government officials, was that it was neceSsary to protect the rate of exchange in relation to foreign currency with which was bound up the importation of petrol and oil. However, the alibi was 'exploded when events proved that the country possessed amplestocks of these commodities. So there was no justification for such unfair restriction.
One is inclined to venture the opinion that the policy was deliberate in its intention to boost the „railways at the expense of road-transport. Such contenTon would appear to be even more justified when one recollects the financial agreement Made between the railways and the Government. It is necessary .to read only Hansard in support of this view. Then the alternative fuels muddle supplies further evidence of the official prejudice against road-transport. Having in
mind the point already quoted in respect of currency and petrol imports, surely the logical course of procedure would be to deveIop and encourage all possible use of alternative fuels which could be produced at home. Thus would be effected a saving of shipping and currency which would
constitute a vital contribution -to the war effort. The unfortunate handling of this question reveals throughout a sad story of weakness and vacillation. When, at last, public pressure became too strong, Whitehall surrendered after 24 years of war, during which period much valuable time had been wasted. One cannot help wondering as to the number of valuable lives amongst tanker crews which might have been saved if the important matter of alternative fuels had been dealt with at the beginning of the war.
It was generally imagined that when orders in large numbers were placed for gas-producer plants, that the way of the operator would be somewhat easier; that he would be relieved of the anxiety of petrol shortage and would be afforded greater operational freedom. But this bright ray of hope was soon dimmed by the announcement that there would be rationing of fuel for gas-producer plants. So the manacles placed upon road-transport were further tightened and there appears tobe little way of escape.
Official Attitude Often Inconsistent Now what is the official attitude in relation to the fuel problem? Everyone is well acquainted with the repeated appeals made to the public on the subject of unnecessary travel. Stay at home holidays have been ardently advocated in order that there should be the least possible interferenic with the movement of war traffics. To such appeals there has been a loyal response. Consequently, there was evidence of surprise and bewilderment when there was published recently in the Press the decision of the Government to permit extra trains to be run during the holiday season. Yet the announcement was followed two days later by a Press advertisement issued by the M. of W.T. which read: "Do not travel. _Needless travel adds to the major problems of the United Nations." What a muddle and what a moral!
Apparently there is no shortage of coal for the use of railways; but when It was a question of rationing gas-. producer fuel for road-transport vehicles we were told that
this was necessary because of production difficulties. Just as there is said to be one law for the rich and oncefor the poor, so also there appears to be one for the railways and one for road-transport.
Reverting to Mr. Pye's article. He writes that the Government Haulage Scheme was forced upon the industry against th,e better judgment of its accredited leaders, including the Advisory Committee and the S.J.C. The R.H.C.C. is not mentioned; this may be by design or unintentionally. It is, however, significant, because, after all, the R.H.C.C. is the body which was created specially in connection with the Government scheme and, as such, must assume the main responsibility. This, of :course, does not absolve the other committees of their share in the respatibility. If the statement be correct, that the scheme was forced upon the leaders of the industry against their better judgment, this portrays woefully weak leadership.
Immediate Action is Most Necessary
There is' no doubt that the industry is passing through a bad patch; that fact remains incontestable, whether it be de to the Government policy of restriction, the Govern'meat Haulage Scheme or any other contributing *actor. This state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue without some definite attempt being made to discover and apply a remedy. The national interest demands immediate and even drastic action. The following suggestions might possibly merit some consideration: (1 ) The professional hauliers should be united into/one solid national body. Only by united effort will they be able effectively to protect and safeguard their present and future interests.
(2) In place of the various committees (some of which could profitably be disbanded) there should be a single national committee representing the professional hauliers.
One makes bold to suggest that if these two proposals' could be made effective they might well prove of materialand even lasting benefit to the industry. The radical need of operators and, indeed, 'of the industry generally in the proposed new orderis for strong and courageous leadership by individuals who have the courage of their convictions and wlaq can be relied upon to place service before self, principles before platitudes, and who, in fact, have no personal axes which they wish to grind.