AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

• WHERE IS THAT LAST DITCH ?

18th April 1947, Page 51
18th April 1947
Page 51
Page 51, 18th April 1947 — • WHERE IS THAT LAST DITCH ?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords :

A FEW short months ago this country's Press was 1-1ringing with echoes of the clarion calls going out on all sides that the Government's outrageous threats to transport undertakings would be resisted at all costs and fought, without quarter given or asked, up to the last ditch.

In connection with this, observers of the last Committee stages of the Transport Bill were astounded to see on the Order Paper two simple but highly important amendments in the names of Brigadiers Prior-Palmer and Mackeson and Mr. Dodds-Parker, as follows:—

Clause 102, page 95, line 20, at end, insert "the National Road Transport Federation or the Road Haulage Association."

Clause 105, page 99, line 4, at end, insert "the National Road Transport Federation or the Road Haulage Association."

If adopted, these amendments would have permitted the Minister to pension, and obligated him to compensate for loss of employment or diminution of emolu ments, officers or servants of the two named bodies. • When, at Clause 102, the tenor of the first amendment became clear to Government members of the Transport Committee and to those in the Press and public seats, the general look of incredulity was followed by the busy scratching of pencils, as many began an unofficial drafting of yet more amendments to Clauses 102 and 105, naming a variety of concerns and persons who might feel they had some claim to pull down the ear of the Treasury, or slip eager hands inside the public purse. One I saw called for the liberal pensioning of a well-known association official.

All this was not funny, especially at this particular juncture, when submissions of basic importance to the country had been made to the Prime Minister. As calm assessment of the situation would have shown, the principle involved in these amendments was not acceptable to the Government. The first amendment was rejected, the second was not called.

That does not, however, finish the matter. I invite readers to think of the impact of these amendments on Government members of Committee, with all they imply of "throwing up the sponge" and going cap in hand to a Government one had sworn to fight to the last. How must ordinary followers, providers of funds, some whose whole future is now at stake, react to this type of leadership from those they have backed in the past? The tragedy is the greater when we survey the sombre staff work over the whole period, to which this most unwise effort is a fitting climax.

I have never concealed my opinion that the staff work —the whole conduct of the campaign against road transport nationalization—has been inept, short-sighted and tragic in the degree to which it under-rated the intelligence and knowledge of those who held contrary views. Fallacious arguments that disregarded knowledge in the possession of the Minister have been advanced. There has been juggling with figures in a manner distressing to all witfa regard for accuracy. There have been desperate last-moment schemes which have undermined the former bases of argument.

During the Committee stage of the Transport Bill the measure of that ineptitude and the unfortunate pass into which road hauliers, in consequence, have fallen have several times been sharply displayed to those with eyes to see The final absurdity of inviting rebuff by going cap in hand to the opponent and asking for a pension has now been perpetrated. One can but leave those responsible for this error to their cotisciences, and the rest of your readers to their thoughts.

London, W.8. JAMES A_ DUNNAGE,

M.J.I., M.1.I.A., A.M.Inst.T.


comments powered by Disqus