AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A.B.C.C. Warns Government Over

21st November 1952
Page 32
Page 32, 21st November 1952 — A.B.C.C. Warns Government Over
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?

"Haphazard Denationalization "• PRECIPITATE and haphazard denationalization might create more A problems than it could hope to solve. Should the method of denationalization produce chaotic conditions, a future Government could well use this as a pretext for renationalization.

This warning had been given to the Government by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, said Mr. H. S. Vian-Smith, secretary of the home affairs and transport committee, when he spoke at the annual dinner of the Road Haulage Association's Southern Area, at Southampton, last Friday.

He made it clear that the A.B.C.C. supported the principle of denationalization, but differed with the Government about the way it could best be achieved. Any proposal regarding the Allure structure of road haulage must hold out promise of stable conditions in which the industry could develop. The levy was inequitable, particularly as costs must ultimately fall upon users. "Moreover," stated Mr. Vian-Smith, " the enshrining of this new principle in a Statute places in the hands of any successor administration a power which could be misused."

Mr. Vian-Smith could not understand why the Government should insist that 'the levy was an integral part of denationalization. "We are told that its sole purpose now is to amortize losses on the sale of Road Haulage

Executive assets. This is surely an attempt—and a pretty crude attempt— to disguise a loss of public money. .. . How much more open and straightforward it would be to admit this fact and write off the losses from such public sources as the Road Fund, without establishing new machinery to deal with a complicated Transport Fund," he suggested.

It seemed a strange justice that the private haulier should be called upon to start paying at the beginning of 1954, a levy to make up the purchase price for his competitors to buy transport units, yet %%mild not himself be able to compete with them until the end

of that year. The 25-mile limit should be removed at the earliest possible tnoment. Progressive removal concurrent with denationalization Was suggested.

It was proposed by the A.B.C.C. that the R.H.E. should be -separated from the British Transport Commission and be reorganized. The existing undertaking should be broken down into operable units soundly based financially, so that the assets would be more ittractive to the potential buyer. Ultimately, the entire set-up would pass into the control of private enterprise with the minimum disturbance.

The B,T.C. should be allowed to retain a measure of financial interest in road haulage operations. Co-operation between haulage companies would benefit operators and users alike. A supervisory board at national level, comprising hauliers, users, labour and Government, could exercise a measure of control over co-ordinated haulage operations.

Mr. Vian-Smith stated that the A.B.C.C. had been impressed with the statesmanlike approach of the Minister to these problems, and there were many questions on which he was ready to find a solution most likely to be acceptable to users.

"Throughout the period of denationalization," he added, "it will be necessary for the closest possible liaison to be maintained between the R.H.A. and inclintrial and conntercial users."


comments powered by Disqus