Stand by R.H.A. Policy
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
4 the article under the heading " Wisdom Lost," in your issue dated April 8, you come out strongly with point of view which I have seldom found in any wspaper, "wise men are bad to define." If a man s the same opinion as another person, it is a very Unitive suggestion to say that this man is wise and, nversely, that a man who takes a different view is iwise.
You state that the dispute with Mr. J. Barber and e Road Haulage Association began at Weston-super are; this is, of course, completely incorrect. I do ot know whether Mr. Barber remained a member of R.H.A. during 1947 and 1948, when the Association it up a great fight against nationalization, but I do low that he took no prominent part in that fight and all times he gave the impression that he supported bstantially the control of transport. With that attitude Jo not quarrel: that was his view.
The policy of the R.H.A. is defined and confirmed each of the three meetings per year of the national Arndt You say, " Should the R.H.A. continue to ess for full disposal of the B.R.S. in accordance with e Transport Act ? " I say that all representatives the R.H.A. should, and must, continue to do just at until the national council of the R.H.A. have eided by majority vote to alter their policy.
The Government promised much more than they gave the Transport Act—they promised complete nationalization. The R.H.A., in my view, should ye pressed very hard to get the Government to imple ent their promises. It was appreciated by the wernment that any disposal of the assets of British )ad Services would be likely to incur heavy losses. rtially to offset this they imposed a levy of up to f 20m. B.R.S. almost immediately upset the very principle the Act by offering and disposing of a very large mber of vehicles which were nothing more than solete junk. The attraction was, of course-, the eciat A licence which was issued with each of these hides. It would be quite interesting to know how my of the vehicles they have disposed of were operat; at the time the Act was passed.
The prices that B.R.S. insisted upon have been estantially higher than those originally paid. The ghod of payment by the State for the assets they pired was, to say the least, a long-drawn-out affair
d the method imposed by the Government for paymt is much more abrupt. If one could leave a 3stantial sum of .money for the purchase at an crest of 3 per cent. per annum one could visualize the es going much more quickly.
You say that the difficult part of disposal has just gun with the offering of some 160 large depots, duding about 6,000 vehicles. I agree with you tirely on this. When the State obtained those depots 17 took over the whole of the goodwill that went with ml, now they are asking people to buy the depots with ; fleets and take Over staff and personnel, but are Lking no offer whatever of any of the goodwill that doubtedly goes, or should go, with such depots.. The H.A. should have raised the strongest objection about
s method of implementing denationalization. Whatever sort of compromise does Mr. Barber .;gest? I have heard him use the word several times,
t I have never heard him make a practical suggestion. For you to say that the supporters of private enterprise are fanatics is, in my mind, an insult to the many thousands of people in this country who still believe in private enterprise. At no time in the past 30 years has private enterprise in road transport ever let the country down, at no time has it ever asked for any subsidy whatever. It has been, and still is, the heaviesttaxed industry in the country. I_ repeat what I have often said, private enterprise means the survival of the fittest, security ultimately means stagnation.
Thorn aby on-Tees. H. L. WALKER.
Managing Director, Layfield Transport Services, Ltd.
[The Commercial Motor did not describe all supporters of private enterprise as fanatics. This journal, like Mr. Walker, stands for private enterprise, but it deplores uncompromising hostility towards the inevitable continuance of State participation in transport.—ED.1