in the Interests of Social Freedom
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Fight Must Go On
Says " Tantalus "
DESP1TE the extent and vigour of the antinationalization campaign, it is evident that the Government is not to be moved by the weight of opinion that has been mobilized in such strength. Secure behind the large majority in the House of Commons, it proceeds, with fixed determination, to introduce the measures necessary for State control of inland transport The Road-Rail Conference plan having been rejected, it is expected that the proposals of the four main railway companies and the independent scheme of the L.N.E.R. will fail. The plain fact is that the Government does not want alternatives to nationalization, nor will it accept the advice of, nor lend ear to, the opinions of persons qualified by knowledge and experience to tender advice. The Government, in fact, knows all the answers—or so it thinks—and considers that the only antidote for all social, economic and industrial ills is State control.
If the Government really had wished to discover a practical working plan for co-ordinating inland transport, the request made by road and rail for an inquiry by an independent tribunal, before the introduction of a Transport Bill, would never have been rejected. A striking contrast is provided by the Government's readiness to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the "mysterious workings" of Press undertakings. The reasons for this example of bias are too apparent to require explanation.
Amid the welter of argument and discussion regarding the nationalization controversy, one fact stands out like a beacon. No charge whatever has been levelled against the road-haulage industry in respect of inefficiency or mismanagement. There has been no accusation that the industry failed to play its full part in war, as in peace. No criticism has been heard to the effect that the needs of industry and of the trading community have not been met by the resources of a highly organized, efficient and economical service. Had any Government spokesman made such a charge, an inquiry might have been precipitated. This was a course far too dangerous to pursue. The Government must have known that an independent tribunal, charged with the responsibility of deciding the questiOn, would have rejected the case for State ownership.
Nationalization on T.U.C. Plan
Any illusion or hope of the Government's abandoning the threat to nationalize road transport has been completely shattered by the terms of the King's speech at the opening of Parliament. This cannot, however, have occasioned any surprise, as, for some time past, it has been known that preparation of the Bill was being pushed forward so that State control of inland transport could be given priority in the new session of Parliament. It is expected, with some confidence, that the general lines of the Bill will follow closely the details of the T.U.C. Report in 1945. To what extent the Government has " obeyed " the T.U.C. remains to be seen.
It is known that, under the provisions of the Bill, there will be a National Transport Board, consisting of fulltime members, which will be responsible for the policy and co-ordination of transport services as a whole. Responsible to the National Board will be separate boards for each form of transport—railways, roads and canals. Presumably, these bodies will be concerned with details of operation, rather than policy In aU probability, the Bill will be found to be loosely framed in order to provide the National Board with all possible freedom in the task of reorganization within the general lines laid down.
The Government's proposals cannot, of course, be commented upon until they are announced; but it may be found that the plan for co-ordination is the welding into a whole of the various sections, followed by decentralization, in an effort to obtain flexibility.
The statement made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that an inquiry will be urged with the utmost vigour, is an encouraging sign, but, unfortunately, it can be viewed with little optimism. The Government is determined to achieve the second reading of the Bill before the end of the year Any prospect of an inquiry can be excluded.
Future Policy Must be Published Confronted by such a position, the members of the road-haulage industry must, perforce, face the grim realities. Both traders and long-distance hauliers have some hard thinking ahead. Questions relating to future policy and the aCtion to be taken thereon must be decided so soon as the provisions of the Bill are known and understood. What advice, in this respect, will be offered to Association members?
Regarding the hauliers, the following points might be considered:— (1) They can accept—with meek surrender—the Government's proposals, giving up the fight as hopeless.
(2) They can make the best of a bad job and endeavour to secure any amendment which may be considered necessary and desirable.
(3) They have it in their power to decide to continue the fight and, in so doing, may claim the right to employ the same means as those exercised by the Trade Unions.
What of the traders and their attitude to the turn of events? What policy will they propose and what will be the suggested course of action? Will they counsel hauliers to fight on against what has been described as the disruptive movement; or will they suggest that the position be regarded as fatal?
The foregoing questions are pertinent and difficult; but, sooner or later, they must be answered.
In considering the questions of policy and action. persons affected by the Bill and all interested parties should ponder deeply before arriving at a final decision. Much more is at stake than mere nationalization.
The Bill marks yet another stage in the invasion of freedom and increases the danger to ancient rights and privileges. The right of the individual to decide matters for himself is no longer the essence of freedom. Only by the persistent efforts of those who value a free society will the freedom for which we have fought and died be preserved. Ex-Servicemen, in .their disillusionment, have expressed their feelings with bitterness and pathos.
Members of the road transport industry should ask themselves how much they value freedom and whether they are prepared to fight for it. it is a question which only they themselves can answer.