Asking for Trouble?
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NOT every member of the Road Haulage Association supports the Association's proposal for an impartial inquiry into the economics and advantages of each form of transport, including coastal shipping, and the formulation of a long-term national policy on transport. The dissenters believe that trouble comes easily enough without invitation, and that the course of wisdom is to let sleeping dogs lie.
There is logic in their argument. What would happen if a commission of inquiry, set up by the Government on the Association's advice, recommended further State control of long-distance road haulage or its rigid restriction in the interests of the railways? Would the R.H.A. accept the finding and aid the Government in carrying it out? The answer is obvious.
Moreover, the Association's proposal is, by the terms in which it is couched, not confined to goods transport. By implication it covers passenger transport as well, but there is no evidence that the organizations of coach and bus operators have been consulted in the matter. They will certainly resent interference by the R.H.A. in their affairs.
Nevertheless, the idea is not to be dismissed out of hand. Transport needs a settled policy, although in the present irreconcilable state of mind of the two main political parties, it is difficult to see how one could be agreed. If, however, the parties could be persuaded of the value of an impartial inquiry, they might then take the first step towards resolving their differences.
The inquiry would have to cover every aspect of transport—its economics, taxation, statutory obligations, service to trade and industry, contribution to social life, and importance to national security—and would take a long time. When the findings were eventually published, they might have been overtaken by some outstanding technological advance, which would make them already out of date.
Moreover, the members of the commission would require the most careful selection to avoid any suspicion of political prejudice. Among them would have to be experts in economics, law, commerce, national defence and transport. Only the best brains in their respective spheres would be acceptable, but it is doubtful whether they could be secured for such a protracted task.
The whole proposal is riddled with difficulties, but if there is a sufficient body of informed opinion in support of it, and if the outcome were to be of practical value to the nation, they should be overcome.