No Offence
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FORMING part of a symposium on pressure groups in Britain, a painstaking account by Prof. S. E. Finer of the origins, structure and work of the Roads Campaign Council appears in the current issue of Political Quarterly_ Although the account itself is objective, and mainly confined to the recital of facts, it should be considered in conjunction with the articles that accompany it. When they are read as a whole, the impression is left that pressure groups, and particularly the R.C.C., have been put on trial. They emerge without a stain on their characters, but one is entitled to ask why it should be thought necessary to submit them to the ordeal.
Some parts of the story Prof. Finer has to tell may be news to the general reader; but ever since the R.C.C. were formed in March, 1955, they have had nothing to hide, and have made no attempt at concealment. . The 12 national organizations responsible represent hauliers, public service vehicle operators, C-licence holders to some extent through the British Road Federation, motorists, vehicle manufacturers and the distributing trade. Prof. Finer gives each interest in turn a close scrutiny.
The R.C.C. have set the target of Government expenditure of 050m. on new and improved roads up to the end of 1965, and suggest a road loan to raise the money. Prof. Finer concludes that the Council can claim some share in the credit for the Government's expanded* road programme; that the National Production Advisory Council also played an important part at Ministerial level; and that in any case, because of the rapid increase in the number of cars and commercial vehicles, some improvement of the road system was inevitable whether or not the R.C.C. existed.
The advisory council to which Prof. Finer refers consist of representatives from such organizations as the F.B.I., from the T.I.X., and from nationalized industries, as well as the chairman of the regional boards of industry. The chairman is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other members of 'the Government attend. As an official body, the council are presumably above suspicion.
Protests to Ministers
For at least five years they have pressed the case for better roads. Their work has been supplemented by protests to Ministers, and particularly to the Minister of Transport, from the associations making up the R.C.C., and from other organizations, including the trade unions.
The R.C.C. themselves, therefore, have not needed to approach the Government. They have concentrated their efforts on the rank and file in Parliament, on select groups of the public, and on the general public. To influence M.P.s and the selected audiences, they have worked through the B.R.E. Their approach to the general public has been through Aims of Industry.
The value of the work already done is now widely recognized. There have been two all-party visits of M.P.s, one to inspect the Dutch and German highways% and the other to see what was being done to solve the' traffic problems of Paris and Brussels. A roads study group was established in the House of Commons last May, under the joint chairmanship of Mr. Ernest Davies and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson. Conferences, regional campaigns and the circulation of literature have helped to carry the story to select groups. The campaign among the general public, undertaken with the object of putting "votes into roads," has taken the form of a crusade, concentrated on one town a
week. A stage-coach is used as harbinger; an exhibition is held in the centre of the chosen town; vans go round showing films; pamphlets are distributed; and signatures are canvassed for petitions to Parliament.
The crusade is the novelty in the campaign. Much of the other work, previously carried out by the B.R.F., is being continued and in swine respects intensified. Prof. Finer has warm praise for the Federation, particularly for their briefing of politicians and for their publications. He also congratulates the R.C.C., and in their case singles out the occasional issue in newspaper format of the "Highway Times."
By itself, his article would be a useful summary of an interesting effort. Another contributor to Political Quarterly is Mr. G. R. Strauss, M.P., who writes about "Pressure Groups I Have Known." He also selects the R.C.C. as an example for detailed scrutiny, but unlike Prof. Finer, he asks not merely what the R.C.C. have achieved, but whether their activities are desirable.
"No Way Put Off"
In his opinion, they are. He is "in no way put off" because they are largely financed and organized by big industry in its own interests. It so happens that, again in his opinion, "private and national interests coincide" in the campaign for better roads.
Where this is not the case, his attitude is very different. He names the Road Haulage Association as another example of a pressure group, and declares it as "certain that the original Conservative decision to denationalize the whole industry was taken largely as a result of pressure" by the R.H.A.
Mr. Strauss should know that this is ludicrous, even if it is also very flattering to the hauliers. Assuming its truth, however, is it right to infer, as he apparently does, that the R.H.A. should be condemned because their pressure was too successful?
In fairness, it should be added that Mr. Strauss is not completely clear or consistent on this point. He agrees in the end that one must not object to the right ora group to propagate their cause, but he goes on to say that it is far more difficult in Britain than in some other countries, such as the U.S.A., for groups to abuse their power. What he really thinks remains obscure.
The R.H.A., equally with the R.C.C., should have the right without question to use what legitimate means they like to influence the public and M.P.s. The extent of their success ought to be the measure of the justice of their cause. Mr. Strauss, like Prof. Finer, thinks the R.C.C. are getting their own way as a natural consequence of the fact that their aims coincide with the public interest. What is also important is that he agrees with them himself. He does not agree with denationalization, and therefore sees something sinister and quite unnatural in the fact that the hauliers—surely a negligible force politically—were able to bring a major political party to their way of thinking.
People of like mind will always get together for the avowed or incidental purpose of proselytizing an opinion. This is so natural a process that it should require no justification. It is even right for a group of manufacturers, or a political party, to attempt to prove that a monopoly is beneficial in certain circumstances. It is only if and when they take steps to set up the monopoly that the fur should begin to fly.