A Disciple Too Zealous
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
STRENUOUS opposition promised by the hauliers to the Government's plan for cutting disposal short will need to be sustained if any progress is to be made. At present, they have little support frdm any quarter. It is possible, however, that before the introduction of the promised new Bill, there will be a swing of opinion towards the hauliers. Much will depend upon whether they can make their point of view sufficiently articulate.
Leaving on one side the merits or otherwise of the Government's change of heart, the hauliers can show that they have a legitimate grievance. Theirs has been to a large extent the burden of disposal, which they have shouldered willingly, even when they have been in disagreement with the methods adopted. With an occasional grumble, they have kept to the pace set by the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the British Transport Comb-fission.
B.R.S. as Gentlemanly Rivals Many hauliers. have continued • to support the Transport Act, 1953,-.Wheri it nolonger seemed necessarily to be working out to their advantage. When it came to a choice of rivals, they have admitted their preference for the more gentlemanly and less cut-throat competition of British Road Services. Established hauliers have been severely tried by the irruption into the industry of newcomers painlessly fledged with a. special A licence and apparently prepared to work for nothing.
Despite this kind of provocation, hauliers have remembered, or can claim to have remembered, that the 1953 Act was intended. to help them, and that they had some obligation to see that it worked satisfactorily. They have kept to their side of the bargain.
-1 hey have neVer been unanimous. From the beginning, a few operators whose opinions are regulated by a kind of simple self-interest, have said that they wanted only the abolition of the 25-mile limit, with a licensing system rather more tightly closed to newcomers than before, and no nonsense about giving the railways their freedom from statutory obligations. . More recently, other operators -have suggested very,. much what the C;overnrnent now propose to do.
Extremists Unpopular These deviationists have been given short shrift by their fellow-hauliers, who have been equally harsh with the rebels at the other extreme who wanted to prod the Government and the Disposal Board into more vigorous action. Since the passing of the 1953 Act, the policy of the Road Haulage Association has been denationalization.up to the limit laid down in the Act, and no further. Behind this policy is the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, idea that the hauliers, having found a Government with a policy more or less in line with their own, should support that. Government, and in so doing take the rough with the smooth.
Perhaps, here again., simple self-interest is at work. Just as in the international sphere everybody clamours for peace without always seeming to desire it, so is there a general demand that transport should be taken out of politics, often voiced by people who make no practical contribution towards that end. Hauliers are at least sincere in wishing for less polities within their industry.
and would probably support any reasonable policy that clearly would achieve that aim. In the meantime, they are almost bound to take one political side or the other.
To the propagandist who has lost Some of his own enthusiasm, nothing is more irritating than a too zealous disciple. Now that the hauliers are more loyal to the Government's policy than the Government themselves, they have become • unwelcome reminders of ideas now discarded or modified. For the Government to change their policy without even a prior discussion with, the hauliers seems to indicate some emotional disturbance, but whether this manifested itself in guilt, annoyance or amnesia, it is impossible to detect at this distance.
So far the Government have hardly sought to justify the change. The hauliers will find sympathy, if not support, for their argument that the change was hasty and unexpected, and should have been accompanied by cogent reasons.
Opposition would probably fade away if the Government could show that their decision would lead to political compromise, or to industrial 'peace. There is
rio indication that this is likely to happen. If the Socialists and such bodies as the Trades Union Congress are satisfied with the Government's concession, they have concealed their satisfaction very wen. If industrial peace has still to be fought for, it will be on a different battlefield from that of road haulage.
Lukewarm Welcome Strong and unmistakable demand from trade and industry would also go far to justify the new policy. There has been satire support from the Association. of British Chambers of Commerce. On the other hand, the welcome given by the Federation of British Industries is Iiik.ewarm. Sir Norman Kipping, director-general of the F.B.L. in a letter to the Minister of Transport, drew attention to the interdependence of the various provisions of the 1953 Act.
During the discussions before the Act was passed, he -said, industry agreed to the withdrawal of long-standing safeguards on railway rates, on condition that, among other things, there would be genuine competition with railway freight services by independent hauliers in the long-distance field. Sir Norman was doubtful whether the present scale of competition was sufficient in respect of all classes of long-distance traffic.
The Government might believe, although they have not said so, that there is no chance of a future demand sufficient to absorb all the 8,000 vehicles, plus the parcels company of 4,000 vehicles, that remain unsold out of the original estimated total of 32,500. Nobody can be certain of the extent of demand, although the results of list 12, containing some 1,540 vehicles spread over a fairly wide diversity of units, may provide an indication.
The last stage of the sales is being conducted in an atmosphere of anti-climax. Hauliers feel, and they are probably justified in feeling, that the Minister has called "time" somewhat too abruptly. He should at least have preceded it with the customary warning, fairly in advance, about the booking of final orders. The response might have encouraged him to call up fresh stocks and to allow reasonable time for consumption.