FREE FROM PARTY STRIF
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONE of several distinctive features of the annual conference of the Road Haulage Association was the complete absence of politicians. This could be regarded as an omen. For years past the road transport industry has been tossed like a cork on the political ebb and flow. Also like a cork the industry has remained buoyant but would no doubt welcome the opportunity of drifting into calmer waters if this were practicable.
Doctrinal and other differences of opinion have insensibly lessened with the passage of time. There may never have been any strong feeling among operators against State ownership of the railways, although they amicably joined forces in the early anti-nationalization campaign. Certainly that particular issue is now dead. The existence of the Transport Holding Company is equally generally accepted. Its place as a part of the road haulage industry was underlined by the presence as one of the speakers at the RHA conference of Sir Reginald Wilson.
No opposition
Somewhat more surprising is the lack of opposition to the process of growth by acquisition on which the THC is now embarked. There was a time when acceptance of the THC by hauliers depended on its remaining the same size. The change of policy initiated by Mr. Tom Fraser when he was Minister of Transport caused little protest and no longer even appears disturbing.
In the meantime a vigorous contest continues between the two principal political parties. At the Labour Party conference the trade unions call for renationalization and Mrs. Barbara Castle rattles the sabre with an attack on working conditions in the road haulage industry and on the lack of observance of regulations. The Shadow Minister of Transport at the Conservative Party conference a few days later denounces Mrs. Castle as Madame Guillotine and the proposed national freight organization as a monstrous plan. "When the private haulier is impoverished by the higher taxes and is undercut by the unfair competition," he says, the Government "will incite the National Freight Authority to gobble him up at knockout prices."
Mr. Walker drew a vivid picture of the Minister at the RHA annual dinner gazing at her hosts with a fixed, frigid, if photogenic smile. He may now be thinking that she had hypnotized or brainwashed the hauliers. At their conference they were not unduly critical of a national freight organization in principle. They were mainly anxious that it should not be confined to nationalized road and nationalized rail. They wished to be allowed to play their own part in it.
While the politicians howl outside, any differences of opinion that there may be between the two sides of the goods transport industry seem to be dissolving almost of their own accord. In view of the positions they hold neither Mr. Raymond nor Sir Reginald were • able at the RHA conference to comment on the proposal from Mr. P. H. R. Turner, the chairman, for a joint commercial organization to carry parcels and freight sundries. The impression left—and it is merely an impression—is that provided there were no objections from the Government the railways and the THC would be inclined to welcome the proposal.
Mr. Raymond treated the occasion as an opportunity to put forward his own philosophy. His experience had led him to recognize what he called "the totality of transport." If there was general agreement on this, "we have a good opportunity this time to ensure that all the talent, enthusiasm, ability, energy and vision of transport men can be used without unnecessary monolithic organization." Sir Reginald showed the other side of the coin when he said that, provided the right organization was set up, the question of ownership was unimportant.
Instinct to defend
At the conference Sir Reginald had perhaps the easier task. He was a haulier talking to hauliers, subject in most respects to the same disciplines and restrictions. Mr. Raymond with the right instinct felt called upon to defend the very existence of the railways. He quoted the words of the White Paper: "The Government has reached the conclusion that, for the foreseeable future, there will be a need as part of the transport system for a substantial railway network." He made it clear that this was also his own opinion. To leave the railways to wither away was "not only impracticable, but abhorrent to anyone who gives it a second thoug An industry performing essential services einploying 350,000 people could not be to drift.
It is a melancholy thought that the c all-powerful railways should have to ad even partially and by inference, that basic reason for keeping them in exist' was the impossibility of facing the confu and hardship which would accompany too swift decline. Mr. Raymond might agree with this interpretation of what he E He was optimistic about the future of railways once they had been properly organized within the framework of a ordinated transport industry.
Inconsistencies
There were bound to be some incor tencies in an attempt to show simultanea that the railways could give a good accc of themselves unaided but also needed Government pledge of eternal life. At stage Mr. Raymond was maintaining sto that "sound co-ordination must be ba upon the use of each form of transport those purposes for which it is the best as able means." Not long before he had that in the present state of the country' cannot afford to under-utilize any single I of our existing assets which we decidc retain as part of the national infrastructut Some conflict seems to exist here betw what is sound and what we can afford. ' decision to send a consignment by rail n be made either because the railways are best available means or because they n the traffic. There may be occasions w both reasons are valid. At other times decision has to be made between efficie. and expediency.
Still threatening is the possibility Government intervention and the direct of traffic. The danger may be even greater the C licence holder than for the haulier.' lesson of the conference is that with good the problem can be solved by co-operat between the two forms of transport and tween the two varieties of ownership. If th is any hope of this the politicians ought tc prepared to call a truce and let the transr industry work out its own salvation.
Janu: