Mr. Quick Smith Rushes In...
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Howes Wrote an Article "Heard in 'The House' to Which Mr. Quick Smith Replied Last Week. Now Mr. Howes Makes His Rejoinder
By E. B. Howes
Vice-chairman Hauliers' Mutual Federation. Chairman A. Seamless and Son, Co-operative Group
REFERRI.NG to Mr. Quick Smith's rejoinder to my article on the debate on transport in the House of Commons. in writing it he shows how wide of the mark he is in his estimate of the needs of the induitry to-day, Surely Mr. Quick Smith's proper procedure; following his attendance at the House, was to write an article describing the course of action which the S.J.C. proposed to follow, in order to help the industry through the difficult times which, quite obviously, are likely to have to be faced, if trie threat of Parliamentary action indicated by sthe debate be implemented. Such an article, which no doubt would have been given wide publicity in the technical and possibly daily Press, would have gone far to-disperse the general belief that the S.J.C. is doing little or nothing for hauliers in general, That belief is widely prevalent, notwithstanding the specious claims which Mr Quick Smith makes.
Instead of following that, the wiser course, Mr. Quick Smith is content to write a misguided and, as I propose to show, misinformed criticism of' what I wrote, which, whatever its demerits, was at least a conscientious attempt to put the industry wise as to what is going on in the House and was, moreover, constructive, in that it contained suggestions for future action of a kind which would help the industry.
He writes nothing but the truth when he states that " The Standing Joint Committee speaks neither for the
' big man ' nor for the small man' . " That is a statement with which I find myself in perfect agreement. Indeed, I have made that statement myself, if not in quite the same words. In an article by me, which appeared in a recent issue of " The Commercial Motor," I .pointed out that the S.J.C. not only did not represent this industry hut had no claims to do so. I gave categorical reasons for that, and, again being constructive, suggested how a really representative body, independent of any association whatever, should and could be formed.
Why Bring in the S.J.C.? "
I cannot understand Mr. Quick Sthith's reference to " innuendos and distortions." I made no mention of the S.J.C. in my latest article. As to the presence of hauliers, other than myself and Mr. May, in thee House. I must confess that I did not spot Mr. B. G. Turner and apologise
to that gentleman for the oversight. I do not include either Mr. Quick Smith or Major the Hon. Eric Long in the category of hauliers.
I arrived late at the House because of a delay on the part of an M.P. in providing me with a ticket of admission. I am entitled to point out, however, that I stayed in the House right through the luncheon hour, and if I went before the close I was justified in so doing (a) because it was obvious that the debate was petering out, and (b). to satisfy the pangs of hunger. I am wondering if Mr. Quick • Smith is aware that the debate continued during the absence of himself and the friends he named while they were at lunch. In anaj event I, was .carefulto obtain a copy of Hansard, and studied it carefully, before I wrote my article.
Mr. Quick Sniith asks if I am out to misrepresent the S.J.C., and in the same paragraph couples my name, in connection with the article, with the H.M.F.
I have, to some extent, already .answered the question. I would add that I am not sufficiently interested in the S.J.C. as to care what i.t does do. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say what it does not do.
As regards H.M.F., I wrote the article as an individual. not as a sponsor for H.M.F. or any other association. I made no mention of H.M.F. in my article andhad not that association in mind at all. Mr. Quick Stnith, in this as in other references in his letter, is drawing upon his imagination; he should stick to facts.
Neither am I the person to whom Mr. Quick Smith should address his inquiries as to the activities of H.M.F. If he desires information on that point he should write to that body, not to me.
Claims as to Work Done
Mr. Quick Smith says that the S.J.C.,may have its faults and failings. I am pleased to note that he has travelled so far along the road to that appreciation of the realities of the situation. 'Most of the rank and file of the industry would be more positive in their acceptance of the existence
of these two, shall I say, qualities. He lays claim to commendation for the wOrk the S.J.C. has done in the way of coming to agreement on rates and conditions. In my opinion most of these agreements react to the detriment of, and not to the benefit of, the hauliers.
Mr. Quick Smith writes of unity within the industry and takes credit for the S.J.C. for what has been achieved in that connection. He talks of an opposition, and again refers to H.M.F. in that connection. What I am concerned with is.only the real division in the industry, the difference of opinion as to who is entitled to lead the industry into unity. That is a question which has not yet been put to the industry as a whole, and until that essential step has been taken, in the only way in which it can be taken, by a referendum, preferably organized by the Regional Transport Commissioners, in which every haulier 'has the opportunity to vote and record his views, neither Mr. Quick Smith nor anyone else has the right to arrogate to himself the title of leader of the industry.
In conclusion, I would like Mr. Quick Smith to say if he consulted his Council before he wrote what he did. It has all the appearance of being hurriedly written, without due thought or consideration; certainly without consultation. If I am right, and if this communication is an expression of only his own views, he ought to he censured by his Council. There have, of late, been far too many of these independent expressions of the viewpoints of association officials who, in my opinion, .should do as they are told, not necessarily as they personally wish.