1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
A MATTER OF OPINION
Page 93
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NVT seems of crucial importance to one generation may IAble almost completely ignored by the next. In a recent BBC talk John Holloway put the same point in different words. "We are beginning to realize", he said, "that the main causal lines in human societies run in such strange and unpredictable directions that even a seemingly fundamental problem will turn out to have been a superficial one before we are half through with it."
Of particular interest to road transport operators is the example which Mr. Holloway chose to clinch his point. "Only 15 years ago", he said, "people actually thought that the great problem about British road transport was whether or not freight vehicles should be nationalized." Evidently his listeners were supposed to be astonished that anybody should ever have thought in that way.
English culture
Mr. Holloway's talk was broadcast on the Third Programme and was the last of three under the somewhat mysterious title of "English culture and the feat of transformation". He is Reader in Modern English at Cambridge and a Fellow of Queens' College. It is fair to describe him as an intellectual speaking to intellectuals. It is also fair to assume that he chose his homely illustration deliberately as one with which his listeners would unanimously agree. Had it been a doubtful proposition it would have merely impeded his progress towards his more -central theme.
The statement carries echoes of the fashionable contention that ownership is no longer an important issue in determining the future of transport. Not everybody would agree even with this. Operators whose memories go back 15 years or more might also disagree that the hard and often bitter struggle against nationalization was of no real consequence. Ownership can be significant today although the field of conflict has been narrowed down to one between integration and co-operation. It was vital in the earlier days when the choice appeared to lie between a monolithic nationalized organization and competition under free enterprise.
Operators would not expect to learn much about transport from Mr. Holloway and he would not presume to instruct them. What might provide a valuable lesson for them is that with the whole world before him he chose this particular example and his clear belief that it would have the immediate assent of a sophisticated audience. His judgment on such a point is likely to be correct. In his opinion the fight for and against freight transport nationalization was based upon a myth and, for example, the 200 or more major speeches which the late Lord Klimuir claimed to have made on the subject when he was Sir David Maxwell Fyfe were so much hot air. Whether or not this is true, the fact that so many people think it true should be taken into account by operators in planning their policy and their relations with the public.
More than they may have realized hauliers have leaned heavily on the concept of free enterprise as a means of attracting goodwill. To some extent the magic still works in spite of the acceptance of publicly owned undertakings into membership of the Road Haulage Association. It is not sensible to suppose that the process will continue indefinitely unless the Labour Government suffers an atavistic brainstorm and rebuilds the British Transport Commission.
Nationalization versus free enterprise in road transport may still be a political issue but it no longer has any interest for the public. The undertakings are judged on their merits. What is expected from a Minister of Transport is a statutory framework that will enable them to work and develop to the best advantage.
Freightline controversy
That the old battlefront no longer corresponds to reality is shown by the controversy over freightliner terminals. In the attempt to make them freely available the railways, the hauliers, the Minister of Transport and the Government—and, of course, the Parliamentary Opposition—are on one side, with the railway and road transport trade unions on the other. To confuse the issue still further the railways and independent hauliers backed by the RHA are confronting each other before the Transport Tribunal.
On the main point the chairman of the RHA has asked the Prime Minister to intervene and use his personal influence at a meeting of all the interests directly con
cerned. Mr. Wilson's reply will not alter the fact that he is sympathetic with the hauliers and that their appeal is based on a sincere hope and belief in his ability to succeed and thereby enhance his personal prestige.
Ambiguous motives
Slightly more ambiguous motives may lie behind the similar request from Mr. Peter Walker, MP, Conservative Shadow Minister of Transport. He may wish the Prime Minister to accept his suggestion and he may hope that as a result the unions will abandon what is a blatant restrictive practice. Mr. Walker can hardly fail to appreciate that these desirable results can hardly be achieved without an improvement in the lustre of the Wilsonian image. It is hard to suppose that he would find this particularly pleasing.
To see the transport problem in terms of a conflict is misleading, at least at the present moment. New concepts have to be worked out and they must have a proper regard for public opinion. The White Paper on transport policy somewhat hesitantly recognized this. It has been apparent during the subsequent discussion and it will have to be crystallized out in the forthcoming Transport Bill. Comprehensive legislation following a White Paper would have been carried out equally by a Conservative as by a Labour Government. If it had been possible to work out both processes simultaneously the results might have been found surprisingly similar.
Political issues are not the only count on which public opinion is important for road operators. Legislation on other grounds could bear upon them just as hard. They are frequently in contact and conflict with the public, if only through the medium of their vehicles. They must take what steps they can to make sure that public opinion is on their side. In the attempt it is as well for them not to waste their efforts on themes which may still seem of crucial importance to them but are no longer of interest to people in general. Mr. Holloway's opinion may not be accurate but the fact that he holds it so firmly is significant.