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 
topic
Page 100
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Doing and undoing
by janus
WITHIN the road transport industry as a whole it would be futile to disguise a sense of relief, if nothing stronger, at the result of the General Election. Although operators may have had few causes for complaint against the last Government, there was always an uneasy feeling that the situation was not permanent and even that more extreme policies would be followed if the same Government came back to power with a substantial majority. It is easier to declare oneself non-political than to be that thing in fact.
In retrospect it is possible to discern a pattern in the policy followed by successive Ministers of Transport over the past five or six years. After a few months during which relatively little was done a change of Minister was the signal for action on a wide front.
As sometimes happens on these occasions the previous Government provided most of the ammunition. Under the energetic guidance of Mr Ernest Marples a series of investigations and projects had been put in hand. Many of the results became available after he left office and Mrs Barbara Castle had the advantage of examining and putting her own stamp on them.
HAD he remained as Minister Mr Marples might have produced a Transport Bill as massive as hers. It would certainly have been a good deal different. For good or ill Mrs Castle's unmistakable signature has been writ large across the Statute Book.
Inevitably the passage of her Transport Act was followed by a lull. Mr Fred Wiley, the retiring Minister, seemed content to win good opinions for his moderation and commonsense without embarking on a major Parliamentary exercise. What material there was to make or break a political reputation had been largely consumed under Mrs Castle's fiery reign.
Even the up-and-coming Mr Richard Marsh was hard put to it to find much that was important to do once he had seen the Act through its closing stages. As if sensing that there was no longer much Parliamentary mileage in transport issues the Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, decided to relegate the Ministry from the Cabinet, to link it with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and bring both under the overlordship of Mr Anthony Crosland.
In the field of transport the new government faces a different task from the first conservative administration after the war. The 1947 Transport Act produced even more fundamental changes than Mrs Castle's measure. Nationalization of the major part of the transport industry was an undisguised step into the unknown. Apart from its dubious merits in itself, the machinery devised for the purpose produced a trail of ineptitude and incompetence that would probably have had to be cleared up whatever Government had been in power. Had it remained socialist it would not have chosen the ultimate conservative solution of a return of road haulage to free enterprise. Within a more limited field there would still have had to be some fairly drastic action.
Perhaps it is a measure of subsequent political progress that the conservatives will not now wish to undo most of the work of their predecessors. Perhaps on quantity licensing alone something will have to be done. Conservative spokesmen have been specific and their election manifesto stated that "we will repeal the Labour Government's law which would prevent lorries driving more than 100 miles without a specially obtained licence". It would be hard to give a more precise pledge.
OR the time being the government is likely to decide that it has more urgent and important business than the repeal of something that has never been put into effect. When the subject at last comes up for consideration it may seem less simple than at first glance.
All that is needed in theory is a short Bill to expunge the clauses dealing with special authorizations. The new Minister of Transport may take a wider look at the progress made with other relevant sections of the Act.
Abolition of quantitative restrictions on lorries up to a plated weight of 16 tons will not be complete until the end of 1970. There will no longer be a legal distinction between carriage for hire or reward and carriage on own account.
Quality licensing is in accordance with the principles laid down in the report of the Geddes Committee, who had no doubt that it would produce the required result. Any Government which has to live with that result is entitled to exercise a little more caution.
VEN the last Government, deliberately or subconsciously, may have had more than one reason for keeping the cumbrous apparatus of carriers' licensing until the introduction of quantity licensing. If after all 0 licensing had unexpectedly disagreeable effects there would still be available the well-tried old machinery which, suitably adapted, could be given a new lease of life.
As it was, Mr Mulley was in no particular hurry to introduce quantity licensing. It was made clear even before publication of the Bill that the decision could wait until the Freightliner system had proved itself. The undertaking was vague enough to permit an indefinite postponement if necessary.
The Conservatives may wish to be no more precipitate in repealing the offending clauses. They too may choose to wait until the dust has cleared from the turmoil caused by the shift to 0 licensing, and it is possible to see whether the bright hopes of its promoters are being fulfilled.
What seems likely is that, when the new Government finally introduces a Transport Bill—and sooner or later it is bound to do so in order to make good its promise—it might prefer to follow Mrs Castle's example and gather all its proposals for the industry into a single measure which could be taken through Parliament in one operation with a considerable saving of time.
PERATORS may accept this. They have complained a good deal that the pace of recent legislation has been too fast. A pause that would enable them to get their breath back would be welcome.
Quantity licensing is not the only point on which the new Government is expected to act. Another provision in the Act calls for the compulsory fitting of tachographs on an appointed day which might well blow up in the face of any Minister rash enough to name it. The subject is related to productivity and to the reduction in the maximum permitted hours of drivers.
Of closer concern to the general public will be the achievements of the new government in building new roads. Mr MuIley's last White Paper on the subject, "Roads for the Future," seemed unduly complacent. There is little about which to boast in an inter-urban road programme that is not to be completed until possibly 1990. On this basis the rate of building and of expenditure will actually drop during the next two decades.
What in the end operators may find most interesting is the development of the Government's policy on prices and incomes. At the end of its life the last government had little that was sensible to offer. It clung desperately to its refusal to allow hauliers as ' a body to introduce general increases in rates; but, if truth be known, it was probably powerless to prevent individual operators from charging what they liked.
The Conservatives intend to control prices. Almost everything will depend on the success of the methods they adopt. Even at the moment road transport is in the throes of another round of rates increases. Once this is over they may find themselves contending with a new set of conditions.