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 
,HASING THE RAINBOW
Page 123
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EEKING agreement with the National Union of Railwaymen / on the use of liner trains by hauliers is like chasing the rainw. The mistake, it is now obvious, lay in taking any notice of the ion's opinion in the first place. The longer the Gilbertian situan is allowed to continue the more difficult it will be to reach the e solution that common sense overwhelmingly demands. Decisive don even at this late stage would be better than the present policy waiting for some miraculous change of heart.
I'ven the customary lucidity of the mister of Transport deserted her when was faced with the task of explain the union's position to the House of mmons. An unkind irony condemned s. Castle to make the attempt at the ne time as she was seeking authority extend the grant to the railways by 50m. It would have lightened her bur1 if she could have added some indicati of what the people working on the lways were prepared to give in return.
BIG STEPS FORWARD
Mrs. Castle seemed to think it was a conerable step forward that the union was repared to allow British Railways to use ed cartage pending the acquisition of a ge enough fleet of their own". The union d taken what was to her mind the "legitiite view" that if the railways were hiring id vehicles to carry feeder traffic for liner ins there was "room for an expansion of British Railways cartage service to carry it traffic without going to the expensive pedient of hiring it".
Whether or not the view of the union is :gitimate", there are grounds for thinking A it is not sensible. Railway collection-andlivery vehicles have not earned profits in ! past and there is no guarantee that they )uld do so when they are used to service er trains. There has been a railway tradion of hiring vans from hauliers who have emselves found it cheaper in some cases to re rather than to use their own vehicles. The istence of many successful businesses eking a living out of providing vehicles on re indicates that this is not always an :xpensive expedient". If the argument as [rased by Mrs. Castle were carried to its gical conclusion no trader would ever aploy a haulier—or the railways if it comes that.
Nevertheless, the union is entitled to hold opinion on the subject, although it may be istaken. What begins to cloud the issue is e assumption by the Minister that the rail ways should refrain from carrying out an ordinary commercial practice if the union is not "prepared to allow it". Once this right of veto is accepted the argument becomes hopelessly out of focus. What ought to be done and what the union is prepared to do obviously will never compose a harmonious picture.
That the unions should be allowed to dictate to the management is bad enough. What has temporarily fallen into the background is the fact that there arc other interests concerned. Trade and industry arc entitled to have the widest range of choice that is reasonably possible. This choice should include the use of a haulier who himself elects to send the traffic by train over the trunk part of the journey. Many such hauliers —another section of the community almost forgotten in the heat of the battle—have been patiently waiting in the wings for a settlement which will allow them to put to the test the theoretical basis of the so-called tripartite machinery in which the Road Haulage Association, the Transport Holding Company and the railways are jointly concerned.
ESSENTIAL ISSUES CLEAR
Outside the dream world of Alice the essential issues are clear. The management and not the union must run the railways, If the railways are a public service, and in particular if the service has to be maintained at considerable and growing public expense, all sections of the community should be free to use it—and this includes the hauliers. The Minister has more than once drawn attention to the debt which the community owes to the railways. It is equally certain that the rail ways owe a good deal to the communitv—and the already astronomical figure is now to be increased by £350m.
The final decision to allow free use of the liner trains ultimately will have to be taken by the railway management. no doubt in consultation with the Government. Owing to the lengthy period in which the dispute has
been allowed to drag on there is the possibility of strong protests from the union and even of more militant action. The decision might be interpreted as calling the union's bluff.
Cutting the Gordian knot has been known to work as a solution since the days of Alexander. There is a still familiar example within the road transport industry. For the best part of 20 years sustained pressure was exerted by road users and other interests to persuade the Government to increase from 20 to 30 m.p.h. the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles. The road transport unions refused to agree and for fear of the consequences one Minister of Transport after another advanced to the brink and then withdrew.
4. STILL ARGUING It was asserted by way of excuse that the two sides in the industry wottk1 have to resolve their disagreements before legislation could be introduced. When the increase took effect in 1957, however, the disagreements were as lively as ever. In spite of this the much dreaded labour troublesdid not materialize. It so happens that nearly 10 years later the employers and the unions are still arguing about the appropriate reward when new schedules are introduced in conformity with the higher speed limit. But that is another story.
There are differences between the speed limit and the liner-train controversies. In 1957 the issue of road safety was constantly being raised. As experience has shown it was largely a spurious issue, but its introduction helped to keep emotions at a high temperature. But it is clear that • Mr. Harold Watkinson, now Lord Watkinson. the Minister who finally grasped this particular nettle, was right to adopt this shoa tactic. Without his action progress wOuld not even have been possible.
Somebody should be bold enough at the present time to take the step which will settle the liner-train controversy. There would seem nobody better fitted for the task than a Labour Minister of Transport who has shown repeatedly and beyond doubt how strong is her concern for the future of the railways and the welfare of the railwaymen.
Janus