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 
Opinions and Queries
Page 107
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
No Room for Critics
A MEETING advertised as a demonstration against r-3the Transport Bill was held in a Birmingham
stadium on Sunday, September 14, and addressed by Mr. Ernest Davies, M.P., Mr. Cecil Poole, M.P., and Mr. H. W. Franklin (president, National Union of Railwaymen). After each speaker had addressed the meeting and had a perfect hearing without a single interruption, one naturally expected that those in the body of the hall would be given the usual opportunity that one enjoys at public meetings of at least asking a question, if not voicing an opinion. The chairman, however, in response to an inquiry, flatly refused to allow either comment or a single question. There is no doubt that a number of searching questions would have been asked, but, even so, it is surprising that two quite well-known M.P.s and the president of one of the largest trade unions did not feel inclined even to attempt an explanation of some of their rather remarkable statements.
As this meeting went on for an hour and a half and the time was fully taken up by the three "transport
experts," it would require a pamphlet to report it fully, but here area few of the pearls of wisdom scattered among the citizens of Birmingham at this public Jemonstration:—
Mr. H. W. Franklin, voicing railway opposition to Lhe Bill, said: "Prior to nationalization there were over 400 types of railway. engine, now only 12 types were in production. If this Bill became law, then all this standardization would be lost, as railway regional managers would have absolute autonomy in their workshops and all the good that had been done would be undone." Mr. .Franklin evidently has not read the proposed Transport Bill very carefully—if at all— neither has he a very high opinion of the mentality Of Birmingham people if he imagines a ridiculous statement of this kind carries any weight.
The next speaker was Mr. Cecil Poole, and in the course of his remarks he blamed the House of Lords for the exclusion of C licences from the 1947 Traffic Act—not a word about those very large C licence operators, the Co-operative Societies. He further stated that the addition of 300,000 vehicles on C licence was brought about by "political spite." One wonders if Mr. Poole is so far removed from business practice these days really to believe that manufacturers and distributors are prepared to carry politics so far in their businesses without regard to costs or the interests of shareholders.
Mr. Ernest Davies did got agree with his colleague on this point, but his contribution was perhaps the most amusing of all. Among statements and sugges tions, he said that "The return to private enterprise of R.H.E. assets would bring about cut-throat com
petition and result in the increase of rates." It would have been very interesting to have had Mr. Davies's explanation of how one increases rates and practises cut-throat competition at the same time!
The three speakers expressed sympathy (rather belatedly, one may think) with those hauliers whose businesses were compulsorily acquired and now were
not to have the first opportunity of buying back, but their interpretations of what was to happen differed
somewhat. Mr. Davies stated that the poor haulier would not have a chance of buying back as the financiers.would outbid him, whereas the union president, Mr. Franklin, stated that the selling back would be a case of "job lots for the boys and giveaway prices."
In such a manner the meeting went on, each of the three speakers trying to put the worst possible aspect on the proposals in the Bill, but contradicting each other in their anxiety to do so. If Messrs. Poole, Davies and Franklin are speaking together in other towns it would be as well for them to get together first and practise some of that co-ordination and integration that they all spoke about.
The omission of these quite well-known public men even to mention the levy seemed to me to be deliberately misleading when addressing a public meeting on the provisions of the Bill, particularly as they had impressed on the meeting the loss that could be incurred in the selling back of R.H.E. assets. Not one of the speakers mentioned the Government's proposal to offset the losses by making a charge on hauliers and C-licence operators.
There is much that could be improved in the proposed Bill and there may be some parts better left out, but if the Birmingham meeting is a fair sample of the threatened organized opposition that the Government may expect, then it has little to fear.
I was left with the impression that the wisest Labour Party representative on the platform was the chairman. who closed the meeting within 30 seconds of the cessation of the orators' efforts—questions could have been very embarrassing.
Sutton Coldfield. A. R. Burr.
Nationalization a • Disease
IT seems to me that the officer of the Road Haulage 'Executive\ who expressed some thoughts on the Transport Bill in an article, "Design for Chaos," published on August 29, was most concerned with what might happen to him when the R.H.E. vehicles are sold and the Executive ceases to function. Did he ever for a moment think of those small men in road haulage who had given of their best in peace and war and, at one stroke of the pen, had their businesses taken from them for the matter of a few thousand pounds? A few of them obtained jobs, as in the case of the officer referred to, but many did not.
If, after only a few years, this officer sees in the Transport Bill an unjustified reflection on the work of British Road Services, what must private enterprise have felt after giving a lifetime of efficient service to the people? In Northern Ireland we know all about the evils of nationalization, for we have had them for a great many years, and it seems to us that as time goes on, the charges go up and the services to the public go down.
The Socialist party talked a great deal about looking after the small man, but once it came into power it made a start on road haulage and wiped out many of those engaged in it.
Nationalization can be compared with a malignant disease, for it eats the heart out of a country. Think again, R.H.E. officer, and if you are good at your job it will not be long before private enterprise wilt have work for you.
Lisburn, N. Ireland. S. HAWTHORNE.