Home with the Milk
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONLY rarely is there to be found a member of the House of Lords who is prepared to put forward proposals on behalf of the road transport industry or likely to have their approval. It was refreshing, therefore, just before Christmas to read that Lord Gladwyn had asked a couple of questions suggesting, rather than demanding, that the Government should not take a hasty decision on the construction of a Channel Link. One of the questions referred to the memorandum submitted to the Minister of Transport by the British Road Federation, the Road Haulage Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the motoring associations.
As may have been expected, the reply from the Ministry's Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chesham, was not very informative. It was followed by a brief twittering of peers, all anxious to say a word or two on behalf of a bridge, or a tunnel, or in opposition to pressure groups. The questions had served their purpose by once again drawing attention to the fact that there was more than one possible link, and that the choice before the Government was not merely, as so many people seem to think, between a tunnel and no link at all.
On road transport subjects, Lord Chesham seldom finds himself balanced so evenly on the fence. More often than not, he is virtually forced to defend the industry because of the violence of the attack, which may come from all sides of the House. At times it is unexpected, having • regard to the formal subject put down for debate. The theme of road safety on a recent occasion did not naturally suggest that there should be such intemperate criticism by Lord Lucas of the over-loading of goods vehicles, especially when there is no evidence that such over-loading as takes place is a major cause of accidents.
THIS information was given by Lord Chesham himself in his reply. At least he could claim that he had put the record straight. Unfortunately, Lord Lucas was able to get his word in first. His vehemence made certain that he would be prominently reported in the Press. Many of the newspapers either omitted Lord Chesham's reply or dealt with it unobtrusively and briefly towards the end of the story. A general accusation of overloading was too good an opportunity to miss, and over the next few days it formed the subject of a number of editorials.
Other peers besides Lord Lucas are finding that any attack on road transport is likely to achieve publicity. Two days before Lord Gladwyn's questions Lord Boothby had asked the Government to consider imposing further limits upon the size, weight and length of commercial vehicles. In the course of his reply, Lord Chesham announced that, so far from the request being met, the Government was considering proposals to increase the maximum limits in Great Britain so as to bring them more into line with the more generous limits prevailing on the Continent, and in this way to facilitate international traffic without adding to the difficulties on the roads.
As he may have guessed, the announcement provoked immediate expressions of anger. It was described by Lady Wootton as appalling, and by Lord Lucas as "an affront to the people of this country ". Lord Boothby drew a pathetic picture of the "timid motorist "—in which category he included himself—who was already being driven into ditches or off the road altogether. Inevitably, the story was 544 taken up by the Press, where it produced the usual barragi of criticism of road-hogs and monsters who were taking m road space that should be reserved presumably for tht motorist, and who were adding insult to injury by carryim traffic that should be reserved for the railways.
One disquieting feature is that, with one or two honour able exceptions, nobody seemed to want to know about tht actual extent of the changes now under consideration by till Government. It was sufficient that vehicles might be larger Nor was there any clear appreciation of the fact that Lorc Chesham's announcement concerned vehicles of the norma type, whereas most of the criticism is concentrated on tht oversize vehicles carrying the outsize load. It was alsc plain that comparison with Continental practice cut no ict whatever. If anything, it seemed to make matters worst that we should take any notice of the way in which a lot o: foreigners chose to regulate themselves.
THERE have been attacks on road operators in the House of Commons. They have usually come from the Left, an have been closely associated with party political dogma. I is not often that M.P.s of whatever party, give rein tc purely personal prejudices. The reason may be that theil turn may come to have the responsibility of government and in such circumstances past indiscretions can be ar embarrassment. No such inhibitions curb the majority oi the peers. They can voice their own opinions freely, anc as a paradoxical consequence the House of Lords, much more than the House of Commons, are likely to express ttu feelings of the man-in-the-street.
The authentic note of the still, sad music of humanit3 could be heard more than once in the mid-Decembei debate which arose out of a question from Lord De La Warr on the difficulties that were caused by double banking In his first reply, Lord Chesham gave a brief dissertatior on kerbside parking restrictions. When this did not appeat to provide a satisfactory answer to the question, he admitted to holding a brief running to six closely typed foolscap pages.
Many of the questions that followed were either on points to which Lord Chesham could give such answers as "What my noble friend suggests is exactly what is in fact done ", or related to specific instances from an individual peer's experience. In an effort to avoid a categorical reply that would commit the Government to an interpretation of a point of law, Lord Chesham was compelled to use some roundabout expressions and interpolate one or two experiences of his own. The discussion ended with an exchange of opinions between Lord Chesham and Lord Faringdon on the difficulties encountered by the milkman who happem to serve them both.
The incident perfectly illustrates the popular attitude. To the ordinary person, goods transport is the vehicle delivering in his street. A whole industry shrinks in the imagination to the activities that take place along a single stretch of pavement. The importance and value of road transport comes home with the milk. There is a lesson here for the industry also. It can put its case across most successfully in accordance with the extent to which, in presenting its problems and aspirations, it shapes them and scales them down to the popular size. Useful practice along these lines might well be obtained in the House of Lords.
But the case must be put, and strongly, tool