Hard to Get
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONCE the Governrrient have made up their Minds that a measure is desirable and feasible, they should not hesitate to bring in the necessary legislation. . Mr. J. A. Boyd-Carpenter, who replied as Minister of Transport to the debate on the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles during the committee stage of the Road Transport Bill, was not at his most convincing when he appealed for still more time to allow employers and employees to reach agreement.
He did not eliminate alI hope of dealing with the speed limit at some point or other in the discussions on the Bill. He went so far as to say,that " the absolute failure of all concerned to agree " should not necessarily IN an absolute bar on revision of the law. Nevertheless, this is a strangely timid and diffident way of running a Government Department, although in this respect Mr. Boyd-Carpenter was no worse than his predecessors. Perhaps Mr. Harold Watkinson will be able to do better.
The starting point of any discussion on the subject in Parliament should be that neither side of the Road Haulage Wages Council ought to have a say in actually. fixing the speed limit for any category of vehicles. At no other time, so far as I am aware, have the Council been asked to agree wages in anticipation. Increases in the cost of living, or changes in design or operation of vehicles, must come into effect before there is any point in calling the Council together.
This should be the precedent for dealing with the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles. Once it has been raised, the effects will soon be known, and the trade unions can demand a meeting of the Council. To insist on agreeing wage changes in advance is just as preposterous as if the customers of a haulier insisted in advance upon a reduction in his rates.
Gilbertian Situation
Mr. Gerald Nabarro, in proposing the speed-limit clause during the committee stage, effectively illustrated the Gilbertian situation that has now arisen. As a C-licence holder, he is prepared to pay his men more when the speed limit is raised, on the principle that drivers should share equally with employers in the proceeds of additional productivity.
Charity begins at Mr. Nabarro's home. He does not suggest a „reduction in his prices to make his customers as happy as his drivers. The important point to note, however, is his opinion that the increase in productivity should come first, before there is any talk about sharing the spoils. On this point he is not in sympathy with the trade unions, who would naturally like higher wages to have the priority. .
It is more exact to say that the unions do not want. the speed limit raised. For this reason, Mr. Nabarro is not exactly on the target when he criticizes the Road Haulage Association for the present deadlock, if he must• seek to . apportion blame in a remarkably tangled controversy. Hauliers in general, and consequently the R.H.A., are in favour of raising the speed limit. The unions are at best indifferent, and a large number of the drivers is against the proposal.
They have somehow worked themselves into the position of -.the fairy-tale princess who was courted by everyone but, having no wish. to marry,.put up a number of obstacles, some of them extremely. unpleasant. After
c20 ' a time, it was scarcely surprising that suitors were as hard to get as the princess.
Sound advice that Mr. Nabarro might have given the Minister was to forget about the differences of opinion within the road transport industry, and legislate in accordance with common sense and the findings of his experts—which, in this particular instance, happen to be identical. Mr. Watkinson cannot complain of a lack of information on the subject, nor of a lack of conviction among his advisers that the speed limit ought to be raised to 30 m.p.h.
The extent to which the hopes of the public .are justified that something will be done may be estimated from the terms of a letter sent by the Ministry to a number of interested organizations. The letter stated that the Minister "has under consideration a proposal to lay before Parliament regulations to provide for a maximum speed limit Of 30 m.p.h. instead of the present 20 m.p.h. for heavy goods vehicles on pneumatic tyres."
Widely Disregarded
A summary followed of the reasons why the increase was desirable. Vehicle manufacturers and operators wanted to abolish the artificial inducement to design and use vehicles within the limit of unladen weight below which the higher speed was permitted. The Committee on Road Safety had expressed the opinion that there was no objection to the proposal in principle. The speed limit of 20 m.p.h. was widely disregarded, and there was no evidence that this led to increased danger or increased difficulty in controlling heavy yehicles.
Braking systems had greatly improved since the differentiated speed was imposed 25 years ago. Heavy vehicles were generally operated by responsible hauliers whose maintenance systems were sound. There was no evidence of a disproportionate amount of trouble because of poor or badly maintained brakes on heavy vehicles.
The opposition of the unions was also summarized in the letter. The unions complained that drivers handling heavy vehicles for long and continuous periods were already subject to heavy strain. If the speed limit were increased, schedules of journey times might be revised in such a way as to impose an unfair burden on drivers: There was some apprehension about the mechanical condition of older vehicles still in use.
The letter reported arrangements between employers and workers to discuss safeguards and to deal with running schedule's. "I am now to inform you," it concluded, " that the Minister is of opinion that the maximum speed limit for goods vehicles which are heavy motor cars, first registered on or after April 1938, and equipped with pneumatic tyres, should be increased from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. The increased speed limit would apply also to articulated vehicles on pneumatic tyres but not to vehicles drawing separate trailers. I am to request that any observations that you may wish to make on the matter should reach this -Ministry as early as possible."
The official jargon hardly disguises a commendakile firmness and optimism. One particularly relishes the Minister's desire to receive observations quickly. No doubt he has them by now. The letter was dated March 8, 1948.