Lay That Pistol Down
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
pRAISEWORTHY though it may be of Serviteur (“ The Commercial Motor," January 25) to warn hauliers against over-optimism, he• could have been a little more tactful. He seeks to disarm criticism by pointing out at the conclusion of his article that he has not attempted to say what should be done, but to forecast what he thinks is likely to happen.
According to Serviteur, the Government regards the railways as the main problem. It also wishes to keep the Labour Party and the trade unions quiet. New legislation is unlikely to go even as far as the Transport (Amendment) Bill. "Labour might be prepared to tolerate" an increase of the 25-mile limit to 40 miles. Apart from this, Serviteur envisages no reduction in the power of the Road Haulage Executive, which ".may yet become a fairly consistently profit-making concern and help to pay for British Railways' losses.'
The R.H.E. would still control the issue of permits and remain outside the licensing system, although Serviteur suggests that the British Transport Corn'mission might be debarred from objecting to licence applications "confined to work entirely within the mileage restriction:" If former owners were allowed back they, too, would be restricted to the limit of .40 miles. He suspects that few ex-hauliers wish to return.
Now the Government may conceivably do as Serviteur prophesies. If so, it will have to think up some more convincing reasons than he has given. Following his example, we may put ourselves in the place of the Minister of Transport after he has announced the outline of future legislation. Having 'previously asked representatives of the Road Haulage Association to see him, he would presumably feel bound to receive them again. Basing his defence on the arguments supplied by Serviteur, the 'Minister would open the proceedings something like this: "Gentlemen,-1 cannot tell you how pleased I am to see you to-day. You have seen the terms of my little Bill. It may not contain everything you have asked for, but it is at least a step in the right direction. Before you fire that revolver, sir, perhaps you would care to look at the matter from my point of view.
Who Made Promises ?
"1 dislike the tone of your references to our former pledges. You must bear in mind not only what was promised but who promised it. Why do you think the Prime Minister appointed Lord Leathers to co-ordinate my Ministry with that of Fuel and Power? It was because Lord Leathers—lucky man!—had no need to make promises.
"As a Party, we believe in free enterprise and fair competition. We also believe in the railways, so we want to strengthen the R.H.E. to compete with them. Remember also that if the R.H.E. makes a lot of money it will help to pay for the railways' losses.
"1 appreciate that 12 months ago we supported an amending Bill which would have given you Many things we now say you cannot have. But at that time we were in Opposition. We didn't mean a word of What we said. All we wanted was to make sure of your votes at the election. If you listened to the debates of Mr. Bevins's Bill, you will remember how dreadfully cross the Socialists were at the suggestions we made. They are
bound to feel annoyed if we bring the matter up again. We have to work with them and it makes things difficult for us if we keep on bringing in Bills of which they do not approve.
"In the circumstances, we are being rather brave, as well as generous, in giving you even 40 miles radius. All this talk about abolishing the 25-mile limit is dangerous It would mean a serious loss of revenue to the B T.0 , and you know your members already have all the traffic they can handle.
Easily Get Lost "As for a 66-mile radius, do you realize that this would mean an increase of 140 per cent. in your radius and of 475 per cent. in your area of operation? Serviteur, to whom I am indebted for these statistics, says: This may not be agreeable to the new Government.' He is putting it mildly. He might have added that in your own interests, 60 miles is far too much. With all that amount added to your area of operation, you could quite easily lose yourselves, especially in places like the Highlands of Scotland. And your members on the South Coast would be able to take in a segment of France, which would get them into trouble with the Customs and Excise, the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"Now 40 miles is different. We might get the Socialists to consent to 40 miles. Don't ask me why say so. I just feel it in my bones. Between you and me, it is the distance we have had in mind all the time. Why do you refer again to our Election manifesto? We said we would ' modify ' the 25-mile limit, didn't we? You should be grateful that we have added 15 miles, instead of taking them away.
".Nor have we forgotten our promise to let former hauliers come back into the business. 1 am still to be satisfied that any of them wants to return, especially when they find on what terms. Just to clinch the matter we propose to restrict them to the same operating radius as the rest of you.
" After all the nasty things we said about permits last year, 1 should like to be able to abolish them. But if I did so, how could the R.H.E. share the traffic out fairly? As some measure of consolation to sou I shall also continue to withhold from the B.T.C. the status of a licence-holder. I know you will complain that it can still object to your own licence applications, but you are well aware that at the present time its objections carry little weight. If 1 allowed you to object to the B.T.C., it would get really furious with you. . . ."
And so on. The Rector of Aberdeen University might be able to get away with something on these lines, but it would hardly be sufficient for the Honourable Member for Renfrewshire, West. Like the story of Alice in Wonderland, the arguments of Serviteur hang together very well, provided that the initial assumptions are accepted. It is true that the railways cannot he ignored by any Government. It is going too far to declare, as Serviteur does, that the problem of the railways must have precedence over all other considerations, including the needs -of trade and industry, the grievances of the hauliers and the Government's own determination to reverse the course of road-transpart nationalization.'