TWO SIDES TO EVERY CASE
Page 79
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
;WEN from the soberly printed pages of Hansard one can 21 sometimes receive a fair impression of the charged atmosiere when a Minister has finished a statement outlining the overnment's policy on the subject under discussion and the ficial spokesman for the other side is called by the Speaker. I this point the battle is joined. The Minister has said everying possible in favour of his case; his opponent will put every pint he can think of against it.
The periodical affirmation by one or e other that he is looking at the Lestion dispassionately is accepted dulgently by the audience as an tablished and justifiable debating ick. The Minister may not really :neve that everything in his proposed ensure is perfect, but nobody ;pects him to say so.
DIFFERENT OPINIONS AN ADVANTAGE
In general the public take the same view the politicians. They read what is said on ith sides and make up their own minds on
e evidence thus put before them. They see e advantage of having two directly opposite ts of opinions, just as in a legal case the jury :pect often contradictory evidence to be yen for the prosecution and for the defence. There are certain occasions where this is not :pected and would be deplored. In his miming-up the judge is relied upon to be ipartial. The same applies to reports of hcial inquiries. If the Government issues a lite Paper it will set out what the Governeat wishes people to think and will be conrued in that spirit. If the Government asks a 3mmittee to look into a specific subject the ■ sumption is that the subsequent report will as impartial as the committee can make it. eople may not agree with the conclusions, at they will believe that the committee has Tived at those conclusions after examining le problem from every side.
Transport perhaps has had more than its me of official inquiries beginning with a oyal Commission nearly 40 years ago. learly the attempt has been made to present :ports which are fair as well as constructive yen Dr. (now Lord) Seedling in a report 'here bias might be expected and therefore andoned manifestly, tried to steer a middle purse and not to attack the railways' ompetitors more than he could help.
It was a different matter when the railways resented their eviaence to the Geddes !ommittee. They wanted to convince the ommittee that their contentions were orrect, particularly on the subject of track costs. The expectation, proved by events, was that there were many other interests prepared to argue strenuously on the other side. The public assumed that the railways would press their own case and assumed also that the Geddes Committee would attempt some resolution of the dispute.
The subsequent report was a disappointment and also a shock. To most people it seemed a one-sided attack on the licensing system and, in fact, on any form of licensing. Had the report been merely one of the documents put forward as evidence to the committee it would have been commended for its style and vigour and the counter-blast from the supporters of licensing would have been awaited with interest. As a conclusive report the document leaves one in the air with all the arguments on one side paraded and all the arguments on the other side demolished.
Whether or not a licensing system is desirable there must be more points in its favour than the committee allowed to appear. It seems unlikely that the present system would have continued for so long if it had been entirely useless. Nevertheless, because the report was the result of in official inquiry it enjoys a certain prestige. Commentators with no special knowledge of transport are inclined to accept the findings of the committee far more than they would accept the statements of a body with an obvious vested interest.
• GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBIUTY
Reports from the Prices and Incomes Board tend to carry with them a similar aura. The Board is supposed to advise the Government whether the movement of prices or of incomes in a particular case is in the national interest. Here again the assumption is that the advice will be fair. Whether or not to accept it is the Government's responsibility. In fact the Board has not always condemned increases. its two reports on road haulage provide useful ammunition in the battle for productivity and admit that some increase in rates is essential even if the practice of blanket recommendations is deplored. The tone of the recent memorandum to the Minister of Transport contrasts sharply with that of the two printed reports. It is strongly polemical, hardly different from the tone of the Minister's own speeches made for party political consumption. Every point in the memorandum is unfavourable to the hauliers. There is no sign of any attempt to discover their point of view. The condemnation ends with a threat of restrictive legislation.
riGEDDES REPORT The same objection can be raised to this document as to the Geddes Report. The hauliers may or may not be wrong in announcing their intention to negotiate on increases in rates. It seems incredible. however, that absolutely nothing can be said in their favour. The suspicion deepens when it is realized that apparently the Board took no steps to ask for further elucidation or explanation of the statement issued by the Road Haulage Association. The fairly brief announcement was treated as if it were one of the Dead Sea scrolls where the interpretation must depend entirely upon internal evidence.
A few words with hauliers might have been useful for the Board. "Whilst observing the letter of its undertaking to abandon the practice of recommending increases in rates," says the memorandum. "the Association is circumventing its spirit.One would expect the Association which gave the undertaking to be the best judge of its spirit. The same objection applies to the complaint that "the statement gives no indication of progress made in increasing productivity". The unwarranted implication is that because the statement makes no mention of the matter there has been no improvement in productivity or that hauliers do not care.
The point at issue is not trivial. Mrs. Barbara Castle, as the responsible Minister, has to make decisions and thereafter support them with all the weapons at her disposal. The Prices and Incomes Board is consulted in advance of the decisions. Unless its investigations are thorough it must take part of the blame if the decisions are wrong.
Janus