Much Ado About Nothing
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
64 E have had an interesting debate, and I think
it has followed the traditional pattern," Mr.
George Nugent, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, told the House of Commons when he wound up the discussion on the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles. "Once again honourable members on both sides of the House have advanced their arguments with their customary weight and cogency."
Nearly every Parliamentary Secretary begins nearly every closing speech with almost exactly the same words.
The editor of Hansard no doubt has them . set . up permanently in type. If the words do not change, the manner of delivery may differ widely. To be in keeping with the debate that preceded his comment, Mr. Nugent should have pronounced it in a tone of broad irony. Few discussions, even in Parliament, can have less deserved his praise taken in its literal sense.
There was nothing wrong with the Minister's opening speech. The confusion began as soon as he sat down.
The Opposition had made up their minds to divide the House, and they had therefore to find some hone of contention. Conveniently at hand lay the Road Haulage Association, which Mr. Ernest Davies proceeded to worry until one would have imagined there was very little meat left upon it. Other Socialist, Members followed his lead, and even one or two Government supporters took a sly kick at the R.H.A. and dissociated themselves from it..
The argument. as far as one could make out. ran something as follows. According to the Opposition. the Government are rushing the legislation through to please the hauliers, who are mainly responsible for holding it up. The higher speed limit will enable fewer vehicles to do the same work as before, and will thus increase congestion on the roads. To these points the Conservatives added another, which was that the traders. who, unlike the hauliers, are all men of goodwill, will pay their drivers whatever extra wage is thought fit as soon as the new speed limit comes into effect on May 1, and that the hauliers should therefore come to an agreement with their men before that date.
"Hon. Members: Oh '."
The one sane comment on the discussion came from Mr. Graham Page. The "labyrinth of negotiations and agreements between the two sides of the industry" seemed to him "entirely irrelevant to the point at issue." (At this stage, Hansard has in parentheses the words: "Hon. Members: 'Oh '.") Unfortunately, Mr. Page at once rode off on a hobby-horse of his own, One lasting impression from the debate is the ebullience of Mr. Gerald Nabarro. He has a reputation for provocative speeches and frequent interjections, and this time he more than lived up to his reputation. After flinging the customary handful of mud over his shoulder at the R.H.A., he proudly raised the standard of the C-licence holder, He was keen to fight, but nobody would accept his challenge.
For the person who takes Parliamentary discussions seriously, it is not easy to understand why this should be so. As Mr. Nabarro pointed out, and kept on pointing out, there are about 71,000 C-licensed vehicles at present restricted to a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. This number is a good deal more than the sum of the 39,000 heavy goods vehicles operated by hauliers and the 12,000 operated by British Road Services. The C-licence holders, said Mr. Nabarro, "are prepared to adjust their wage rates and their schedules and fall in with reasonable union demands."
How he was able to speak for all a-licence holders he did not explain. The odd thing is that there have been no official discussions between the unions and trade and industry on wages in relation to the speed limit.
This is not for want of a representative body. The committee that have remained in being for so many years under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Browett could presumably at any time have been approached.
One suspects that the committee's comment would have been very much like that of Mr. Page however little they and he would agree on other points. The committee may have been wise in staying out of the controversy, although there is no doubt that because of it their well-marshalled arguments went for many years unheeded.
Into Battle
Mr. Nabarro at least was prepared to lead the
C-licence holders into battle however reluctant they might be to. follow. He even made a cash offer. On May 1, he said, " every long-distance driver working a 20-m.p.h. lorry should have an increase of II a week as his share of the increased productivity which is going to flow from the regulations."
He repeated the offer several times. To other Members he may have seemed like the man in a mask who stood in the Strand once—for a bet, it is supposed— offering to sell sovereigns for sixpences. Like this man, Mr. Nabarro found no buyers.
Neither the traders, nor B.R.S., nor the hauliers are likely to applaud his generosity. Although he was
careful to limit his gesture to the long-distance driver, he did not attempt a.definition. Any flat increase wouh' inevitably have to be given, at the very, least, to all
drivers of heavy goods vehicles. According to Mr. Nugent, there are 12,000 B.R.S. vehicles affected. The Nabarro formula would therefore cost B.R.S. £600,000 a year, with no certainty that increased productivity would justify this addition to their wage bill.
Lack of certainty has been the main reason why the
hauliers, and even 'I.R.S., have hesitated to promise a definite increase in wages. If it came to the point, the -C-licence holder would also hesitate. Nobody really knows what precise benefit will follow the increase in the speed limit, and until this is known discussions on wages are taking place in a vacuum.
What Mr. Nabarro might have more usefully suggested is the setting up of machinery to test the results after May 1, as compared with previous standards. There is no reason why all types of operator concerned, including B.R.S., should not take part in the experiment. Productivity, or transportivity as I have always preferred to call it in this context, involves in its simplest form an estimate of the volume of traffic carried per man. If the volume rises after May 1, to that extent has transportivity improved, and it might be possible to argue that wages should be increased in the same proportion.