Putting the Cat Out
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1
V HE door of the ivory tower is shut. It bears a
notice which reads: "Closed for Integration.
Hauliers Not Admitted. C-licence Holders Enter at Their Own Peril." The British Transport Commission, having virtually completed the process of acquisition, has taken the trade unions to share its hearth and home, reassured the little, unassertive Inland Waterways Executive that it has not been forgotten, held a brief parley with the Central Transport Consultative Committee at the tradesman's entrance, and put out the free-enterprise cat. From now on he can find his own mice.
This is the most likely interpretation of the latest statement of policy issued by the Commission. The nationalized organization, conscious of a duty to get itself integrated, has entered the chrysalis stage, not forgetting first to give the public a glimpse of the beautiful butterfly it hopes to become when it completes its metamorphosis in, say, three or four years' time.
The new document is deliberately designed to explain the facts of life to the nationalized staff, who as a whole, one must assume, do not take kindly to integration. Little regard is had to the fact that the reading tastes of some of the staff may be different from that of, say, the Chairman of the Commission. Many people, regrettably, may be content to go through life without appreciating that "road transport is specially suitable and efficient for more extended services up to the distance at which the economy in tractive effort by using rail for the trunk portion of the conveyance is greater than the economy resulting from: (a) avoidance of the extra handling on and off rail; (b) the saving to the trader of the cost and weight of packing material, etc., or of returned empties; (c) the reduction in the risk of pilferage, damage or loss, made possible by freedom from transhipping; (d) saving in time."
No Place For Liaison Although on the whole the staff of the Commission may not be greatly concerned with road-haulage liaison, it is strange that the subject finds no place at all in the policy statement. There are many points in it that must bear hardly upon hauliers, with or without permits.
The role for which the Road Haulage Executive is cast consists mainly of local transport and excluded traffics such as indivisible loads and furniture removals. In other words, the R.H.E. will concentrate on the only fiekls left open to the independent haulier, while at the same time he is deprived of any share in the work of the other departments of the Commission.
The statement that "the R.H.E. will eventually provide all road services for freight within the control of the Commission " appears to cut at the very root of liaison. Principles enunciated by the liaison conference, although vague in some respects, did provide for the use of the services of independent hauliers by the Executives and vice versa, and the preservation of existing contracts between the Executives and independent hauliers.
This part of liaison now threatens to become a dead letter. Its scope will be limited in future to such matters as complaints regarding permits, gross hardships, rates and licensing. Although these are all important, they can be dealt with for the most part (with the possible exception of licensing) by direct negotiation between the Road Haulage Association and the Executives. Elaborate national and divisional machinery will not be needed.
Examined in the light of the new statement, liaison seems to have been encouraged by the Commission, partly as a convenient method of continuing the work of the negotiating committees, and partly as an absorbent for the small-arms fire of hauliers with a grievance. Instead of ventilating their hardship in such a way as to attract publicity harmful to the Commission, they have allowed the matter to be dealt with across the table. Individual cases of glaring injustice have been put right by this means, but many similar cases have not seen the light of day because the operators concerned were unaware that there was anything to be gained from lodging a complaint.
The Commission's latest pronouncement has destroyed the hopes of many hauliers. Trade and industry also cannot be altogether easy in their minds. Apparently at some stage the proposals were brought to the attention of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, but it is not known how much faith traders have in the ability of that committee to watch over their interests.
Leaning Over Backwards
The Commission almost leans over backwards in its anxiety not so much as to hint at the possibility of any restriction in the complete freedom of the public both to choose the form of transport it prefers, and to make use of its own vehicles. As a result, the fundamental problem is still evaded.
The newly stated policy provides for the progressive division of functions between road and rail. The services are to be developed much more as complementary to each other, and much less as rival forms of transport. Road and rail will each take the traffic for which it is more "suitable and efficient."
The Commission's list of such traffics does not clear the air much. It includes, for rail transport, "traffic which can be carried from point to point in train loads," the over-powering banality of which is just redeemed by the fact that the other side of the ledger does not include an item, "traffic which can be carried from point to point in lorry loads."
In fact, the R.H.E. is to become a short-distance feeder service for the Railway Executive, except where the awkwardness of a load, the expert handling required, or some other difficulty makes transport by road obviously more economical. How this can fail to circumscribe the trader's freedom of choice is not explained. A mere assurance that the Commission has no intention of evading its duty to allow this freedom is not sufficient.
Nor is the statement of policy very illuminating on the C-licence question. If traders do not choose to divide their traffic into two categories, one for road and one for rail, on the same basis as the Commission. what steps can be taken to persuade them that they are merely being awkward? The one possible economic sanction would be to increase the rate for the form of transport from which it is hoped to attract the traffic, and this would be the most certain method of driving the customers to buy their own vehicles.