Future of the Ancillary User A s is well know n,
Page 15
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
operators of C-licensed vehicles greatly outnumber all other classes of user. Compared with those owning A; A Contract and B licences, there are nearly three times as many. In respect of • vehicles, the ancillary class owned, in 1938, something over 365,000, as against about 148,000 in the other three sections mentioned. It will be seen, therefore, that they constitute a most • important division of our road-transport structure , and, so far, there have been no general restrictions ' on the issue of C licences, whilst during the war period, and until the recent announcement from the Ministry, they have, in most instances, been reasonably free to run for hire or reward, the latter concession being, of course, purely a war• measure, which, except where special authority is given, will no longer be in force. .
Compared with the road haulier, also, the C licensee has the advantage that the wages of his drivers do not come under the mgis of the Road Haulage Wages Board, but are subject only to the rates prevailing in the particular trade with which the operator is concerned.
Comparative Freedom Unfavourably Viewed There are now not wanting indications—some , of these from the industry and others from Government circles—that this almost complete freedom of the ancillary operator is being viewed with no great favour. For example, 'in the second policy booklet of the Road Haulage Association, dealing with the post-war licensing system for A and B licences, there is a paragraph which states that this meknoranduna is mainly confined to the question of these particular licences, but to complete the review of the system the Association is hopeful that discussions with the Traders Road ' Transport Association and other interested bodies, which are to be inaugurated forthwith, will render it possible for joint representations on C licences to be made to the Minister at a later stage.
. Then, in Sir Cyril Hurcomb's recent commemorative address before the Institute of Transport, there were some interesting references to this matter. Sir Cyril pointed out that C -licences and vehicles authorized by them, according to the 1938 figures, had increased far more than any other class. This tendency towards expansion is significant and must be taken into account in forming any estimate of the future prospects of all public carriers of goods, although, he added, no problem is created by the great majority of holders of such licences, because they are engaged solely in retail distribution within a modest radius, involving no competition or overlap of fnnction with the carriers. Yet the small proportion of C licensees whose activities extend beyond such distribution over moderate distdrices may still be enough to constitute an important factor in •any scheme of co-ordinated transport, for their vehicles may, abstract traffic, which, if retained, would contribute to the overheads of public carriers by road, rail or water, and, if lost, may unbalance their loads. At the same time, even if the C-licence holder be restricted to carrying his own goods, and not be allowed to compete for other traffic against the haulier, he will still expect to fall back, when he likes, upon the public system of transport.
It must be remembered that Sir Cyril is DirectorGeneral of the M.O.W.T., and although he may not have been speaking in his official capacity as such, his remarks are indicative of what may be the view Of the Ministry concerning the licensing problem. Of course, the Ministry does not, in normal times, control the policy of the Road Transport Commissioners; they are more or less a law unto themselves so long as they follow the precepts contained in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
Warning From the T.R.T.A. Chairman That these dangers confronting the C licensee are being recognized is shown by the observations made by Colonel Arthur jerrett, chairman of the Council of the T.R.T.A., to which we referred last week. He stated that the C licensee frequently ignores obvious signs and indications, and settles down into a comfortable apathy, finding it• difficUlt to believe that interference with his transport liberty should ever materialize. He could, however, see no possible justification for assuming that such dangers were not real] and near.. He referred specifically to three. They were :=Nationalization, limit on radius, and allocation of traffic; and he mentioned that both railways and hauliers would welcome and, perhaps, press for some limitations on the radius to which traders can carry their goods in their own vehicles.
As is well known to our reader's, we stand for the maximum possible degree of freedom for all classes of road operator, and whilst sympathizing with the 'haulier in his legitimate wish to retain, and even expand his business, we view with considerable concern the development of any policy which would enable this to be achieved by any considerable degree of restriction upon the ancillary user.
There may, of course, be cases in which the C licensee is operating his vehicles in an entirely uneconomic manner, but the number must be comparatively small, for the reason that there is always the competition of the haulier to act as a counterbalance. No live business concern would continue for long to allow its vehicles to work under such conditions, for this would merely reduce the total profits of the business, or, if these profits were maintained, add to the prices at which the particular commodities dealt with could be sold.
There might be something in the point that the ancillary user should be restricted from carrying his goods for long distances where it is obvious that he could not himself snpply rethrn loads and would, therefore, cause waste of load capacity and money by such vehicles returning unladen. However, as Sir Cyril Hurcomb has stated, the total of long-distance vehicles running under C licences cannot be great. Consequently, unless the number of vehicles employed in this manner shows signs of increasing to any important extent, it does not seem that restriction to meet this particular class of operation would be worth while.
Another powerful protagonist of the ancillary operators is the British Road Federation. This body has issued a statement of policy in this cofinection to which we refer on another page in this issue. Briefly, the Associates' Committee of the B.R.F. will strongly resist any attempt to curtail the rights of such users, as enjoyed before the war. At the same time it considers it right and proper that private operators should pay wages and observe working conditions comparable with those imposed on the public hauliers.