A BILL FOR FRE
Page 56
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DM AND ORDER
By Aucourant
who represents the views of a section of users
Welcome for Neiv Bill to Bring the Pendulum Back to Centre: Co-operative Working by Hauliers Needed to Cut Costs
DURING a speech delivered at Plymouth in October, 1946, the present Prime Minister propounded a theme of Government which is about to be givenpractical expression. He said that "the essential problem facing the modern world is to reconcile freedom and order . . the reconciliation of freedom and order underlies the struggles and difficulties of statesmen and Governments. . . . We find our
• selves constantly faced with the problem of harmonizing the free play of competitive forces and of individual initiative with the organizing power of central Government."
This pplitical philosophy is probably the more acceptable because it can scarcely be developed into a rigid dogma. Proof of its practicability can be seen in the Transport (Disposal. of Road Haulage Property) Bill now before Parliament.
The Government rightly recognized that the pendulum swung too far towards freedom when the 1953 Act-was placed on the statute book. The new legislation is clearly designed—in the fight of practical experience—to bring the situation nearer to "top dead centre."
Extricated from Politics
An appreciation of the road haulage position over the past 20 years shows how necessary this Bill is if an important industry is to be extricated from the political quagmire in which it has unfortunately become embroiled, and allowed to develop as a vital service to industry and commerce.
Before 1947, privately owned road haulage existed in both large and small operating units. In longdistance trunk work, the tendency was towards either large groups under single ownership, or an association of medium-sized units under joint management.
To provide industry and trade with a national network of haulage services, size of grouping was and is important. In post-war years the necessity of large groups has grown and strengthened, particularly in the face of monopolistic railway operation, when adequate competition offered by an alternative transport service is essential.
The Socialist Government carried their transport nationalization programme much too far. The disadvantages to the nation of a complete monopoly of long-distance goods transport for hire or reward were many. But it would be idle to pretend that the national network of road haulage services painstakingly Die built up by British Road Services did not offer many important advantages to the user. In the absence of real competition, however, the advantages were far outweighed by the disadvantages.
The advent of a new Government in 1951, with its declared policy of "introducing a measure of competition into the road haulage industry," was certainly welcomed by the users of road transport. Unfortunately, the " measure " tried to go too far too fast.
In the first place, the Government paid too much heed to the advice given by the Road Haulage Associa tion. They ignored the fact that many of the previous owners of large fleets would not be returning to the business. They propounded no practical method whereby networks of trunk services could be preserved intact.
Belatedly, in deference to public opinion and Parliamentary pressure, they inserted Section 5 in the 1953 Act to provide for the disposal of undertakings by a more gradual process through the formulation of companies. But this important section was emasculated from birth by an outright insistence that the shares of the company must be sold in one parcel.
The present Bill seeks to atone for past errors, and the Government are to be congratulated upon their courage, coupled with the hope that they will not be stampeded into any lastminute emasculation of any of its provisions.
No Denunciation
It is being suggested in some political quarters that the Bill is a denunciation of Conservative principles. It is nothing of the sort; it is a manifestation of Conservatism at its best.
Others—with different furrows to plough—insist that the Bill gives the British Transport Commission a near monopoly. This is clearly far from the fact when one reads the advertisements of the R.H.A. proclaiming the 150,000 vehicles (sic) operated by its members.
The user sees in the Bill an assurance that the important long-distance trunk services, at present operated efficiently by the Commission, will not be dispersed and sold in penny numbers. Important national organizations such as the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Indus.. tries have made clear their acceptance in principle of the Government's intentions.
Two pertinent questions should, however, be put to the Minister about this Bill, Does he think that it ties up all loose ends in redressing the balance between freedom and order? Does he consider that it will settle the problem of road versus rail?
At the same time, the road haulage industry under private ownership should prepare to answer an equally pertinent question: Is it willing cooperatively to adapt and develop itself for its place in modern commerce?
The rest of this article seeks to give some pointers on these three questions in relation to the Bill now before Parliament, with the idea of maintaining that delicate balance between freedom and order.
The 1953 Act was a road and rail measure. It not only reintroduced freedom in the road haulage industry,but introduced an unprecedented (and much-needed) measure of freedom in railway charging.
I have already admitted that the additional vehicles now to be retained by the Commission in no way give the B.T.C. even a near monopoly of road haulage. But it could in the future provide the Commission with an almost complete monopoly of the long-distance road haulage of certain traffic.
Road Competition It is generally agreed that road competition offered to rail is at its strongest in short and medium distances—something under 150 miles. Over the longer distances road competition tends to diminish, and. over the very long distances it becomes virtually sporadic.
It is the long-distance trunk services which the B.T.C. are to retain; that is one of the principal objects of the Bill, Similarly, it is the mediumand long-distance traffics which railways now desire to capture, because for rail they are the most economic and profitable. Hence the overall proportion of B.T.C. to private road haulage vehicles might well be in the ratio of 1 : 19, but over the longer distances the proportion would be far smaller.
By carefully planning the vehicles to be retained in terms of traffic flows served, and associating this with the development of their services through additional licences, the Cornmission could be in such a strong position that the user's freedom of choice might easily be jeopardized.
The simplest way of avoiding this situation would be some relatively minor amendment of the railway charging provisions of the 1953 Act. This should aim at providing a wider and more effective protection for traders against unfair treatment in respect of railway charges.
A more radical and, perhaps, effective method would be completely to sever B.R.S. from the ownership anti control of the Commission. This would, of course, have the desirable merit of ensuring that profits from road haulage would not be used to bolster the declining net revenues of railways. Something of this kind must be inserted in the new Bill.
Another loose end which the Bill does not tie up properly is concerned with the levy. This questionable method of paying for the mistakes of past and present Governments Was always regarded as morally unwholesome. The Bill provides for its cessation at the end of 1956.
End the Levy Now
If only because the whole process of denationalization has taken much longer than the Government expected, largely as a result of the shortcomings of the 1953 Act, the payment of the levy should cease with the coming into effect of the new Act.
Whether the Minister considers that the new measure will for some time settle the problem of road versus rail, depends on the strength of his support for the Prime Minister's concept of freedom and order.
It will not, however, settle the problem of co-ordination between road and rail, nor will it have defined in any way the future roles to be played by road transport and railways within the concept of a national transport policy. Yet surely sotne such decisions need to be taken sooner rather than later.
Britain is faced with an everincreasing road traffic problem and the railways with declining traffics. The roads of Britain are already hopelessly inadequate for present needs.
Can Britain spare the physical space for the roads that will be needed? Already every year some 5,000 acres of arable land are lost to development of one kind or another. Moreover, the growth of road traffic to docks areas is raising acute problems, because so many of Britain's ports were designed principally for railway movement. The capital expenditure required for increased road access to and within docks would be immense, and there are definite space limitations involved.
One thing is certain: if the nation is to permit the unlimited development of road transport an extremely heavy capital outlay must be faced, and something must be done very soon to plan for that development.
Tug-of-War
Meanwhile, the nation is, quite rightly, committed to the muchneeded railway modernization plan costing i1,200m., the object of which is to attract more traffic to railways. The ensuing tug-of-war could easily result in the wastage of precious national assets which Great Britain can ill afford.
Must there be a limit set to the development of both road and rail? If so, how would those limits be defined and enforced? Is competition between road and rail to be unlimited, or is it to exist within reasonable confines?
These questions are not new, but they are more acute than they have ever been. The problems they indicate will continue to set the scene in which Britain's transport system must operate. Surely some national inquiry into them is necessary if chaos and wastage are to be avoided; the new Bill neither seeks nor was intended to deal with these important issues.
Whilst the Bill cannot be expected to find favour with the militant representatives of private road haulage, it should act as a warning to them. It is not surprising that, under present political and economic conditions, coupled with the new-found competitive freedom of the railways, there should be a reluctance to invest substantial sums of money in large road haulage units.
In any case, the traditional pattern of development within the industry has always been a start from modest beginnings and an increase in the size of fleets as traffic justified.
The stage of co-operation reached today is virtually limited to the establishment of clearing houses; a system
• that is viewed with misgivings by many and one which does not particularly help in the functional operation and development of road haulage.
If the real danger that the private sector of road haulage will be confined to mere tramping is to be avoided, either large-scale ownership or large-scale cooperative enterprise becomes essential. Obviously, the field for the smaller men is most favourable under the latter conditions.
Interworking Needed
The new Bill does nothing, and was not intended to do anything, to encourage the development of co-operative enterprise in private ownership. If a national transport policy is ever to see the light of day, and if public ownership is to be kept reasonably within the present confines, the smaller haulier must cast out the doubts and misgivings with which he has always been assailed when contemplating some form of ordered co-operation with his competitors.
Irtterworking by the smaller hauliers carries with it all the advantages of large-scale operation and the merits of reduced costs, competitive charging and efficiency of service to the trader. it obviates any necessity of cut-throat competition, petty violation of licensing regulations and the host of other shortcomings that paved the way for Socialistic acquisition in the past.
Such a welcome development can best come about by voluntary endeavour through such organizations as the R.H.A. It might be stimulated by the kind of national investigation to which I have referred.
The present Bill could well have paved the way by setting up a Road Haulage Board similar to that which exists in the iron and steel industry. A proposal of this kind is bound to evoke loud protests in many quarters, but so did the establishment of many of the nation's finest constitutional reforms and authorities.