BETTER OFF IN BRIGHTON
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SHEER coincidence must account for the fact that trade and industry in London and the Trades Union Congress in Brighton were both discussing goods vehicle licensing on the same day. The trade unions were unanimous on a ragbag resolution ranging from wages and conditions for the staff of the National Freight Authority to the place of lighterage in the possible nationalization of British ports.
Agreement among the organizations representing trade and industry was reached only on a narrow front. They oppose that part of the plan of the Ministry of Transport which would deny freedom of choice between road and rail.
At least the unions have put forward one or two alternatives. They would like to see the further selective nationalization of road hauliers and restrictions on the C licence and the Contract A licence.
The unions want appointment to Stateowned bodies of people with a positive belief in public ownership and within the NFA a built-in bias in favour of the railways. They ask Mrs. Castle to include these and other points in her forthcoming Transport Bill and she would obviously have no difficulty in meeting this request if she thought fit.
Weakness The weakness of the position of trade and industry as it was indicated at last week's meeting—and so far in most of the statements made independently by the bodies represented there—is that the objections are concentrated on a point which would destroy Mrs. Castle's whole plan if she gave way.
Although in formulating her plan Mrs. Castle has taken the items needed from several different sources it is not practicable criticism to examine each proposal separately and decide whether to accept or reject it.
In addition to improving road safety the Minister wants to ensure what she describes as a more rational division of traffic between road and rail. To further this end she intends to scrap the present licensing system and make a fresh division of the road goods transport industry into three parts.
For light vans no special licences will be required. Operators of all other vehicles must hold a quality licence, and in certain cases a quantity licence provided any railway opposition can be overcome.
In reaching his decision on an application for a quantity licence the Licensing Authority will find the scales heavily weighted in favour of the railways.
The point which protests from trade and industry have now reached is that the proposal for quantity licences should be dropped. This would mean that only quality licences would be required and that the holders would be free to carry any traffic anywhere both on their own account and for hire or reward.
Perhaps this is not precisely what trade and industry have in mind. One result would certainly be that the railways would lose more traffic and more money than ever.
Much as transport operators and users dislike the extra restrictions that Mrs. Castle wishes to place upon them they would probably accept and even welcome some measure of protection for the railways.
Necessary What might even commend itself to operators is some arrangement like the existing one in which the trader on own account is left free and the professional carrier has to give some evidence of a need for his services. Hauliers as well as the railways would have the right of objection.
This last provision seems necessary if there is still to be a clear distinction between the haulier and the C licence holder. Otherwise the trader would have no difficulty in obtaining a licence to carry for other people provided the railways did not consider that he was poaching on their preserves.
Once it is agreed that hauliers and traders on own-account ought to have different types of licence there is no logical reason to limit the arrangement to that sphere of operation in which the railways have an interest. All quality licences, that is to say, except for work on own-account, should be subject to proof of need and there might even be a case for extending the principle to some categories of the small lorries and vans for which under Mrs. Castle's scheme no operating licences would be required.
Tampering In short, as soon as one begins to tamper with even one section of the system proposed by the Minister the effect is felt in all the other sections. In the end one is left with something so much like the present system that there seems no point in introducing elaborate legislation to make the few minor changes needed. This may well be what trade and industry mean to convey by their limited criticism.
On the other hand they may be reluctant to say this in so many words. They run the risk of appearing merely reactionary.
It could well be also that they have taken too lightly the benefits which the present system provides for them. It not only gives them the unrestricted right to carry their own traffic but imposes no financial penalty for the exercise of that right as is the case in some other countries.
For traffic which trade and industry do not choose to carry themselves they have almost complete freedom of choice between hauliers and the railways. Rarely indeed is a road haulage application refused when the customer makes his need of the service sufficiently plain.
Trade and industry cannot be accused of ignoring the danger which now confronts them. Last week's discussions even point to the possibility of a war on two fronts.
Mrs. Castle wants the trader to be in no more privileged position than any other operator when the traffic he is carrying, although it happens to belong to him, is suitable for the railways. In all other circumstances she is indifferent to what he carries.
For all Mrs. Castle cares the trader can develop his transport department into a haulage business if he so desires.
Another view The trade unions take another view. Mr. T. G. Bradley, of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, who moved the composite motion at the Brighton TUC, pointed to the dangers of allowing the C licence holder to carry return loads at cut rates.
If Mr. Bradley had his way and a selective scheme of road haulage nationalization were instituted the traders who indulged in this practice might even be first on his list. They would not in those circumstances thank Mrs. Castle for depriving them of the protective colouring afforded by the words "on own account".
What may please hauliers is that the TUC proposals, in contrast to those of Mrs. Castle, provide for compensation to the operator who loses his business. It is difficult to imagine also that the hauliers do not feel some secret satisfaction that the TUC should propose some limit on the C licence holder. They may even feel that they would have been better off in Brighton.