A Word in Season to Specially Mr. Sewill and the A.R.O. Contributed
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
There Have Become Apparent Some Important Changes in Policy, But More Must be Conceded if Unity of Representation is to be Achieved
YOUR report of Mr. Sewill's speech at Norwich was read by me with a great dealof interest. It seems that the Director of A.R.O.is at last beginning to see the error of his ways. He has, in recognizing the paramount importance of the small man in our industry, taken one step in the right direction. When he comes to appreciate that the cOntinued existence of the small man is incompatible with the imposition of •a rigid system of stabilized rates for road haulage, more, that such imposition must ineviltably drive the small haulier out of business and into the arms of -monopolists, he will have taken another. By t1-7t time he realizes that the policy of appeasement which he is pursuing with the railways will do the industry no more good than that same policy did for our country at Munich, and becomes the fighter he once was, he will again be the real director of the destinies of the road-haulage industry which he used. to., be and which we would like him tO be. While I have my pen in my hand, I would like, if I may and if you do not think it belated, to raise some points from the A.R.O. New Policy, summarized iri your issue of February II: The reference, in that statement of policy,to the T.A.C. Report is liable to mislead. It is so worded that we are led to understand that the T.A.C. proposed " an agreed rates Structure, obligatory on both road and rail." The natural inference is that the T.A.C. tory agreement between rOad and rail. That is not so. The precise wording of the relevant passage in the report is: " We proceed on the assumption that . . . the rates charged are stabilized within each form of transport and voluntary agreements are then concluded between the various forms of transport. . . ." Germane to this is the recommendation (a) that the rates structure " should be the product of the industry itself and the rates should be arrived at in relation solely to factors affecting road transport .. .'.' and .(b) " The railway companies did not ask that there should be any form of compulsory agreement between Road and Rail in , this respect, but preferred that any agreement as to rates should he entirely voluntary. . . ."
Road and Rail Conference Policy is Wrong
I maintain that the policy followed by the road transport industry in the formation of the Road and Rail Central Conference is entirely wrong, in that the procedure adopted was precisely the reverse of that recommended by the T.A.C., namely, first let each form of transport decide upon its rates independently, subsequently meeting to come to general agreement. . In any •case, as I have said, subsequent development and experience have revealed the impracticability of a rigid rates structure in its application to road haulage, to such an extent that, in my opinion, if the T.A.C. were to meet again, and if it were to take evidence mainly from smaller operators, it would rescind that particular part of its recommendations which suggested the imposition of a rates structure upon our industry. In many other ways, too, this policy seems to be at variance with the inward and_ legitimate desires of the . majority of those engaged in the industry; Perhaps the fact that, out of some ;50,000 or 60;000 A and B licensees, A.R.O. claims a membership of no more than 8,000, has something to do with this. According to this policy, too, the A.R.O. seems desirous of allocating to itself powers . and functions already sufficiently exercised and pOssessed by the M.O.W,T., in the persons of the Regional Transport Commissioners. . For example, it is suggested that the Association should form an independent'register of operators. Why? Surely the register already in existence in the offices of the R.T.C.s is sufficient. Is it suggested that the Ministry shall resign its powers and authority to licence or not to licente and delegate them to the A.R.O., asking the Association, in effect, to tell the Ministry who the A.R.O. thinks should have -licences and who should not, the R.T.C. to act accordingly? That appears to me to be the .purport of that clause in the policy. The Association, it is suggested, should become registrar of hauliers. and clearing houses, but -hauliers would tot he compelled. to loin the R.11.A. And what form of persuasion is going to be sufficient to cause 42,000 to 52,000 hauliers•to place their destinies in the hands of some sop members of A.R.O. or R.H.A., knowing full well. that, on any occasion when opportunity for preferment arises, members will be sure' to have preference? Is it seriously suggested that if an -operator, on being requested to register with A.R.O. or R.H.A., refuses to do anything of the kind, he shall thereupon be refused a licence by the Commissioner on the ground's of his refusal to register? I ara of opinion that the application of such a measure, or of any means other than persuasion, will involve a 'departure from the basic principles of democracy for which this war is being fought and by which. the R.H.A., of all trade associations, should most firmly stand.
Pompous Policy an Rules of Conduct
Most absurd of all the pretensions, and they most certainly are pretensions and presumptions, of this pompous policysis the suggestion that the. Association should draw up rules of conduct to which every haulier in fhe land must conform, or otherwise be in peril of the loss of his licence. A code of conduct, entirely and corripletely sufficient for the end in view, .was drawn up bythe Ministry of Transport nearly 12 years ago. It can be found, most clearly defined, in a little-Inown publication, issued by H.M. Stationery Office, entitled "The. Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933." That code insists that the holder of a licence shall behave in a specific manner as concerns the conduct of his business as a haulier, and affords ample protection to all who are concerned in that behaviour. It goes quite as far in that direction as is desirable, For Mr. Sewill and/or the National Council of A.R.O. to take upon themselves the right to dictate to others the manner in which they should conduct their businesses is a piece of presumption verging on the impertinent. It is something which swill not be tolerated by operators, whether they be within or without the fold of the Association.
Moreover, the Commissioners are empowered, by that self-same Act, to take such positive measures as are neces sary to enforce compliance with the code. .
Briefly, there is nothing in the statement of policy which is not either misleading, as in the reference to the T.A.C. Report, or redundant, and therefore unnecessary, as in the proposals that the Association should become a registrar and issue a Code of Conduct, both of which functions are provided and reasonably. well exercised by the Regional Transport Commissioners. My recommendation to Mr. Sewill and to the A.R.O. or R.1I.A. as it soon will be, is to get on with the job of looking after the interests 'of its members and to confine its activities to that work, which it will find ample for its energies and capabilities. Let them cease these attempts to dragoon and regiment the industry. Let them lead rather than try to drive the hauliers of this country. In that -way, and in that way only, will they augment the membership of the Association until it becomes in very truth the representative body it assumes itself tp be. :