Janus comments
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
From the horse's mouth
WHEN the licensing system was introduced in 1933 hauliers already in business were able to exercise what in the US are called grandfather rights. They were granted without objection an initial licence to continue the work they were doing. The assumption was that the law ought not to deprive respectable citizens of assets, tangible or otherwise, at least without fair compensation. As operators have not tired of pointing out that even the 1947 Transport Act did not go as far as this.
Refusal of a special authorization or quantity licence under the Transport Bill will mean that an operator will no longer be allowed to carry certain traffic which he has carried in the past under an A, B or C licence. If he is a haulier he will lose the goodwill which that licence helped to support. He will have no financial or other means of redress.
It is hardly surprising that this manifest injustice has had a high place in the letters of inquiry sent to the Minister of Transport by Labour MPs. They have among their constituents hauliers and drivers who have not hesitated to air their grievances. An MP cannot ignore the complaints of voters and in most cases does not wish to do so.
This is the case even when the approach is obviously part of a campaign sponsored by a national association or trade union. It is never safe to suppose that when people use words which have been put into their mouth they do not believe them just as strongly as if the words were their own.
A pattern
Evidently there is a limit to the number of ways in which the case against the Bill can be presented. Whether by design or not the points put to MPs have fallen into a pattern. This has made it possible for the Minister or one of her Parliamentary secretaries to prepare a standard reply in the form of notes. These may be intended merely for guidance.
Occasionally the MP—who can hardly be blamed if he has no specialized knowledge of the subject—has been content to reproduce the notes or a selection from them as his reply to a constituent. The terms of the official brief have therefore become fairly widely known.
Probably the section on quantity licensing turns up most frequently in the letters which are sent not only to operators and drivers but also to traders and manufacturers. As if to mask an uneasy feeling of guilt the aim throughout is to minimize the effect of quantity licensing and to suggest that a great deal of fuss is being made about very little.
The sole aim of the new system, say the notes, is to "encourage" the transfer of, goods from road to rail "where this can be done without detriment to the consignor". The refusal of a special authorization might seem to be something a little stronger than encouragement but the word has evidently been carefully chosen since the notes proceed: "It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that this is an outright ban on the carriage of freight by road".
What is this supposed to mean? From where the haulier or trader is standing the refusal of permission to carry certain traffic cannot appear anything other than an outright ban. Legislation is normally introduced to compel rather than to encourage and this is exactly the effect which the Transport Bill will have. If encouragement only was the aim other means would have been found.
Any MP who chooses to be critical ought to come to the same conclusion and look at the notes with increasing suspicion. In the same way he should not be satisfied with the proposition later in the notes that "it is most unlikely that operators will be forced out of business by quantity licensing".
It is explained that operators "unable to get licences for particular hauls they have hitherto performed"—in spite of there being no "outright ban"!—may have to reorganize their business. They can "redeploy" lorries on to work for which licences are available or for which a quantity licence is not needed.
Word comfort
The notes give this further word of comfort: "The expansion of road transport of freight, together with the freeing of most types of operation from quantity control, should ensure that no operator will find undue difficulty in making any necessary readjustments".
Whether this satisfies an MP or not it gives little consolation and makes even less sense to the operator, especially the trader on own-account. More than anything else he wants to carry his own goods. If he is forbidden to take them beyond 100 miles—or to carry certain bulk traffics at all—it is poor consolation to be told that he can carry the goods somewhere else where presumably they are not needed, or that he can take the desperate plunge into the field of hire or reward work.
If he does follow this advice he is likely to make things worse for the professional carriers. He will be competing with hauliers already in the unregulated field. The advice thus becomes even less palatable for the haulier who is unable to obtain a special authorization. His licence to which in his own mind he may have attached considerable value will become useless.
The general impression which the notes
seek to give is that things will not be as bad as this. The operator should brace up and be -a man. He has nothing to lose but his chains. Regulation of .competition between one haulier and another is out of date. "The industry no longer needs this kind of protection."
Considerable protection
It is then suggested that where quantity licensing remains there will still be considerable protection. There are some useful hints on the way in which a Licensing Authority will assess the relative speed, reliability and cost of road and rail services before deciding whether or not to grant a special authorization. Speed will cover the relative door-to-door transit times. There will not be merely a comparison between a railway timetable and the time for a trunk road journey. Assessment of reliability will include the effect on the consignor if goods are not delivered on time.
There is a forecast of the scope of regulations intended to define the costs which a Licensing Authority is to take into consideration. Factors will include "the possible need to reorganize stockholding and warehousing arrangements if the mode of transport changes, the need for different packaging or changes in insurance charges".
Costs will always where possible, say the notes, be interprettd as the rates quoted for the door-to-door journey by road or by road and rail. For the trader wishing to carry his own goods "the actual costs of carriage will be taken into account".
Until the regulations are issued the MP has no way of checking the existence of these safeguards. On many other points in the notes he may comb the Bill in vain to find the authority or at least the justification for the particular gloss which the notes convey. They state, for example, that "where a particular operator might suffer financial hardship because of the changeover to quantity licensing, the Bill enables the Licensing Authority to grant a special quantity licence allowing a continuance of previous operation for a Limited period, so that the changes can be made gradually": Here at last it seems that some concern is being shown for the haulier—who is in any case "most unlikely" to be forced out of business. When the Bill is consulted, however, it is clear that there is no general reassurance to operators that their possible hardship will be taken into consideration.
The concession is limited to an operator whose existing A, B or C licence still has some time to run on the appointed day when the present system comes to an end. When he applies for a special authorization the Licensing Authority may recognize that the sudden cessation of part or all of the business would cause hardship and may grant an authorization which would allow the operator in effect to continue his normal business for a period that would in no case exceed the unexpired portion of his licence.
The notes certainly try hard to maintain the image of a Minister giving the fairest possible trial to the villains who dare to send their traffic by road when there is a perfectly satisfactory rail service available.