HAULIERS
Page 58
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and the
"REPORT"
THE haulier is most directly concerned with Part III—Regulation and Licensing—of the Report of the Conference on rail and road transport which is fully discussed, as to its broader aspects, in another part of this issue. He is also more than a little interested in the schedule of licence duties which appears in Part II under the heading "Incidence of Highway Costs."
In the former be will discover what the Conference recommends in the way of licensing, as distinct from the licence referred to in the latter, which is a tax. The former sets out the conditions under which, if this report becomes law, he will be allowed to operate : the latter merely states what he will have to pay for the privilege—a matter of considerably less consequence, although important enough in itself, as we shall see.
Drastic Licensing Proposals.
Taking first of all, then, that which is more important, it is recommended that the licence to operate a motor goods vehicle must be obtained by all users, whether hauliers or not. Only the haulier may need a supplementary one, without which he may not carry the goods of others for reward.
Briefly, grant of the first licence is made contingent upon the payment of reasonable wages to employees, and the observance•of proper conditions of service, hours of labour, and so forth.
Every user of a motor goods vehicle must obtain a licence of that description before he can operate at all. He must also give an undertaking that the vehicles employed under the licence are and will be maintained in a proper condition of fitness. There is no recommendation that vehicles shall, as a matter of course, be subject to an official inspection before the licence is granted. Regular inspection after the licence is issued is not suggested either, but the vehicle must be available for inspection on demand. If it be then discovered unfit the licence may at once be suspended.
Is the Service Necessary ?
Only in the case of a haulier does any question arise as to the number of vehicles to be licensed, and in considering whether a licence may be granted or not, the licensing authority shall consider whether there be any excess in the existing transport facilities of the kind which the applicant proposes to provide and whether there be any actual or prospective congestion or overloading of the roads.
There are other conditions, but the foregoing are all that matter at the moment. They are, as will readily be realized, similar in form to those governing the issue of licences for passenger services. According to the present intentions of the Conference there is no idea of interpreting them so stringently, but clearly the Conference will have no control over that, or any actual voice or influence in the framing of the regulations which will ensue from this Report.
However, what I must do is endeavour to show how these conditions will affect hauliers, assuming them to pass into law more or less as they are set out in the report.
541) On the whole, I think my readers will agree that, so far as this part of the report is concerned, there are no surprises. Some form of licensing was expected, and the conditions indicated are certainly no more than was expected. Indeed, nearly all fair-minded and level-headed hauliers will be inclined to agree that they are, in the main and in principle, desirable. They will welcome the proposed restriction on the employment of ancillary users' vehicles for haulage. That use, which has grown rapidly of late,, is a considerable contributory cause of rate-cutting.
Actually the restrictions suggested in the report are somewhat vague and may need strengthening if they are to be effective. The insistence that the ancillary user, as well as the haulier, must comply with the • same conditions as regards wages, hours of employment and fitness of vehicle is welcomed too, as tending to put all parties on the same footing.
The condition that vehicles must be fit for use is one which well-meaning and properly equipped hauliers have always desired. They will learn with equal pleasure that it is backed by another which stipulates that the vehicle should not be overloaded.
Comprehensive Records May be Necessary.
In order that neither these things nor the clauses governing hours of labour may be ignored, it is anticipated that both hauliers and ancillary users will have to keep records of journeys, loads and times so that a proper check can be kept on these matters.
All these things must have a tendency to eliminate the inefficient haulier as well as to deprive him of his most powerful aids to rate-cutting. It is chiefly by overloading, by working his drivers long hours, and by neglecting his vehicles and allowing them to become unfit for use, that the rate-cutter survives so long as he does. So far then, as the conditions of the licences to use motor goods vehicles are concerned, hauliers generally are likely to benefit from their operation.
When we come to discuss the matter of licensing hauliers to act as such, however, we tread very different ground. Questions of hours, wages, fitness of vehicle and of overloading are all, as near as may be, matters of fact. The determination of the need for a particular service, however, is more likely to turn on a matter of opinion, and opinions are apt to differ. It is there that the haulier is liable to suffer. It is true that the suggested machinery for dealing with requests for licences is less cumbersome than that which operates in respect of licences for passenger services, and that the Conference' is insistent on the need for cheap facilities for appeals.
Licensing Authority to be "Local."
It still remains that the licensing authority is to be "local," and, therefore, hardly in a position to judge of the need for a long-distance haulage service. On the other hand, it is sincerely to be hoped that an applicant for a licence for a long-distance service will not have to seek the.' backing" of all these local authorities through the districts of which he may wish to pass, or even of those which control an area in which
he may occasionally desire to pick up or set down a load.
In my opinion, hauliers should endeavour to have this part of the scheme deleted, on the plea that the conditions of licensing will automatically operate to deter most undesirables from entering the haulage industry, thus effecting the very diminution of services which the Conference aims at achieving.
These new rates are going to add to the difficulties of those hauliers who must•begin their careers on small capital. It is well known that the greatest prospects of success are present when the haulier purchases the larger types of machines. •
Terrific Burden on New Hauliers.
"Under the threatened new scale of taxation he will have to find £550 in the first three years of his business life, on account of licence duty alone. That amount, added to the £1,500 first cost of his vehicle, spread over the same period of three years, is likely to make all the difference between potential success and failure.
Larger hauliers may regard this effect with some favour, as tending to militate against the too-easy entry of small-capital competitors. The more broadminded will recall that they themselves started in that way, that all small hauliers are not rate cutters, and that a steady influx of new blood is essential to the continued existence of any industry, and will regret accordingly.
How the increases in taxation will affect the operating costs of the various sizes of vehicle may be judged by the following figures:—
The 3-tonner is the smallest to be seriously affected. The tax on that, assuming its unladen weight to be in excess of three tons but less than four tons, will be increased by £16 per annum (£38 to £54), and that is equivalent to an addition of 77d. per week to the standing charges. Other increases are: For the 4-tonner and 5-tonner, £30 annually, or 144d. per week ; 6-tonner £60 per annum, or 288d, per week ; 7-tonner :£77 per annum, or 370d. per week; 8-tonner, £103 per annum or 405d. per week and a 10-11-tonner six-wheeler, weighing just over 8 tons unladen, £135 per annum, or 648th per week.
Corresponding figures for the increases in taxation of oil-engined vehicles are: Three-tonner, £66 and 317d.; 4-tonner and 5-tonner, £01 and 437d.; 6-tonner, i".140 and 672d.; 7-tonner, £166 and 797d.; 8-tonner, £197.and 9464., and 10-11-tonner, £234 and 1,123d. (In all cases the first figure gives the increase in the annual tax, quoted in pounds sterling; the second figure gives the equivalent increase in the standing charges quoted in pence per week.)
Most steam wagons will pay an increase of £101 per annum, or 485d. per week, but six-wheeled steamer owners will have to find an additional £112 per annum or 538th per week.
The increase in the tax on trailers amounts to £10 per annum, or 48d. per week.
Most hauliers will like to see how these increases affect the cost per mile. As an example I will take an 8-tonner.
Petrol-engined vehicles of that capacity will have to bear an increase in licence duty of £103 per annum, or 495th per week (say 500d.). That is equivalent to an increase of no less than 5d. per mile on a 100-mile week, 24d. per mile on a 200-mile week, lid. on 400 miles, id. on 800 miles and just one ball-penny on 1,000 miles.
An oil-engined 8-tonner has to stand an increase of £197 per annum, or 946d. per week. To all intents and purposes that is double the increase borne by petrolengined chassis, and the cost per mile is increased accordingly. The alteration still leaves the newer type of vehicle with a considerable margin of economy, as compared with the petrol-engined chassis.
The steam-wagon increase is about the same as the petrol, considered in terms of mileage.
• Oppressing the Small Man.
On some future occasion, when the prospects of actual application of the tax become more imminent, a more detailed examination of these figures and of the way in which they affect mileage, tonnage and time rates, will be made.
One thing is clear ; the haulier with the heavier types of lorry, whose business is such that the weekly mileage is comparatively small, will find the increased taxation particularly oppressive. He will view the statement in the report, that individual vehicles which do less than the average of their class will "lose," as an example of indifference to their unfortunate circumstances, which is strongly to be deprecated.
An examination of the foregoing figures of cost per mile would seem to demonstrate that the clever calculations of those responsible for the formula on which the schedule of taxation is based, might well have been modified so that vehicles of low mileage would have been more fairly treated. I hope that aspect of the matter will have consideration at the hands of the Minister and, meantime, recommend all those who are directly concerned in the matter to make their views known.