1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Successful Protests
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONE after another, the representatives of trade and industry have lodged protests against the decision of the Road Haulage Executive some months ago not to renew about half of the 11,000 original permits first granted at the beginning of 1950. The effect of the protests has been uneven, but it seems certain that the agricultural haulier has been more successful than his fellows inhis demand for reconsideration.
He has had the wholehearted support of the National Farmers Union, both locally and nationally. The arguments were familiar. They had all been put forward when the proposal to. nationalize road transport was first made known, but gained added force when farmers were able to show that the R.H.E. • had caused their fears to come true.
On the Doorstep
The country haulier lives the same sort of life as his customers. More often than not, he farms a bit of land himself. He is on call from the early hours of the morning until late at night. He is on the customers' doorstep, and knows their requirements almost as well as they do. . The large national organization, however hard it may try, cannot rival the personal service of the local haulier. It tends to group vehicles in a limited number of depots, so that the farmer no longer has the feeling that the lorry and the driver he wants are always waiting just round the corner. Such little services as the storage and supply of empty bags, crates and so on, seem to he outside the power of the R.H.E.
The nationalized concern seems conscious of its own limitations In a review of the permit position, Lord Hurcomb has admitted that the R.H.E. had agreed in principle to renew the permits of certain agricultural. hauliers, "where there is reasonable doubt whether at this stage the Executive can provide the kind of service which the farmers require." Which is as near to a confession of failure as one is ever likely to get from the Ivory Tower. .
The R.H.E. has acquired the businesses of many hauliers who formerly carried for farmers. It cannot therefore keep out of the agricultural side of transport. It seems content for the time being to carry on without much change, not seeking too strongly, as it has done in other fields, to play a predominant part.
Live-and-let-live This attitude of live-and-let-live may be deceiving. Even the carriers of livestock—an excluded traffic not subject to the 25-mile limit—suspect plans by the R.H.E. to take control of the allocation of traffic. One is bound to say that there is so far little evidence of this. The Meat Transport Organization has complete confidence in the free-enterprise hauliers, and for the most part those employees of the R.H.E. who hold the key position of collecting-centre foremen did so before nationalization. Farmers and hauliers, however, are wise to keep a close watch upon the R.H.E., which has a habit of organizing commOdities and districts in such a way as to exclude all other road carriers.
It May be, significant that the British Transport Commission has chosen the predominantly agricultural area of East Anglia for an experiment in integration, and has appointed an area freight superintendent for the combined road and rail commercial services. Although the arrangements allow the customer to specify which method of transport he requires, the scheme must fill with foreboding many farmers who maintain a preference for a simple, straightforward system, particularly for perishable fruit and vegetables.
Transport planning is not altogether unknown to the farmer. He has his own marketing boards which aim to regulate the distribution of the goods he produces. The Milk Marketing Board, for example, claims that it has completely rationalized the transport of milk from farm to depot. The scheme is carried out, however, by the independent operators, who have always done the work. Rates are fixed in accordance with a formula devised by the Board, and their revision in individual cases is discussed by a committee on which the Board and the hauliers are both represented. The carriers are left to work economically and efficiently within the terms that the Board lays down.
Organize the Farmer
There are many people, mostly outside the agricultural community, who would like to organize the farmer for his own good. The committee which, under the chairmanship of Lord Lucas, reviewed the working of the Agricultural Marketing Acts, recommended that the marketing boards of the future should no longer be the representatives of the producers but should be commodity commissions on the lines of the Coal Board and the Gas Boards.
The committee also felt that the farmer's transport arrangements could be improved for him. Collection from farms, the really arduous part of the task, might still be left to individual hauliers, who would no doubt muddle along as they have done in the past, under the benevolent eye of the appropriate board or commission. For wholesale and retail distribution, the committee suggested that the commodity commissions should operate their own fleets of vehicles, or use the B.T.C. These recommendations were made, of course, before farmers had had first-hand experience of the sort of service the B.T.C. provides.
Practical View As with most of his other activities, the farmer takes an essentially practical view of the transport problem. He must accept the existence of the R.H.E., but is anxious that it should not become a monopoly and that the efficiency of the independent haulier should not be impaired merely in the interests of the B.T.C.
Competition among hauliers has always been keen. The farmer wants the spur of competition to be applied also to the R.H.E. This can be done only if hauliers are freed from the objectionable permit system. To the farmer it seems absurd that his goods may be carried by an independent operator to a town 20 miles away, but not to another town 10 miles further on. It seenis even more absurd that the haulier should be allowed to take a load of lime beyond the 25-mile limit, but not to bring back the straw his local customers need.
To the farmer, the solution is the abolition of the permit system. He made some useful gains in this direction a few months ago when the R.H.E. had second thoughts about revoking a number of original permits. He should keep up the pressure, realizing that a sound, competitive system of transport is essential.