hat YOU Think
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Haulage on the scrap heap?
VOLIA request for letters of opinion on the proposed confiscation of hauliers' livelihood is most welcome and I am sure that all hauliers should express their concern and disgust.
As an industry, road haulage has been battered from all sides for over 30 years. It has been criticized for dangerous vehicles (most of them are not), for obstructing the roads (they pay heavily for their Road Fund licences) and for every possible thing that politicians can blame them for, to excuse the lack of new roads and a consistent road policy. The Road Fund licence money has always been diverted from being used for road building and planning. This has indirectly subsidized the railways, this year alone to the tune of £130m.
The RHA and TRTA are being manipulated by Mrs. Castle; she even has meetings with each on different days, Now is the time for the RHA and TRTA to work together in pressing our case against the proposed regulations. After all, both are being treated by the Minister as one industry, with the same law for the C licence operator • as A and B licence hauliers.
Our Preas relations are appalling: we see nothing from our newsPapers; even the so-called "class" papers print misleading wrong articles, which are refuted a week later in a small paragraph at the bottom of a page where nobody outside the industry takes notice of it.
The industry, because it is so fragmental, has no clear voice of Opinidn, unless a major disaster such as nationalization is hung over its head. Many members are not interested in even attending RHA meetings. This. I feel, is surely the fault of the far-off and distant RHA and a lack of personal relations with the very small operators who are members.
Members of our industry must act now to safeguard themselves; it will be too late when the law has been passed. Every member 'Sbould express his disgust and horror that the industry should be , driven out of business to force traffic on to the Railways, which are consistently losing money, have persistent strike action, and have an attitude of "tomorrow will do". To argue with the Railways that their costs are the same as a haulier would be an impossibility unless the haulier himself is losing money.
=raking the proposals one at a time:
1. Freeing from carriers licence goods vehicles under 30 cwt uithiden weight: The figure of 900,000 vehicles will be increased at an alarming rate to carry goods which in all probability would travel at a far less cost on a heavier vehicle. We will become a nation a small-vehicle operators, and even these small vehicles will not be Safe, as the manufacturers are now producing at a few hundredweight over 30cwt.
2. Quality licensing: This, we all seem to agree, will be a good innovation to improve maintenance and operating standards.
. Agreeing that maintenance standards should improve, why agree to a form of means test to assess the financial resources of an operator; surely the Socialists are against means tests in everything given away by the State? Why not have a means test for British Railways—are their financial resources enough, and have they (I quote) "sufficient business in prospect to maintain reasonable financial stability"?
3. Quantity controls: This is the most shattering, proposal. It is nothing short of confiscation without any form of compensation. It sh•O+Ars us once again that to trust the Minister and the Railways Board by co-operation is futile and suicidal. We must see clearly that quantity control is taking the choice away from our customers. Once the haulier loses his licences, unless he is very long-suffering he will hot return to an industry dominated by politics and railwayprejudiced government, We as an industry have never taken action which has been harmful to the country as a whole, but our case must be brought home forcibly, and I suggest that either we all unite, in say, a one-week .stoppage of all vehicles, or a protest drive through all the big cities in the country, displaying signs that we are being driven out of .business to subsidize a railway that only a minority use. The industry must wake up and act now. Let us all speak out unitedly as one industry. Let us protest to all and sundry; let the people of this country know what is being done to free enterprise. Let us protest now, publicly and forcefully in any way we can. Let us all write to our trade associations, trade papers, our Members of Parliament and the Minister herself. Let us organize meetings, inviting the Conservative Shadow Minister to speak to us and to express our feelings to him. Let us inform our own drivers that their own living is at stake and the unions should protest, as we are.
Let our campaign have a slogan. I suggest "NO CONFISCATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION".
That will rattle the corridors of the Transport Ministery.
J. J. MASTERS, E. J. Masters Ltd., Kings Langley, Herts.
A flood of new capacity on the market THE existing carriers' licence system. (Road and Rail Traffic Act
1933) would still have been a good method to regulate competition within the road haulage industry and also to control a reasonable good balance of traffics between road and rail had the 1933 statute, particularly in regard to B licences, been strictly adhered to. This Act clearly defines that a B licence or limited carrier's licence is primarily intended to meet the case of a person who wishes to use the same vehicles not only for the carriage of goods for hire and reward but also in connection with some other business carried on by him. A particular example is the coal/firewood merchant having plenty of work in connection with his own business during the winter season, but vehicle availability during the summer period— and similarly there are many other own-account operators whose main business fluctuates with seasons.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the whole Act fell apart when Licensing Authorities and Transport Tribunals misconstrued the proposal of the Act in regard to B licences and many years ago started granting B licences to road hauliers whose entire business was road haulage and we have now reached a stage where some B-licence operators are operating as haulage contractors under better terms of normal user than an A-licensee where the origin of the licence was "claimed tonnage" or "Special A".
One obviously has no complaint with any regulation to improve the maintenance of vehicles and operating standards. I am somewhat concerned at the Minister's intention to free every vehicle not exceeding 30cwt of the need to possess a carrier's licence, I would have thought that a more logical unladen weight would have been in the region of 10cwt, because a vehicle of 30cwt (depending on the plating and braking regulations) could well have a payload of 40/60cwt and if one thinks of this in terms of "smalls" there are going to be added some 900,000 potential parcel carriers to what there are today.
With regard to a limited form of quantity control for about 30,000 own-account vehicles over 5 tons unladen weight: if one assumes that these vehicles always load out with their own goods and apply for return loads to base only, an additional carrying capacity of approximately 35,000 tons is thrown onto the market of existing public hauliers. Already there are too many vehicles chasing too little traffic in many areas. In my opinion, the new type of carriers' licence should be granted automatically to operators of many years' standing and with good records, taking into account the many regulations which a haulier has to contend with and also the size of a particular fleet.
In regard to the proposal that a traffic manager should be licensed there must be some machinery instituted for the traffic manager to protect himself if it is held that he has done something which could affect his licence. Furthermore, a transport manager of several years' proved standing should automatically be granted a licence as a right. Over recent years the road transport industry has become greatly complicated and whilst there are some operators who flout the law, there are some who are just as concerned to comply with it but the pitfalls are so numerous that it is so easy for one to make a mistake in day to day business. How does an operator with a tramp fleet know where his next destination is going to be? He may only find this out the next time the telephone rings.
If all traffics travelling over a 100 miles are to be subjected to the discretion of the NFO it is not made clear, except for Freightliner cargo, what will be the official procedure with, say, 1,2,3.4,5-ton lots and so on. It is early as yet to anticipate how the new proposals would work. The Labour party said they would never renationalize road transport, and reading between the lines of the Minister's proposals, this is certainly correct. They intend to confiscate the private sector of the road haulage industry, or certainly most of it.
T. W. JACKSON, Managing director, Key Warehousing and Transport Co. Ltd., Hull.
'Another Great Train Robbery' T HE industry welcomes your outspoken criticism of Mrs. Castle's proposals and your invitation to answer the question: "What do you think?"
So, very briefly, Mrs. Castle is most ignorant of what she is most assured. Moreover, her proposals to prostitute the road haulage industry to rail are a crime against society, an injustice to us and to our drivers.
This country deserves something better: give your support to Mr. Peter Walker.
J. A. KIRBY, Chairman, Federated Road Transport Services Ltd., Leicester.
Substantial backloading of hired vehicles would affect charges ADDED to the already increasingly stringent maintenance standards 1-1 required for commercial vehicles. I suggest that these new licensing proposals, if enacted, will have a substantial effect on the pattern of traders' transport. More and more company directors and some C-licence managers, at least, will be forced to the realization that transport operation is a professional man's job better left to the experts.
From the contract hire specialist's point of view there could be divergent opinions as to the ultimate effect of these proposals. It could be argued that if present traders already operating their own transport with hired vehicles were allowed to backload, then obviously the hire charges they paid would be covered by increased revenue so that the pressure on profit margins, which is the current malaise throughout industry, would not be quite so severe for the hirer.
In contrast, however, if a variety of types of traffic were backloaded the additional wear and tear on vehicles would be to the disadvantage of the hirer who until now has had substantial control of his vehicles by virtue of them being one-way loaded by his trader customers, Obviously, in the event of substantial backloading a complete review would be necessary of hire charging.
Regarding the -quality" proposal I have every support for any measure which would raise the status of both the road transport industry and the men who run it. But I consider that such an improvement should come from within the industry rather than by statutory edict from outside. If the latter were to be made effective, how would one determine whether a transport manager with engineering qualifications was not better fitted to his particular job than one with traffic qualifications, even though in an alternative job the reverse might be true.
With the best intentions and the best maintenance system it was possible to devise, there would inevitably be the exceptions which slip through the net. A transport manager with hundreds of vehicles under his control could never find the time to inspect personally every vehicle to ensure that it was in roadworthy condition before going into operation every day of the working year. It is therefore totally unjustifiable to insist that he should lose his "licence" and, therefore, his livelihood if through negligence elsewhere a vehicle is involved in a serious accident. Road safety must be everyone's concern. But victimization is no contribution to a solution of the nation's road accident problem.
CONTRACT HIRE SPECIALIST, London.
A6. Not a slow death after all! p-44y.
HAVING studied Mrs. Castle's licensing proposals, we are hardly pos reassured by her statement that there will be no renationaliza7. tion. Not satisfied with the Government trying to bleed us to death with financial measures, it would appear that Mrs. Castle is becoming impatient and is going to club us to death with legislation instead. J. W. BARROW, J. W, Barrow Ltd., Northwich, Cheshire.
Now we know about 'Quantity' and 'Quality' AT long last we now know the Minister's intentions as regards
licensing and her proposals are, to say the least, clear and able to be understood. The voices are now being raised and cries of "bankruptcy", "suicide" and "stupidity" are being heard, but one thing is abundantly clear: all the guessing of the past months has been eliminated and everyone in transport knows the "way ahead".
What of the proposals?
(a) 900,000 goods vehicles below 30cwt unladen weight cleared of the burden of licensing and reeords. Excellent.
(b) For 600,000 goods vehicles a strict enforcement of the new maintenance and operating standards. Excellent.
(c) For 70,000 goods vehicles (approximately 50 per cent haulage and 50 per cent own account) a special licence needed if the vehicle is over 5 tons unladen weight and operates over a distance of 100 miles from home base.
This last proposal is the one which has caused the most argument. As a C operator who will now have to apply for a licence I have no criticism—the main task I perform for my company is to carry its goods "economically, safely, and by the fastest method" to the customer. This is exactly what my case must be if I have to apply for a quantity licence—if the Freightliner operation can do this better than my own transport then I would be letting my company down if did not use this means of transport. This has been the case for the C-licensee for many years: we still feel that on certain routes—yes, routes longer than 100 miles own-account transport can beat the railway. All right, let us now get on with it, prove our case, get our licences, re-organize to Freightliner operation if more economical— and get down to good transport planning.
A good future lies ahead for transport, and for all the people engaged in the industry—now that we know the "rules" let us all have a go at making them work.
F. H. WOODWARD, ACS, Amt-ra,
Manager, transport services, The Plessey Co. Ltd.
A prop the railways should not need KA RS. BARBARA CASTLE'S ideas are basically nothing new. "I That is, they are for the strangulation of a thriving industry and the direction of its business to British Railways.
To suggest quantity and quality control under the guise of aiming at increased road safety is in itself a farce. The 5-ton unladen weight for quantity control must have been very carefully chosen: it is, as has been explained, the backbone of the industry, the majority of vehicles lying between 4 tons 5cwt. and 5 tons 5cwt. Recent developments by the manufacturers have led the Licensing Authorities to be lenient on applications where new vehicles have to be purchased, e.g., old vehicle, unladen weight 4 tons 5cwt.: new model, 5 tons to 5 tons 5cwt. Applications for increased weight on licensing are automatically granted. Mrs. Castle's new proposals are about to cancel this out, so what are the manufacturers going to do? Obviously they are going to try to reduce the weight. But to try to get it below a certain minimum means skimping—which could mean reduced safety. Only one other way is left—lighter body construction. The way is left open to manufacturers of alloy bodies, and also to the research departments of plastics firms to try and combat this government farce.
LAWRENCE WI LSO N, AIRTE (service m a nag er), Salford, Lancs.