JANUS
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WRITES
The trader can best preserve his own freedom by protecting that of hauliers'
0 PPOSITION to the nationalization of road transport is gaining momentum as the General Election approaches. For the most part the interests con
cerned are moving along parallel lines. This has the advantage of showing the variety of the objections but there is also the drawback that united action cannot easily be taken at the point where it is likely to have the most effect. Although this does not matter greatly at the moment there may be good reasons later for an attempt to draw the different threads together and see what pattern is produced. So far the hauliers have made most of the running, as might be expected. They are most directly and immediately affected on the last occasion. The vagueness and ambiguity of recent statements from the Labour party make it difficult to define their policy more precisely than one of denationalization which taken literally would mean the liquidation of a number of road haulage businesses and mileage restrictions on many of the remainder. Until both threats are removed continuous objections are the natural business reaction of the road haulage industry.
The haulier has also the juggler's task of keeping several bails in the air simultaneously. His own policy requires careful explanation. He must reconcile a liking for competition with the desire for closer co-operation with his fellow operators and with the railways. He must reconcile the virtues of free enterprise with the lack of any apparent • pressure on his part for the further dismemberment of British Road Services. He must satisfy reasonable members of the public that his attacks on Socialist pronouncements and on the people who make them are not incidents in the party political game.
If the explanation sometimes raises difficulty, this is not for lack of soundness. Above all else the public require a transport service which is keen, economical and diversified. For this purpose there must be separate units, large and small, and there must be machinery for them to link up with each other on certain operations. Events appear to be moving towards the ideal more or less of their own accord. In this context the concentration of long-distance transport within one organization would be a step backward, with the added disadvantage that it would throw a large part of the road haulage industry once again into confusion.
C-LICENSEES ARMOURY
These are approximately the lines along which hauliers are preparing to do battle if necessary. The C licence holder is marshalling his defences on different ground. He has noted demands within the Labour party or within the trade unions that he should be asked to justify the use of his own vehicles, particularly for journeys beyond a certain distance. The threat is not an idle one. It was very nearly realized when the Transport Act of 1947 was passing through Parliament and was withdrawn only at a fairly late stage.
Like the haulier the C licence ,holder has a strong armoury. His case is also more straightforward. His transport arrangements are an essential part of his business c42 and there are no grounds for supposing that he runs them any less efficiently than the other departments. His reasons for choosing one form rather than another are best known to him and should not be set aside by an outside authority ignorant of the complete story. His freedom of choice must logically include freedom to use his own vehicles if he thinks fit.
One weakness is common to the case of the haulier and the C licence holder, although it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the ease. Both of them are in some danger of losing a business advantage and they would be bound to protest whatever the circumstances. The strength of their protest would gain immeasurably from outside support. lhis they are no doubt already seeking. It might help them if they considered at the same time the extent to which they ought to help each other. Would not their cause be strengthened if they stood together?
It is to the credit of the haulier that when necessary he has never failed to declare his belief in the right of his customers to carry their own goods. He has not joined in with the nationalized transport organizations who at times, although not recently, have inclined towards the opposite point of view. Once the belief is stated there is not much more to be said. No doubt if called upon hauliers would be willing to repeat themselves, in which case they might be pardoned for asking whether the C licence holder would be willing to make a similar declaration, on their behalf.
GIVING SUPPORT TO OTHERS
To some extent the opportunity has recently been taken to do this. Several bodies representing traders have given evidence to the Geddes Committee and for the most part have indicated obliquely if not directly their general satis faction with the present structure of road haulage. It would not be difficult or inconsistent for them to take the process a stage further if requested and say clearly that they believe the road haulage industry and its present system of ownership should be left alone.
This would be a wise as well as a natural move and the best possible safeguard for the C licence. Although much of the .policy of the Labour party remains in doubt it is reasonably certain that they would not interfere with the C licence in isolation. They would first set in train some plan for curbing the haulier and enlarging the scope of the nationalized sector. Once this was done they might well consider as the next.sten a restriction on the trader's right of choice and especially his right to choose his own transport. .
In this sense road haulage is a buffer between the C licence holder and State interference. The trader can best preserve his own freedom by protecting that of hauliers. It is in any case sound strategy for the whole of trade and indusiry, including C licence holders and hauliers, to work out a uniform policy for transport. It can surely sustain with advantage any comparison with a blanket policy of integration which can ultimately mean nothing more or less than a complete monopoly.