. . the road operator may be
Page 73
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
wondering what he is supposed WRITES
to do'
These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling And took their wages and are dead.
pALAFONTOLOGISTS often have no more evidence than a single bone from which to reconstruct the life and likeness of an extinct creature. The same kind of problem confronts the road operator who looks to the debate on transport at the Labour Party conference for an indication of what is likely to happen to him should the party return to power. All the party's transport specialists took part in the discussion, but the need to paper over any disagreements on policy apparently proved more powerful than the desire to impart information.
Partly responsible may have been the resolution which was the focus of the debate. It suggested that the Government should do nothing, particularly in following up the Beeching plan, until a survey had been made of the whole of transport. Such a formula could conveniently be combined with criticisms of the piecemeal Reeching approach, of the profit motive as a basis for the provision of transport, and of Conservative policy in general. At the same time the party spokesmen seemed to feel that the demand for an inquiry freed them from any obligation to say what they would do in the meantime.
Hints that had been dropped in the Press and elsewhere may have led the road operator to expect from the conference the confirmation or assuagement of his fears on a number of specific points. Was it true that the trader would have to pay a special tax for the right to run his own vehicles? Would British Road Services be encouraged or compelled to take over independent road haulage businesses? If so, on what basis would the businesses be chosen and what compensation would be paid? These may have been selfish questions, but it was natural for both the haulier and the trader to ask them.
NOT MANY ANSWERS Reports from the conference do not supply many of the answers. One or two of the minor prophets thundered against the iniquities of existing operators, more especially those with C licences, and hinted darkly of the wrath to come. For the rest, the general impression left was that transport ought to be regarded as a social service. If possible, it should be made to pay as a whole, but vulgarly competitive considerations were out of place. The nation wanted modernized railways, up-to-date docks and a comprehensive road system, and the nation must have these things.
From one point of view, the road operator may be relieved that the Labour Party for the most part were content with generalizations and made no rash promises or bloodcurdling threats. While the Socialists arc uncommitted there is still room for the argument that would be inevitable if they won the next general election. All the same, it is a natural human failing to want to know, even if it is to know the worst, and the operator may be excused for continuing to look for clues in what was said at Scarborough. Almost the only clue, in fact, was that supplied by Mr. Ray Gunter, M.P., speaking for the party's national executive. He said that under a Labour Government the public sector of road haulage would have to be greatly enlarged. B.R.S. must be allowed to expand and must be released from the obligation to apply to a Licensing Authority every time they wished to extend their operations. Here indeed is a clue, but it is almost as obscure as the antiquarian's fossilized bone.
So far as one can tell, B.R.S. de not find their licensing obligations oppressively irksome. Where they are reorganizing their fleet, or transferring vehicles from one traffic area to another, their normal practice is to explain their intentions to hauliers through the medium of the Road Haulage Association and by this means avoid most of the objections which they might otherwise receive. Applications for extra vehicles are, of course, opposed; but they have not been frequent. In view of the nation-wide B.R.S. network. it is hard to imagine they would have much difficulty in securing all the licence variations they need.
THE INFERENCE The inference from Mr. Gunter's proposal is that the wisdom and experience of the Licensing Authorities in balancing transport demands with the public interest may be adequate so far as concerns road haulage in general, but fall short of what is required to judge applications from the nationalized undertaking. As one may assume that this is not what Mr. Gunter meant, the alternative inference is that the freeing of B.R.S. from restraint would be counterbalanced by unspecified restrictions on independent operators.
Whatever the precise intention, it is to be carried out .sorne time in the future, after the promised survey which apparently will have no effect on the predetermined policy of the Labour Party. Not for the first time the road operator may be wondering what he is supposed to do. For him there may be a minor role or no place at all in the transport industry of the Socialist future. In the meantime he will continue providing a service and no doubt will continue to make a profit, but insults or indifference, rather than gratitude, will be his ultimate reward.
An interesting variation on this theme was recently provided by Mr. Arthur Carr, a former Socialist parliamentary candidate, sitting on the panel of an Aims of Industry brains trust. He admitted that he could not understand why the Labour Party should want to renationalize road haulage, but continued: "When the Labour Party has the courage to be Socialist, nationalize all the major industries and introduce a Socialist system fair to everybody, I would have no compunction in not worrying one iota about road haulage".
Mr. Carr will also be a member of the brains trust which is to have a session at the R.I-LA. conference in Brighton on October 22. Hauliers will have a good opportunity on that occasion to probe further into a mental approach that can admit to a high standard of efficiency in an industry but nevertheless argue in favour of liquidating it.