Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Charged With Meaning
MAKING the best of what they consider a bad job, hauliers will now have to promote amendments to the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill, rather than hope to destroy it completely. Their first target is bound to be the figure of 7,750 "other motor vehicles," a figure that through constant repetition in an emotional context has become as charged with meaning as the year 1916 to an Irishman, or the sequence 36: 24: 36 to the student of female form.
Any reduction in the figure, between now and the date when the Bill becomes an Act, would be a big achievement. The Government seem very much attached to Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's inspired guess, and have even translated it into terms of unladen weight. The British Transport Commission have assumed that they will definitely be left with 7,750 general haulage vehicles, and have reorganized British Road Services on that basis. When it comes to an argument, only the Commission can really know their requirements for a trunk-service network, and it was upon their advice that Sir Malcolm originally thought of a number.
it has become a 'vested interest. While it remains in the Bill, the Government can at least claim sonic consistency, and give some explanation of what the Bill is supposed to do. Diminish the figure of 7,750 and the Bill become incomprehensible. It neither gives the Commission back something equivalent to the stake in the road haulage industry held by the old railway companies before nationalization, nor, according to Mr, J. A. Boyd-Carpenter's arithmetic, does it give the Commission enough vehicles for a national service.
One method of whittling down the effective fleet of the Commission is to contend that a proportion should not be licensed. The concept of "additional vehicles" has become familiar through the operation of the Transport Act, 1951, and there is no reason why it should not be extended to Clause 1 of the new Bill. Discussions have, in fact, already begun with the object of finding a suitable formula. The proportion cannot be as high as most hauliers would like. The maximum would be 10 per cent. and the minimum, perhaps, 5 per cent. The most likely figure for agreement will probably be midway between the two extremes.
Different Route
Criticism can be made of the provisions for the retention of special-type vehicles by the Commission. They are to have up to 325 vehicles constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads, with an unladen weight of 2,750 tons, and 989 other special vehicles weighing 3,330 tons. Except for a more definite provision for trailers in tli_ second category, this arrangement reaches much the same conclusion, by a different route, as the formula in the 1953 Act.
That formula was devised, however, to leave the Commission in total .five-fourths of the unladen weight of the vehicles formerly owned by the railways, and within each of the three categories the proportion was fixed at thirteen-tenths. The new Bill abandons any pretence of restoring the old situation. The future of the Pickfords organization should, therefore, be looked at afresh. Whatever his doubts about the popularity of more transport units on the lines of those in List S.4, the Minister of Transport .cannot sqggest that the Commis
sion's special-type vehicles would not find plenty of ready buyers.
An essential preliminary to some other changes in the Bill is a change of title. The Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill belies its name when it is concerned mainly with putting a stop to disposal. It also makes the issue sound too simple. The 1947 Act was not merely concerned with the acquisition of vehicles and other property. It provided, among other things, for the formation of the Commission, with some rather pompously defined duties, for the restriction of hauliers to a 25-mile radius, for the prosecution of passenger area schemes, and for the setting up of consultative committees and other bodies.
The 1953 Act did not merely stand the earlier measure on its head. It repealed some provisions and kept, or slightly modified, others. It introduced some important changes in the licensing system, in the structure of the Commission and in the organization of the railways, and amended the plans for a revised charges scheme so that the railways would have far greater freedom to compete by variations on a flexible system of rates.
Harshness Blunted
One of the principal reasons for allowing the railways this greater freedom was that the Commission womid no longer have anything approaching a monopoly of longdistance goods transport. Genuine competition would be restored. As part of the price, the railways would have to be allowed to discriminate among customers. To this extent at least, the harshness of the commoncarrier obligation would be blunted.
If, as the hauliers maintain, the Commission can use their still large road haulage fleet to keep down competition, the balance that the 1953 Act sought to restore will be tilted once more in the Commission's favour. Traders are just as anxious as hauliers on this point. By manipulation of rates, the railways can attract traffic to themselves, or repel it so that it is forced on to some other means for transport. With the help of British Road Services, they can drive hauliers out of business in certain areas.
Another potent weapon in the hands of the Commission is the licensing system. Hauliers are already complaining at the volume of B.R.S. applications in the traffic courts. So far the applications may not have met with as much success as the hauliers feared, but the Commission have ample resources to enable them to keep trying, and to change their plans if one kind of application does not produce the desired results. Hauliers soon grow tired of serving as objectors, whereas • their own applications meet the unvarying and indefatigable opposition of both arms of the Commission, as well as of fellow-hauliers.
Assuming that Clause 1 of the .new Bill must be accepted as inevitable, hauliers are entitled to ask Parliament to reconsider such matters as the railway merchandise scheme, and the licensing system as it appears to be developing at present. The opposition to the Bill from the Government side of the House of Commons may not be enough to defeat its provisions, but it can promote the addition of certain safeguards. There is no reason also why the Bill should not be made to deal with such questions as the inclusion of B.R.S in the wages machinery for the industry as a whole.