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 
. . there is a periodical need for hauliers to reassure themselves of their own existence'
Page 89
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MOST organizations have a coherent policy which they would be prepared to set out at length if the appropriate challenge came. Not many of them have an inner compulsion to re-formulate their policy every few years without outside prompting. The reasons for this unusual behaviour on the part of the Road Haulage Association throw a useful light on what the Association means to its members and what they feel about themselves.
It is not mere egotism which leads to a public parade of principles. The R.H.A. represents the vital business interest of its members. Without road transport most of them would not exist. This is not true, for example, of the C licence holder, for whom the use of his own vehicles, although valuable and worth defending nationally and individually, is still an adjunct of his main undertaking, which would be harmed but not destroyed if the C licence were taken away.
There is a well-defined road haulage industry for which the R.H.A. provides an accurate diagram. This was not always the case. Up to the end of the war there were several organizations with a variety of structures and some divergencies of policy. Their amalgamation had to wait until the differences were ironed out and this in turn involved setting down the agreements which had been reached. Many of the points were of major importance to the livelihood of members and had to be re-affirmed or brought up to date at intervals.
AGREEMENT TO DIFFER
Agreement to differ is the best that can be achieved on many issues. Although co-operation with the railways and British Road Services is generally accepted as desirable and even inevitable, not every haulier believes it should take the form laid down in the new policy statement. There are shades of opinion about the suggestion of a comprehensive national body to deal with all negotiations between hauliers and their employees, and to include B.R.S. The chapter on licensing, which repeats the evidence put forward by the R.H.A. to the Geddes Committee, contains many proposals which have been the subject of strong argument.
The extent to which the association should participate in the business activities of its members was the subject of the main resolution at last year's conference. It was agreed on that occasion that the possibility of fostering co-operation among members in a number of different ways, including the formation of groups, was worth consideration by the association. The subject is being given further study which may ultimately produce new proposals. Their acceptance could mean substantial changes in the association's published policy, which in its present form hardly deals at all with internal co-operation.
POLICY PATTERN NEEDED
In view of this it might be supposed that the new statement would have been deferred until the discussion initiated last year had run its course and crystallized out in a decision at national level. Publication at the present time suggests that there is a periodical need for hauliers to reassure themselves of their own existence. This they can best do by setting down their aims and objects, by arranging their policy into a pattern in which they can recognize their undertakings as well as their industry.
This must be particularly important during an election year. The profound shock administered by the Transport Act of 1947 can be too easily minimized by those people who did not directly experience it. Several hundred businesses which seemed securely established for as long as one cared to look ahead were extinguished almost at one blow, It was as though they had never been. Although there were one or two exceptions, this was the typical case.
THE RELICS
The curious student who wished to reconstruct one of these businesses would be hard put to it to find the relics. The depots might still exist, but probably in many different hands. There might be one partner who had made his career with B.R.S.; another who had bought a transport unit after the Transport Act of 1953 and started a completely new business; a third who had gone into another industry or emigrated. The customers would long since have made other arrangements and their memory of what happened 15 years ago would be growing dim.
The haulier cannot forget so easily. He may not be fully conscious of it all the time, but he must have a feeling of insecurity which is intensified when there is a possibility that the same political party that dismembered the road haulage industry after the war may be returned to power with the intention of doing very much the same thing again. It is at least an encouragement to the haulier to be reminded that he is not drifting without scope or purpose but has before him a clear-cut policy acceptable to the public and in tune with recent developments.
NOT AN ELECTIONEERING PAMPHLET
In spite of all this, the policy statement is not an electioneering pamphlet. It reiterates the belief in free enterprise and in the shortcomings of nationalization. This would have happened at whatever time the document was issued. There is no attempt to concentrate on the political issue, no determined wooing of the public, of trade and industry or of the road haulage worker, no suggestion that support might be forthcoming from the haulier's nationalized competitors. The main emphasis is on what should be done in the interests of the haulier to enable him to provide a better service.
Because he sees the danger of being swept away by outside forces, the haulier is all the more anxious to have his own point of view clarified. Perhaps he hears too much about what should be done to him or what he ought to do. It is time for him to say clearly what decisions he himself would like to see made. He will welcome a framework within which he can identify himself, and a foundation on which to build a proper relationship with the public, with his competitors, with his customers, with his employees and even with the politicians.