Janus comments

13th September 1968, Page 198

13th September 1968

Page 198

Page 198, 13th September 1968 — Janus comments

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Pulling at loose threads

VULNERABLE POINTS in the Transport Bill may be detected by the haste with which its defenders rush to repair the slightest suspicion of a breach. Whatever the merits on commercial grounds for the proposed restriction on own-account transport the probability is that removal of the restriction would unravel the whole of that part of the Bill concerned with licensing.

During the debate on the committee stage in the House of Lords the Government spokesman, Lord Winterbottom, gave the impression at one point that after all the trader might be exempted from the need for a special authorization to carry his own traffic. He has told Lord Somers, who raised the subject, that there will not be a Government amendment to this effect when the report stage is reached early next month.

Lord Somers was not asking for complete exemption. He was concerned about transport wholly within a single firm and gave the example of the multiple store with branches all over the country. The expenses of such an organization would be enormously increased, he said, if in some cases it had to use rail transport and in other cases send its traffic by road

"Rational approach"

This struck Lord Winterbottom as "an entirely rational approach". He promised that it might be possible to give an assurance at the report stage. Other .members of the Houk of Lords interpreted this as a hope that after all the own-account operator would be allowed to keep his present freedom. Evidently they were being over-optimistic.

Lord Winterbottom, in his letter to Lord Somers, has gone over the familiar arguments in favour of the Bill as it now stands. He insists that it provides safeguards against the possibility -that the transport costs of a firm could be increased as a result of quantity licensing.

The criteria on which Licensing Authorities will decide disputed cases, he says. "are such that, if movement of goods by rail would be less beneficial (including in terms of cost) than movement by road, the traffic will not be diverted to rail by quantity licensing". It will also be open to Licensing Authorities to take into account "the total effect on all road transport services which an applicant wishes to operate to carry his own goods of the substitution of rail transport for some only of those services".

Reassurances in these terms are not particularly effective although Lord Winterbottom is carefully putting the matter in the best possible light. The obligation on a Licensing Authority to "take into account the total effect" applies only to cases where the pros and cons between road and rail are completely equally balanced. It might well happen that such cases are comparatively scarce. In any event the concession is not limited to transport on own-account. It will apply also to an application for a special authorization by a haulier.

Government anxiety to put the record straight is prompted by the danger that would arise to the gimcrack structure of the Bill from any substantial exclusion from

restriction. Within this context the curb on the C-licence holder is an essential provision.

The Government has brought the problem on itself by the policy of giving freedom with one hand and taking it away with the other. Quality licensing represents a great step forward along the Geddes line. The holder of an operator's licence will no longer be concerned about what traffic he may or may not carry. It will no longer matter whether the traffic is on own-account or for hire or reward.

Quantity licensing represents the negative to this positive. Within the field that it covers it makes possible far more severe restrictions than in the past and except to a very limited degree no longer concerns itself with the person for whom the goods are to be carried.

Good reasons why

From the strictly commercial point of view one can find good reasons why the distinction should be preserved—apart from the even better arguments against the whole concept of quantity licensing. From the legislative point of view, however, the trader on own-account cannot retain his freedom. It would distort and probably wreck the prosposed new licensing system.

The trader on own-account would be left in a more favourable position than the operator for hire or reward who had no business of his own apart from road transport. The trader would be no worse off than the haulier within the field where special authorizations were not needed. He could carry for other traders if it suited him.

If the freedom to carry his own goods were preserved in all respects his operator's licence would entitle him to travel beyond 100 miles and to take the bulk commodities for which special authorizations are required beyond distances of five miles— always provided that the traffic was his own.

He would not within this restricted field have the right to carry for other people even as a return load. But he would be entitled in the same way as any other carrier to apply for a special authorization which would enable him to do the extra work. He would immediately have a strong argument on the criterion of cost if the main purpose of his application was to save empty running.

The haulier would start with a handicap. Without traffic of his own to initiate a service he would be unable to enter the field of quantity licensing at all until he had obtained a special authorization. This might cover traffic in one direction only and the Licensing Authority would have power to impose other restrictions if he thought fit.

As under the present system the haulier would expect and would find it necessary for his customer to support an application. The customer would see the possibility for avoiding conflict by running his own vehicles.

Main difference This recourse is open to him at the present time. The main difference is that, although a C-licence is his for the asking, he does not find it easy. to obtain an Aor B-licence if he has ideas about the expansion of the transport side of his business. He will attract objections not only from the railways but from established hauliers and there are many cases on record to show that these objections can be effective.

Under the new system there will be only one type of licence. The trader with plans for launching into road haulage can make a beginning with traffic up to the limit of 100 miles. There is nothing to prevent him apart from the necessity to show that he has the proper facilities. If he can prove this in respect of his own traffic he is immediately entitled to carry for other people. Even the original proposal in the Bill that an operator's licence could be restricted to work on own-account has now been abandoned.

It would seem a natural extension for the trader to make the effort—and even go to some trouble—to extend the terms of his licence as widely as possible by means of special authorizations. There would be a rapid increase in the trend towards setting up satellite transport companies tied more or less closely to the parent company, meeting that company's transport requirements and at the same time making additional revenue from outside work.

There is nothing wrong in this. The unfortunate effect from the point of view of the Government is that it would destroy the whole purpose of Part V of the Bill. The traffic which the railways would most like to have, one suspects, is that carried by traders in their own lorries over long distances. Complete freedom for work on ownaccount would block the diversion of this traffic from road to rail.

Competition for special authorizations would be intensified and railway objections, to be effective, would have to be more brutal. The chairman of the Railways Board has more than once expressed the hope that this can be avoided. He is no doubt echoing the point of view of the Government which may be repenting that it ignored the wise advice of the Geddes Committee not to entangle relaxation of the licensing system with measures thought necessary to protect other forms of transport.