topic Behind the change of scene by Janus
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ON the surface the road transport industry appears to be sailing reasonably smoothly towards the point at which the Transport Act of 1968 will have run its full course. Whatever uneasiness there may be is kept out of sight. Although some investigations and probes have already begun, they are taking place behind the scenes, There is a reluctance to state the issues plainly.
Even without assistance they can be detected. Transition from the carefully charted system of A, B and C licences to a completely undifferentiated system of operators' licensing is bound to have some effect for good or for ill. In this respect at least the Geddes Committee was more candid and more accurate than the politicians.
They have been almost unanimous in their opinion that carriers' licensing performs no _useful function and that its abolition will cause no disturbance. The committee would agree with the first point but was less positive on the second.
Certainly there was some windowdressing. After the damage is done the report of the committee seeks to reassure "efficient and enterprising" operators that they "have nothing to fear, and indeed much to gain".
BUT this kind of talk follows the familiar principle of "heads I win, tails you lose". If operators go to the wall following the change of system, it implies they have only themselves to blame. They are ipso facto inefficient and unenterprising on no less an authority than that of the Geddes Committee. In an attempt to comfort, the report only emphasizes that there will be considerable losses as well as benefits to the road transport industry from the change of licensing.
If this were not so, the change would hardly be worth while. In summarizing its conclusiorii on carriers' licensing the report condemns it on three counts: it reduces efficiency; it tends to confer positions of privilege; and it tends to add to congestion on the roads. In the opinion of the committee, these undesirable effects will vanish with the system that has produced them. It would be surprising, however, if some damage were not caused in the process.
Whatever their personal view on this point, operators on own-account are content to take the Parliamentary view. Their own efficiency and enterprise do not enter into the question. They cannot be harmed by the grant of a new licence to carry whatever they please in exchange for the licence which has limited them to the carriage of their own goods.
Only the hauliers have found it necessary to think twice about what may happen. It is apparent that in many cases their second thoughts are no more palatable than the first. Too great an act of faith would have been required to accept that the change would make no difference or that generally speaking it would not be for the worse.
Presumably there would continue to be much the same proportion as before of traffic carried on own-account and for hire or reward. The main difference would be that some of the hire-or-reward traffic would be taken over by operators who under the old system would have been restricted to the carriage of their own goods. On this reading of the situation the hauliers could only be the losers.
However, there are other factors in the equation. The popular description of "quality licensing" is a constant reminder that, although the operator no longer has to justify his place in the transport pattern, he has what is often a harder task to persuade the Licensing Authority that he is a fit and proper person to be allowed to run lorries. Vehicle testing is a supplementary obstacle that he will meet once a year.
THE trend here may be the opposite to that arising from the abolition of carriers' licensing. The operators who choose to leave the industry or are compelled to do so because the standards are too high are mostly engaged in carrying their own traffic. Their livelihood is not at stake as it is with a haulier, and the ease with which they had previously been able to obtain a C licence may have tempted them to run vehicles that were not necessary to their business.
The net traffic gain to hauliers from this source may be found to counterbalance what has been lost with the passing of the privileges attached to the A and B licence. Hopes and fears of hauliers therefore tend to rise and fall. Some complaints have been made of the ease with which operators' licences are being graitted, especially to newcomers of whose fitness and propriety there is usually no evidence one way or the other.
On the other hand, a considerable • number of C-licence holders, and especially small operators, are quietly giving up running their own vehicles. Statistical evidence may not be available for some time, but individual cases are becoming known to keen hauliers who have lost no time in capturing the abandoned traffic.
Final judgement is still awaited therefore on the effect of the new legislation on th welfare of operators in general. It would h misleading to see the problem as merely see-saw between hauliers and operators o own-account. Implementation of the A( will reveal other trends that must h examined carefully.
0 PERATORS' licensing does n4 merely break down the barriei between the three previous] separate types of licence. Even the A-licen< holder was bound • fairly closely to h declaration of normal user. Now r applicant has to say what traffic t proposes to carry and his licence imposi no limit in this respect. There are bound I be more frequent changes than before in ti type of traffic carried and in the custome served.
This may affect the structure of ti industry as represented by the association Perhaps because the trader with specialized transport problem would loc first to his own trade association for het the Freight Transport Association has n4 found it necessary to pay too muc attention to this kind of problem, wherel within the Road Haulage Association thei are a dozen or so flourishing function, groups.
They aroused misgivings particularly i The early days of the industry. They wei regarded as a possibly disruptive elemei that could break a united industry into number of separate associations boun together at best in a loose federation. Feai of this kind, if they still exist, must diminis now that there is no longer a licensin laager within which hauliers of a certai kind of traffic can feel themselves seem from their fellow operators.
IN these circumstances operators as whole may think it less important tha before to seek advice and assistant from local ' sources. The accumulate experience of an association official or of consultant in one traffic gave him a specil value to operators in that area. Amon other things he knew from what quart( Objections were likely to come and to win applications his own clients ought to obje4 with a fair hope of success.
The only distinction between areas no may .lie in the temperament of Licensin Authorities. With the passage of time tt exercise of their discretion will becorr much the same all over the country. Ti need to obtain a separate licence in eac area where there is an operating depot wi also work towards a national pattern.
The greater uniformity and fluidity almost certain to have an effect on ti structure of the industry and on . ti associations that serve it. The are boundaries will become less important an may even dissolve, making way for a nc kind of system. Already there are sever: examples of members, usually with the hel of their association, setting up co--operath groups and units that take no regard ( fixed frontiers. It will be interesting to st how this movement develops.