Charity and the Small Haulier
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'THE unsuccessful appeal of Duncan J. Hill, which was dismissed by the Tribunal recently, will have pleased the respondents, BR and the THC (BRS) and, I dare say, large operators in general. Despite the threat posed by the Geddes Committee report, large operators have not become noticeably more charitable towards their smaller brethren, and ambitious owner-drivers seeking to expand all too often meet with overwhelming resistance, if not at RRNC discussions, then in the traffic court.
Duncan Hill had been an operator for 10 years and he had been an A-licensed haulier, near Maryport, since 1960. On the evidence produced, the Tribunal may have been well justified in dismissing the appeal, though the president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, seems to have been impressed by Mr. Campbell-Wardlaw's pleas on behalf of Mr. Hill, Cold Comfort
"I would not like it to be thought that
the decision . .would in any way prejudice the appellant in his chances of success upon any subsequent application." That is something, at least, though I fear it will be cold comfort to the many thousands of small men whose ambitions are thwarted, sometimes a little unreasonably, by the big boys. (39.000 out of 46,000 operators have less than five vehicles.)
"It would be a dreadful thing if the
licensing system were to be operated in such a way that a man entering the haulage business with one vehicle was to be condemned for the rest of his working life to be a one-vehicle operator, but (and here I italicize) a one-vehicle man is in no better position than anybody else for getting an increase in his fleet."
One-vehicle Difficulties The one-vehicle operator does not expect to be in a better position than the larger operators for getting additional vehicles on his licence, but the difficulty such a haulier has in establishing a case for expansion should not be underestimated by anyone. Quite apart from the expense involved in adequately presenting his case, the one-vehicle man is likely to be fully employed for 60 hours or more a week; many such operators can ill-afford to spend a day in court.
Mr. Hill. having worked for 10 years with one vehicle, might reasonably expect to break through the barriers preventing a modest expansion. In other professions, 10 years on the ground floor breed's a powerful sense of frustration_ If the Aand B-licensed operators as a whole wish to preserve their unity in the face of the threat posed by the Geddes Report, a little charity towards the small operators seems indicated. Or is this the blackest heresy on my part?