Janus comments
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
No play at Lords
IN CONTRAST with the somewhat leisurely progress in the House of Commons, where committee members sometimes seemed to be trying out every possible way of saying the same thing, the procedure during the committee stage of the Transport Bill in the House of Lords has been very concise and workmanlike. Without constituents breathing down their necks the Lords have been under no compulsion to speak unless they have a fresh point to make.
Government spokesmen have been less restrained than in the Lower House. Their comments have sounded less like the responses in a game demanding a word of so many letters and no other word. As a consequence they may sometimes have seemed to go further than they intended or than the Government would ultimately agree.
Lord Winterbottom is Parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works. For long stretches of the discussion on the Bill he has been the Government spokesman. It appeared to me that he was particularly vulnerable to reasonable suggestions from the Opposition on the more doubtful sections of the Bill. Perhaps he was inclined to give commonsense rather than "official" answers.
'Entirely rational'
Apparently this is what happened when Lord Somers expressed the opinion that a firm which met its transport requirements entirely from its own resources should be allowed to choose the form of transport it preferred. This seemed an "entirely rational approach." said Lord Winterbottom. He offered to be more specific on the point at the report stage.
Within a few minutes he had already become less specific after it was put to him that he was freeing the trader on ownaccount from the need to apply for special authorizations to carry his own goods. All he had meant to imply, said Lord Winterbottom, was that if the use of rail transport "added to the cost of transporting goods within an organization's own network of companies, then special authorizations would be granted for the fleet of vehicles".
His first reaction was interesting. From a rational point of view it must seem absurd that a large C-licence holder—Lord Somers gave Marks and Spencer as an example —should have to seek permission to continue with its present arrangements.
The procedure makes sense only within the context of the Bill. As one of the peers exclaimed indignantly, the exemption of large companies from quantity licensing would be unfair to the small man whose facilities were less inclusive. The haulier would also be penalized if he had to fight all the way for the special authorization which the large trader would not even need to hold.
Whether or not he exceeded his brief Lord Winterbottom performed a useful service in showing up the absurdities in the Government's proposal. The only possible principle to follow is that the trader must
have the freedom to choose the form of transport he prefers.
Although he may not always exercise it he has this freedom at present. He can run his own vehicles without hindrance or he can find somebody else to carry the traffic for him provided he is willing to reveal this preference to the Licensing Authority. Whatever may be said about this requirement it does at least bear equally on all concerned.
The only equitable alternative apart from the elimination of all licensing would be to insist that all traffic of a certain kind or beyond a certain distance must go by rail. Traders and manufacturers would all be reduced to the same level. For a political party which believes in egalitarianism there might even be some attraction in this.
The Bill will have a completely different effect. It will immediately create a privileged class of operators—traders or hauliers —whose applications for special authorizations are not opposed. They will have a distinct although not easily calculated advantage over their less fortunate competitors.
Next in line will be those operators whose applications are granted in full after an inquiry before the Licensing Authority. They will not have the feeling of complete freedom enjoyed by operators in the first category. There is always the danger that the railways or the National Freight Corporation, foiled in their original objection, will be seeking an opportunity to have the decision reversed.
Unusual frankness The Bill makes this possible and the point was put with unusual frankness in the White Paper on the transport of freight published by Mrs. Barbara Castle when she was Minister of Transport. It emphasizes that objectors as well as applicants will have "safeguards in cases where a licence has been granted or refused on the basis of evidence or undertakings which, are not borne out by subsequent events".
The safeguard for an applicant who has been refused a licence will be that he can re-apply, "with obviously enhanced chances of success". if the railways give a worse service or if they charge more than he had been led to expect. "In the reverse case," the White Paper continues, "it will be open to the Licensing Authority at his discretion to call on the licence holder to show cause why his licence should not be revoked."
Regrettably the House of Lords passed over this point in silence. The safeguard is of little use to the operator, who can hardly
keep vehicles standing by on the off-chance that the railways will fall down on the job
they have denied him. On the other hand it presents a constant menance to him even after he has surmounted the hurdle of the traffic court.
Into another category will fall the operators whose applications are granted only in part. They would presumably not have sought permission for work they did not wish to do and any refusal would be a handicap. This would apply even more to the final category of operators whose applications are turned down completely.
If ever the Bill comes into operation the effect of these inequalities of treatment are bound to be seen. The solution of the problems that will then arise cannot be, as Lord Winterbottom seemed to hope, an "entirely rational approach" to certain operators and an equally irrational approach to others. The plan for quantity licensing may have to be quietly dropped even if it is not repealed following a change of Government.
The Lords might have pursued more strongly the amendment which would have permitted sub-contracting by the holder of a special authorization. As the Bill stands the holder alone is entitled to carry the traffic. Within the logical vicious circle of the Bill this restriction is no doubt necessary. The operator has shown himself a better man than the railways for the traffic which is the subject of dispute. He has offered no proof of the capabilities of other people and is given no opportunity to do so.
Consequently a fantastic situation arises whenever the operator finds his own vehicles fully engaged. He cannot carry the traffic himself and is not allowed to hand it to somebody else. What is an every-day occurrence for most hauliers and many traders becomes illegal.
Amendment withdrawn
Clearly Lord Winterbottom failed to understand what was being sought. His reply was concerned more with cases where an operator had gone out of business and his successor was anxious,.to continue carrying the traffic. Subsequently, the amendment on sub-contracting was withdrawn and there may now be no further opportunity to raise the subject.
It is bound to be ventilated by operators and by trade and industry. Except for operators who regularly act as clearing houses the need to sub-contract is usually seen clearly only at the last moment. If special authority is to be sought on each such occasion the offices of the Licensing Authority will soon be choked with applications and in any event most of them will not be dealt with until after the work has been carried out.
It is on this kind of point that pressure should continually be exerted. Once it is understood the impracticability of the entire scheme for quantity licensing is, as it were, illuminated from within.