JANUS
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WRITES
FROM what is known so far about the representations to the Geddes Committee it would appear that most of the organizations concerned wish to give the impression that they are anxious to be constructive, but do not in fact advocate more than one or two minor amendments in the licensing system. The 25,000 words in the memorandum from the Traders Road Transport Association do not amount to much more than a plea that the trader and the manufacturer should be allowed to continue carrying their own goods in their own vehicles without restrictions and without the payment of extra taxation.
The National Farmers' Union is equally at pains to support the anomaly whereby the farmer, instead of taking the trouble like ordinary mortals to apply for a B licence and pay the proper rate, is allowed to carry traffic for other people under a C licence. No doubt the N.F.U. found it desirable to spell this out in view of the recommendation from the Road Haulage Association that the farmer's special privilege should be abolished, but the obvious determination not to yield may seem to the Committee merely another example of what they may be tempted to regard as a tangle of special interests entrenched in road transport.
There are remarkably few other differences of opinion among the organizations. The N.F.U. would like to see the railways debarred from objecting to licence applications, whereas somewhat surprisingly the R.H.A. would like the railways to retain the right. The R.H.A. also proposes a tightening of the procedure governing the hire of vehicles under a C hiring margin, and less surprisingly the T.R.T.A. wants the procedure to remain as it is. These are important points, but it can be said that they are not fundamental. The Committee's impression up-to-date must be that everybody is reasonably satisfied.
A DRESS REHEARSAL?
It could be that the evidence is really intended for a different audience, that the exercise before the Committee is a dress rehearsal for more serious battles to come. The licensing study group of the R.H.A., on whose report the Association's memorandum is largely based, began their deliberations several months before the Minister of Transport even announced that he was setting up a committee. The T.R.T.A. seems to have drawn a good deal upon the results of its massive and illuminating inquiry some years ago into the reasons reported by its members for choosing to run their own vehicles. Very little is being revealed that is new.
The Committee may feel that the T.R.T.A. protests too much. It is sensible to have a reminder of the virtues of the untrammelled C licence, but not perhaps at such inordinate lengths. The document makes even better sense if it can be regarded as part of the preparation for the next General Election. If a Labour Government were elected, they would not feel themselves bound by the findings of the Committee, but an unequivocal assertion of the right to carry one's own goods would be a useful beginning for the strug for which the T.R.T.A. sensibly feels it prudent to prepa If and when the time tithes, the T.R.T.A. might be v advised to concentrate its fire. The intentions of the Labt • Party are far from clear, but if they include integration road and rail and the setting up of a long-distance rt haulage monopoly, some restriction on the C licence almost inevitable. The restriction would not be gene] It would apply only to journeys beyond a certain distan and not even to all such journeys. As was originally p posed, in the Bill which eventually became the Transp Act, 1947, that for long-distance work the C-licence holt would have to prove need.
CLASSIFICATION OF PURPOSES
In its memorandum to the Geddes Committee, I T.R.T.A. makes a classification of the various purposes which the trader finds his own vehicles virtually indispei able. Examples include distribution to shops, agricuhu work, the use of specialized vehicles, and the collection empties. "The list is endless" says the T.R.T.A., with p. haps excusable exaggeration. What it may not have notit in piling instance upon instance is the tacit admission ti it is important, and presumably desirable, to justify the ne for operating under a C licence. All lists come to an e in the real world, and there remains unsolved the questi et what happens to examples beyond the list.
The Labour Party, if they came to power, would acce nearly all the contentions of the T.R.T.A. They wou be concerned only with those long-distance jouineys f which the trader chooses to use his own vehicles witho seriously maintaining that the goods could not be mov just as well by a haulier or by the railways. So long the trader could prove that outside services were not appropriate as his own, there would (at least in theory) no interference with him. But proof of need is, of court the serpent in the C licence Eden.
Members of the T.R.T.A., and in fact the majori of C licence holders operate efficiently and do not no to be told when it is better for them to use public transpo They know well enough that there is a minority of licence holders who would be better off not using the own vehicles. It is these operators also, generally speakin who neglect maintenance, choose unsuitable drivers, at in one way or another help to give the road transpo industry a bad name. To complete the picture, it is nece sary to add that there are also inefficient hauliers. TI difference is that sooner or later these pay the penalt since they depend upon their vehicles for their livin whereas a trader does not go out of business mere because his transport arrangements are wasteful.
What is the remedy? Insistence upon proof of net would be the least satisfactory. Positive steps whit might be taken include better facilities for education, ma widespread knowledge of transport techniques and greater respect throughout industry for the status of tt transport manager.