Rue with a Difference
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentary By JAN US AS the .appointed day approaches, it is surprising how little information is available concerning the issue of original permits. As a matter of convenience, they are being " staggered " over the next two or three months. This may delay their issue, although applicants have been promised an early intimation whether or not they are likely to receive them. Few operators, however, seem so far to have heard anything definite.
It may be thought bad policy for the British Transport Commission to keep hauliers in suspense. Uncertainty may mean an even more rapid rise than usual in the number of C-licensed vehicles. On the other hand, hauliers and traders art aware of the promise, made more than once, to issue original permits freely for the first period. Operators, confident that this undertaking will be honoured, have been able to reassure their customers.
Caught in a Vortex There are exceptions. Upon some hauliers, the threat of restriction is having a demoralizing effect. Their approach to the appointed day is .like that of straws caught in a vortex. In some parts of the country, traffic is decreasing and to make matters worse, the more timorous operators are trying to transfer their vehicles to short-distance work that will not be affected by the 25-mile restriction. Increased competition threatens to depress rates at a time when other costs are rising.
The haulier with an original permit, or hopes of one, feels himself secure for at least another 12 months. The conflict in the immediate future is more likely to be concerned with ordinary and job permits. Both the holders, or prospective holders, and the B.T.C. are saying as little as possible about original permits. If any permit has been granted or definitely refused, the applicant is rejoicing or licking his wounds in secret. This reticence is bad tactics, and would be even worse where ordinary or job permits were concerned.
The B.T.C. has every opportunity and every reason for saying nothing on the subject. It is under no obligation to publish applications for permits and decisions upon them. The haulier's case is not heard. in public, and there is no appeal. Grievous hardship resulting from the refusal of a permit may engage the attention and sympathy of a Member of Parliament, but it is doubtful whether he would be able to ventilate the matter by the Usual method of a question in the House.
A Policy of " Hush "
The less publicity the better for the B.T.C. Each application, particularly for an ordinary or job permit, is likely to be the result of a request from a trader. It may be the culminating point of discussions during which the trader has satisfied himself that the haulier can give him just the service required. Refusal by the B.T.C. is tantamount to telling the trader that somebody else knows better than he does what transport agency he should use.
Possibly the trader likes being put right in this way. it may be an article of his faith that grandmother knows best. In that event, he takes off his hat respectfully in order to listen to the advice, shakes hands in farewell to the haulier and has his traffic carried happily ever after by the benevolent despot from whom the advice
originally came.• .
Here and there, one may find a trader not enlightened A34
enough to take this view. Much as he may like having control of the transport of his goods taken out of his hands, he may feel the process can go too far. He knows that ever since 1933 there have been limits placed on the availability of professional road carriers. He has possibly found it necessary, on more than one occasion, to give supporting evidence in the traffic court for the -haulier of his choice.
The result may not alWays have been in accordance with his wishes. In every case, however, he has recognized that the Licensing Authority conducting the inquiry is impartial. The proceedings are heard in public, and there is a right of appeal. Any other provider of transport claiming to be in a position to do the work for which the licence is required has to run the gauntlet of public criticism of his own shortcomings. Neither the haulier nor the trader regards the era of the Road and Rail Traffic Act as the golden age of road transport, but both have to acknowledge the palpable endeavour on the part of the authorities to be fair. It is not suggested that the B.T.C. would be dishonest in its administration of the Transport Act. The fact remains that terms such as " fairness " and "equity" hardly apply where a decision is made privately by one of the parties to a dispute. The new hindrance, coming on top of the licensing restrictions, is likely to make the trader feel that things have gone far enough. As a result, he may vow that whoever carries his traffic it will not be the B.T.C.
The Haulier's Defence
That anachronism, the haulier, that ghost from the past of free enterprise, is justified in being as reactionary as he likes. It would be foolish of him to refrain from making sure the trader does not miss the point. It is not pleasant for an operator to be told arbitrarily that he cannot do certain work falling within the score of his licence. His best defence is to be unpleasant in return.
He would be foolish to put on sackcloth and ashes and go into mourning behind closed doors. He must be sure to enjoy whatever small advantages are to be gained from the restrictions. As Ophelia says: "You must wear your rue with a difference." Few people outside the transport industry (and not everybody inside) know the whole story told by the Transport Act. Knowledge of the 25-mile restriction is fairly widespread, but the permit system is only vaguely understood. The public cannot readily grasp or believe the amazing fact that the haulier has to ask his biggest competitor for permission to compete. . It is vital to the haulier to secure public sympathy. The story of the permits can be presented to give the impression that they are granted by the B.T.C. out of the goodness of its heart. On the other hand, it can be presented to show how the haulier now has to sue for what used to be his right.
The haulier should do everything he can to ensure that the second version is fixed. in the public mind. He must at all costs make the trader realize that in any dispute over a permit the two of them are invariably drawn in opposition to the B.T.C. If the permit be granted, there is little to worry about. If it be refused, the haulier should protest loudly and persistently, and endeavour to persuade the trader to join in the protest. It would be fatal to join the B.T.C. in a conspiracy of silence, which "gives consent."