ANOTHER ONE?
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AS for living," said Villiers de l'Isle-Adams by way of advice to budding writers, "our servants will do ' that for us." A century later it might be said with :qual propriety that committees are available to do our hinking. The stock answer to a problem is to 'refer it to t committee, in the hope that it will solve itself or become Jut of date before a report has to be made. The bigger .hc problem, the longer is the report likely to be in coming, io that a committee provides the perfect example of a ;ystem of cold storage suitable for all requirements.
There are always exceptions. This somewhat cynical ipproach hardly applies to the new ad hoc committee on licensing set up by the Road Haulage Association. With the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Merchandise Transport, the really serious problem that had been vexing hauliers for several months previously appeared to have melted away completely in the course of a leisurely threesided exposition of the true significance of the law of licensing for goods vehicles. The time seemed to have come for disbanding committees rather than appointing them.
ALTHOUGH licensing is so important to hauliers, the most prolonged enquiry among them rarely shows that they have any grave fault to find with the present system. The restriction that may at times annoy them, at other times protects them. The occasional disturbing decision that seems calculated to open the door to a flood of new entrants rarely lives up to its threat. The anomalies are irritating rather than disastrous. The complications may be so great that only a few legal experts can understand them, but the haulier is Content, in the mood of Villiers de l'Isle-Adams, to let the experts get on with the job.
Why therefore yet another committee? The R.H.A. already have a standing licensing committee who meet regularly with terms of reference that must surely include those of the proposed new body. Through the usual channels the views of individual members or of areas can come before the permanent committee, who can then make recommendations or decide to take no action. The tempting reflection is that . in present circumstances, when there is no great licensing cause célèbre or controversy, that ought to be enough.
THE reason may lie in the apparent calm. It may be generating a feeling of uneasiness among hauliers. Often enough they speak highly of the licensing system in public. In a favourite phrase of theirs, it has "stood the test of time." They may really believe this when they say it. Their disquiet lies deeper. They know very Well that the system was drafted at a time when the situation was greatly different from what it is today. Even then, the final shape taken by the legislation of 1933 was influenced by the pressure of various interests and to some extent the opinions of political parties and individual parliamentarians.
While it was certainly not ramshackle, the licensing system was by no means the best that could have been devised. As the situation that gave it birth subsequently changed so drastically, one might have expected the system also to be,modified, although perhaps not swept away completely. Even when the opportunity arose with the 1953 Transport Act, however, the few changes made were important but not fundamental. As for the Labour party. the only alterations they made in 1947 were to impose restrictions on hauliers that the Conservatives afterwards removed.
Sooner or later the licensing system may come under review, in which case the loaded question will be whether the end has justified the means. Of the intention there can be little doubt. It was to protect the interests of the railways, so that they would survive and even prosper in spite of competition from a new form of transport. The method used was simply to restrict the growth of the road haulage industry. This was done with what may be thought surprising efficiency. There are now, if the statistics are to be believed, no more than about 10 per cent. more vehicles on A licence than there were before the war, and there has been an increase of perhaps one third in the number on B licence.
In spite of this premeditated stunting of a great industry, the affairs of the railways have gone from bad to worse, so much so that legislation is being introduced this session in an endeavour to put the affairs of nationalized transport on a more rational footing. Not only has the end failed to justify the means; the end has not even been achieved.
The haulier can hardly be the villain. The railways themselves are inclined to blame the C licence holder and point to the more than threefold increase in C licensed vehicles since the war. This accusation makes no better sense. Nearly all the vehicles on C licence are engaged on retail or local deliveries; and for the rest there is no reason why the trader should not send his goods by rail unless it was very much to his disadvantage.
OBVIOUSLY, the decline of the railways has been inevitable and would have taken place in almost any circumstances short of a total proscription of road transport. It could well follow from this that the greater part of the 1933 Act was irrelevant and that the 30 years' subjugation of the haulier has been suffered in vain. If it were once established that restrictions on him bear no relation to the fortunes of the railways, the conclusion might be that the reasons for the licensing system have passed, or were perhaps never valid.
This is not an impossible train of thought. There are many people who have consistently believed that the 1933 Act was largely unnecessary and that whatever results were expected from it could equally have been achieved within a framework of free competition. This opinion could spread if the Government's new legislation is such as to allow the railways to settle into a fresh mould, less pretentious than before and more in keeping with their present status vis a vis road transport.
The haulier might not welcome such a trend. As I began by saying, he does not himself find anything radically wrong with the licensing system. Like most other people, when it comes to the point, he prefers the familiar to the strange and is reluctant to support any sweeping modifications. The question is whether he would be permitted to continue in his way of life without disturbance. Other people, and especially the politicians, might feel the time had arrived for another look at licensing. Possibly, without exactly being able to formulate the point in words, hauliers have felt that a crisis of this sort might well be approaching, and have decided to be first in the field with their own inquiry.