he trader might be best advised to ge his defence...on the conclusions
Page 73
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
the Salter Conference' WRITES '0 different and even contradictory attitudes have :en taken by those people who are in favour of the gripIete freedom of the trader or manufacturer to us own goods in his own vehicles. Up to the present le difference has scarcely mattered, largely because edom has seldom been in serious peril. The possipf a serious attack on the C-licence holder at the mce of the Labour Party, to be held at Scarborough .iepternber 30 to October 4, makes it advisable for der to look to his defences and fix more exactly the I upon which he will make his stand.
so long ago it was the fashion to regard the holding licence as an " unfettered right ", a kind of fifth En any breach which would be an erosion of the
s of the individual. One important justification for itude was supposed to be found in the 1932 Salter on rail and road transport, the Old Testament of oerators. Like many other ancient records, the report lays is more often quoted than read, and it is worth iing exactly what it does have to say on a subject ay soon become a centre of political contention. report provides a good deal of comfort. Its main for recommending the continued freedom of the iaIist to run his own fleet of vehicles is that it gives st security that "the economic enterprise of the y will have the most convenient and cheapest form sport that is practicable ". The freedom is a safety which will safeguard the public interest against any ii results from the development of a large-scale ation within the road haulage industry, or of close is between that industry and the railways. Although
t the report comes down strongly in favour of ration among the professional providers of transport, that "the right of the ancillary user to employ his ansport would be a more effective safeguard than ossible system of public supervision against the s of abuse in large-scale organizations and amalgas which sometimes offset their intrinsic advantages ".
DT A LITTLE MARRED
effect of this is a little marred by an afterthought report that further consideration might have to be o the rights of the C-licence holder if abuses and ties developed as a result of the operation of the ed scheme of road haulage licensing. In other words, ter Conference did not consider the freedom of the as an inalienable right, but did regard it nevertheless important and integral feature of the plan which the basis of the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act hich has survived for 30 years with no radical rnents.
principle of the "unfettered right" has therefore istorical foundation. It is directly contradicted by )f the arguments now put forward by C-licence ; or on their behalf. The custom is more and more ; trader to maintain that he uses his own vehicles e he cannot obtain an equally satisfactory service ere. The freedom he invokes is justified by the contention that he alone knows his exact transport requirements and the best way in which they can be met.
This may be a satisfactory line t.)1. defence for the individual who makes it, but does not necessarily provide the best standpoint for trade and industry as a whole. It assumes, among other things, that every trader has a precise knowledge of the workings of his transport department and of its true cost, as well as a complete picture of the facilities available from professional operators. More damaging still, it opens the door to argument. If hauliers and the railways, or the two of them in combination, choose to assert that the advantages which they can give outweigh the special knowledge of the trader himself, the only way of settling the difference of opinion is by arbitration.
MANY IMPONDERABLES
Once this is admitted, the trader can no longer plead his "unfettered right ". If it means anything at all, it must give him the freedom to run his own vehicles even if there is not the slightest doubt that by so doing he is making things worse for himself rather than better. With so many imponderables it may never be possible to give an unequivocal demonstration of this, but by accepting that it is even theoretically possible the trader may be giving away a valuable advantage in the struggle which looks like being inevitable if the Labour Party is returned to power at the next general election.
Trade and industry, it would seem, have a choice of weapons. But it also seems that they must make the choice, and that with care. The individual argument has many weaknesses. The trader who boasts that he can do better on his own than with the combined assistance of the hauliers (both nationalized and independent) and the railways, may be called upon to prove his words, and the ultimate decision may rest with a tribunal less favourably disposed towards him than he would like.
A further disadvantage is that he would run the risk of forfeiting the considerable general support which he now receives from the Road Haulage Association, British Road Services and perhaps even the railways, although this is less certain. There may be many individual hauliers who would secretly be pleased to see restrictions placed upon their do-it-yourself competitors. Their collective attitude is opposed to this, and as may be expected it belongs to the "unfettered right" school. Hauliers could hardly be so impartial as to support publicly any suggestion that their own inefficiency rather than anything else is the main reason for the preference of the trader for his own vehicles.
At the moment the trader might be best advised to base his defence, as he has done for so many years, on the conclusions of the Salter Conference. Whatever happens, this should provide him with the best insurance. Under a Conservative or Liberal administration he need have little to fear, or so it would seem. If the Socialists make any move, it will be in the direction of integration, and this can only lend strength to the argument' that the trader needs his freedom to operate as a means of keeping the integrated organization up to scratch.