What the Bow Group has really JANUS
Page 79
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
achieved may be not at all what they intended'
EXCEPT for a brief statement from the Transport Holding Company, both the nationalized transport organizations have decided against publishing their evidence to the Geddes Committee. The public are therefore entitled to speculate as much as they like, particularly on what suggestions the railways may have made. The introduction of secrecy even at the first stage may also encourage the suspicion that some of the more forthcoming organizations have given a very different impression in their oral than in their written examination.
The Committee cannot have failed to notice wide divergences of opinion and sharp opposition on many points. There have been attacks on road operators in general, defence in depth of the C-licence holder, suggestions that licensing should be abolished and counter suggestions that it should be made more exclusive. In some quarters the terms of reference of the Committee have been interpreted as widely as possible, to include such items as taxation, vehicle maintenance, standards of driving, direction of traffic and plating.
With so many contradictory views, an instructive exercise might be to boil down the evidence to the lowest common factors, those points on which everyone seems in agreement. A useful clue can be found in the memorandum from the Bow Group, an organization of young and progressive Conservatives, who more than once in the past have provided a platform for the opinions on transport of one of their number, Mr. Patrick lenkin, the main author of the latest statement, which repeats much of what he has advocated previously.
THE NEW MEMORANDUM
The new memorandum, for example, shows clearly that he still believes the licensing system should virtually be abolished, and that entry into road haulage should be open to anybody who can show his knowledge of road transport law, accounting and transport economics, and who could provide evidence of his financial standing. These ideas are drawn partly from the practice in some Continental countries, more particularly Holland, and partly no doubt from a belief in the general efficacy of unfettered competition in getting the best out of an industry.
More unexpected from the Bow Group is its other major proposal that any carrier for hire or reward—and coastal shipping, air and pipeline interests are included as well as road and rail—should be entitled to demand an investigation into the rates of any other carrier if he has reason: able ground for believing that the rate is below the true cost of doing the job. This proposal would elevate to a general principle a right which already exists in rather special circumstances, but which can be detected only by a diligent search of the appropriate legislation.
It would be a considerable disappointment if the Geddes Committee was to accept the recommendation of the Bow Group. The choice of the proper rate depends upon so many fluctuating factors that even hauliers with years of experience cannot agree, and the problem of accurate railway charges is even more involved. Without an elaborate system of published rates, operators would have little difficulty in concealing what they were receiving or the customers what they were paying, especially if they knew that the revelation might bring down a prosecution on their head.
What the Bow Group has really achieved may be not at all what they intended. It has shown beyond doubt that a limit of some kind must be imposed on the growth of the road haulage industry, The Group may have hoped that this limit would no longer exist if licensing were abolished, but all it has done is to reintroduce it by making economic rates compulsory. If the proposed sanctions could be applied successfully, they would not merely discourage newcomers but might well drive out of the industry a good many established operators.
REASONS FOR RESTRICTIONS It might be more profitable to examine the reasons which make restrictions on road transport necessary. The usual explanation is that other forms of transport, and particularly the railways, must be protected against cut-throat competition—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say against too much competition. This was the primary purpose of the legislation of 1933. It is still an accurate assessment of the situation, assuming that the railways still have an important part to play and should not become mere pensioners on the community.
Restrictions on hauliers may serve another purpose, and this may have been in the mind of the Bow Group in suggesting a floor to rates. An operation can be made economic, or can appear so, if the vehicle travels atexcessive speed, if the driver works excessive hours and if maintenance is neglected. If a rate is cut, then the costs must be cut or the operator goes out of business. This may seem no great loss, except that in the process the vehicle is more likely than others to be involved in an accident.
AGREEMENT ON ROAD SAFETY Road safety is perhaps the main point on which all the bodies submitting evidence to the Geddes Committee are in agreement, from pedestrians to the road operators themselves. It might well form the basis for the Committee's deliberations. The solution to one problem will often help with another. Plans for making the roads safer should not begin with the banning of certain loads because of their size or other features, or because of the length of the journey. The aim should be rather to help the operator secure a rate which permits him to use his vehicles and employ his drivers properly, and then to ensure that he does just those things.
The relation between insufficient rates and unsatisfactory standards of operation is made plain in more than one of the recently published reports of the licensing authorities for 1962-63. It is useful that the Bow Group has given prominence to the same point from a different angle, even if its proposal for dealing with the problem is not practicable,