The Refugee Problem
Page 45
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 The Choices Before an Operator Faced With the Loss of an Original Permit Raise Problems Which Call for Wise, Disinterested and Subtle Consideration CHOOSING between two possible courses of action is no longer a simple matter of the difference between right and wrong, as apparently it was in the time of Moses. We have learnt to mistrust the highest when we see it. Motives are mixed and consequences confused. Observers may trace the growth of complexity even in the comparatively short period since the passing of the Transport Act. The pioneers in acquisition had a well-defined choice. They could volunteer or stoically await their destiny.
It could be regarded as a moral choice—between the Ten Commandments and the calf of gold, if you care to put it that way. Up to the last moment, the operators concerned gave the impression that they thought free enterprise greatly superior to nationalization. On the other hand, the volunteer, if not worth quite 10 pressed men, was apparently worth very much more than one, and his value was reckoned in ready cash, a not unimportant point. The choice was clear, and to most of the operators it seemed to come fairly easily.
Moral Doubts
The holder of an original permit who has now been told he will lose it in a few months has a choice much more complicated than that of his predecessors. He looks back to the primitive days of 1948 with a sigh. At the moment, his decision raises so many moral and practical doubts that he is hard put to it to know what to do for the best.
He may offer his business, whole or in part, to the Commission, or he may elect to remain in the transport industry. Either possibility has its own problems. As has been made plain at many of the meetings that have been held up and down the country, his first reaction in many cases has been a resolve to carry 011, even if it means practically starting again from scratch.
This may seem to him nobler than the action of the pioneers who blazed the trail to capitulation. It is not so certain that the rest of the industry will applaud him. If the pioneers had preached and practised nonco-operation, great would have been their fame, although their pockets had been lighter. They stood fo lose most in the event of failure.
An Interloper
The original-permit holder who elects to carry on in he short-distance field (one cannot take seriously the ;uggestion that he should disregard the law and the 25-mile limit) will create a refugee problem for the native population. Far from welcoming him with open arms, some of his fellow hauliers may regard him as a dangerous interloper. They may actually prefer his oom to his company.
Even as a moral gesture, non-co-operation at any price is no longer assured of a cheer. From a practical consideration, the decision is even more difficult. Once his three months have elapsed, the man who
stays in will lose all claim to compensation. The British Transport Commission will oppose renewal of his licence on the old terms, and may succeed in securing a reduction in his licensed tonnage. It is not impossible that on this point other hauliers may make an unholy alliance with the B.T.C. against him. He may lose customers because he is unable to offer the same services as he did in the past. New customers will be difficult to find in a short-distance market likely to become overcrowded.
Frequent Fasting If he has followed me thus far, he may feel disposed to throw in his hand and offer for acquisition either the whole of his business, or at least that part of it now engaged on long-distance work. This is the ideal solution for any haulier wishing to take up the life of a hermit,, with frequent fasting and no changes of clothing. Other operators, even if they can prove their claim to acquisition, may be disappointed in the amount of compensation ultimately received. It will then be too late for them to change their minds. The signing of the appropriate form, as is usually the case when making a pact with the Devil, is the point of no return.
When things can hardly get worse, they may improve. The haulier deprived of his original permit may find survival less difficult than he thinks. Although he should not rely on obtaining ordinary or job permits, the possibility need not be altogether forgotten. Provision for such permits is deliberately included in the Transport Act, and the Road Haulage Executive at the least will lay itself open to considerable criticism if it refuses to sanction the use of that part of its mandate.
Future Hope
Interworking, or grouping, may enlarge the amount of traffic carried by free-enterprise operatorz. Nor should the haulier faced with the revocation of his original permit forget that changes can be made in the Act itself. The Conservative and Liberal promises of denationalization hold out a hope for the future. Of more immediate interest is the Bill now before the House of Lords, a measure calculated to give the haulier a fair chance of keeping his business flourishing.
Unfortunately, so much of this is speculative. Each point for or against carrying on, brings an unknown quantity into the equation. The haulier has no means even of knowing the total he would receive in compensation if he offered his business and it were accepted, He finds it no easier to make up his mind financially than to decide whether by staying out he is helping the public and his fellow hauliers.
No wonder the Act gives him three months in which to think the problem over, He could do with three years, even if he had the wisdom of Solomon, the disinterestedness of an angel and the subtlety of—well, of whoever it was who put the Act together.