1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220 
Temporary Inconvenience
Page 95
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By JANUS
AT times, even the Ivory Tower must be surprised by some of the arguments put forward on its behalf. Mr. J. A. Sparks, Labour M.P. for Acton, supported the nationalization of road transport five years ago and still approves of it in spite of what has happened since. His anxious affection for the British Transport Commission led him the other day to implore the Minister of Transport to stay his hand.
To judge from the fervour with which Mr. , Sparks made his appeal, one would have imagined that the Minister was proposing at the very least to send all the railway engines in the country over Beachy Head or to impeach the chairman of the B.T.C. What Mr. Sparks had in mind was the possibility of a further extension of the six-months' postponement of acquisitions granted shortly .after the Election to 63 hauliers.
The B.T.C. must certainly need all Mr. Sparks's maternal care if the lack of 63 undertakings is causing it so much trouble. The fortunate 63 form a privileged class. While the postponement lasts, they are like mortals tasting the food of the gods. They are free, in the same way as the Road Haulage Executive, from the restrictions that plague the haulier, and in particular from the 25-mile limit. How irksome they will find mere denationalization when they will have to conform once again with whatever conditions may be attached to their licences!
It is possibly this peculiarity in the case of the 63 firms that has misled Mr. Sparks, for he goes on to speak of "unrestricted road haulage during the past 25 years 's which has "brought the railways to their knees." Now, the only unrestricted road haulage since 1933 has been that operated by the R.H.E., which can surely not have been what Mr. Sparks has in mind. The present restrictions on hauliers, of which he apparently strongly approves, were all in existence before the Transport Act, with the exception of the 25-mile limit, and ,the status of the C-licence holder has remained unchanged.
Second Thoughts It is as well for M.P.s on both sides of the House of Commons to remember this. Even some of the Conservatives seem to be having second thoughts about the early removal of the 25-mile limit on the ground that it would enable practising hauliers to capture the longdistance 'market before the former operators have an opportunity to get their businesses back.
Such fears are baseless. Abolition of the 25-mile limit would have a number of effects. It would enable hauliers to give their customers a more comprehensive service than at present. By reintroducing a measure of competition into the long-distance field it would encourage efficiency.
There is fairly wide agreement that these developments are desirable. Certainly the users of transport want better service, increased competition and lower rates, and deplore the necessity of running their own vehicles merely because of the shortcomings of nationalized road transport.
Once the advantage is realized of, abolishing the 25-mile limit, the sooner it is •done the better. Such a step merely removes the latest of many restrictions on the haulier. It does not put him on terms of complete equality with the R.H.E., and gives him little oppor
tunity, even if he wished, to set up on a grand scale as a long-distance carrier and to prejudice the interests of the ex-haulier waiting to come back into the industry.
Most long-distance hauliers have either been nationalized or •are continuing under permits. The amount of work hauliers have to refuse because of the 25-mile limit is possibly not large, although it may represent a significant proportion of their turnover. When the limit is removed, they will still have as much short-distance work as they have to-day.
An Indian summer may well brighten the declining days of the R.H.E. The return of competition may sharpen faculties that have become blunt through disuse behind the ramparts of the Ivory Tower. The " takeit-or-leave-it " attitude that has irritated and alienated so many customers should soften when there is no longer a monopoly. Rates will have to be competitive. It is by no means unlikely that the R.H.E. as well as the free-enterprise haulier will benefit from the granting of wider scope to the latter. Traffic will begin to flow back to the professional carrier, nationalized or otherwise.
No Great Change
Even if every trader in the country immediately took the opportunity of the abolition of the 25-mile limit to press his custom upon the free-enterprise haulier, no great alteration in present circumstances would take place. The haulier would still be restricted by the number of his vehicles and the terms of his licence. To meet any unusually heavy -demand for his services he would have to apply for extra tonnage or for a licence. in wider terms.
At once he would have the opposition of the B.T.C. The Licensing Authority would be almost bound to have regard to the special position of the R.H.E. in the long-distance sphere. In addition, a plan for the eventual return of the R.H.E. to its former owners would introduce a category of prospective licence-holders who Might even be allowed to appear as objectors. In fact, should there be a sufficient demand for the provision under free enterprise of the services they propose to resume, there is nothing to stop them from themselves applying for a licence in advance of denationalization and even buying vehicles and plant from the R.H.E.
There is no obvious alternative to making abolition of the 25-mile limit the first stage in the process of denationalization. Postponing the step until all the ex-hauliers who wished had taken back their businesses would produce more anomalies than it avoids. The resurrected operators, as they return, must be allowed to go beyond 25 miles and would have a temporary advantage over the hauliers who have remained in the industry.
Another possible course would be to raise the limit by degrees, first to 60 miles, then to 100 miles, before getting rid of it altogether. There is no need for me to cite the evils of an arbitrary limit, whatever its scope.
Denationalization cannot be put into effect without some temporary inconvenience to the operators concerned and without some inequalities. It has a purpose beyond that of pleasing the haulier or the ex-haulier. It is intended to give trade and industry something for which they have made a clear request.