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 
M UST the natural, as distinct from the artificial, development of
Page 89
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
a " servant " industry, such as road haulage, always conform to a pattern dictated by the combined requirements of the "masters" to whom it looks for its work? I do not think there is any doubt that it must. An artificial growth, such as British Road Services, required controls in order to create the only conditions under which it could hope to exist. Even then, the " masters reacted strongly by increasing enormously their own C-licensed fleets and B.R.S. developed on lines somewhat contrary to those intended.
The British Transport Commission's failure to introduce a scheme of rates and charges, and the almost unregulated rates of B.R.S.—how unregulated can be judged by the differing hire rates for contract work now coming to light with disposals—show that co-ordination of transport within itself will never be more than a figment of the imagination. The only co-ordination that will work—by work I mean meet customers' requirements efficiently and at the lowest economical cost—is coordination of the servant with the master, not of the master with the servant.
Looking back, one can now see clearly why United Carriers, Ltd., could never be what their sponsors planned they should be. The kind of demand which they planned to meet never existed. The only customer who, at first sight, might have been expected to call for an organization such as U.C.L. has already made clear the desire is to deal direct with the individual carriers.
In the circumstances, it is almost surprising that the formation of U.C.L. has been proceeded with. It is to be hoped that justification for doing so has been seen in such an activity as the cartage of imported meat from ships— work that the customers might prefer to be done under the management of one organization—and that no attempt will be made by this clearing house to induce their members to bind themselves to work for them alone.
The Outl Meat H
The Banished General In fact, it would have been better for U.C.L. to have .etired from the scene, like the unsuccessful general, who, hrough no fault of his own, is relieved of his command so hat completely fresh minds may he brought in to examine he whole situation and decide what is to be done.
What, then, of the future of meat and livestock transport? t would be foolish to prophesy, but perhaps a trend or two an be detected. .
Home-killed meat provides, I believe, some 50 per cent. If all our supplies. The Argentine now sends us about 3 per cent, of the meat that we consume, whereas it used o ship about 40 per cent. The livestock carrier can, thereore, expect work to continue at its present high level, and
ot drop to that of the pre-control era. There will be :ss imported meat to transport than before control was nposed, and rates are, therefore, likely to be precarious. 'resh-meat traffic should exceed pre-control quantities. Although total tonnages of meat should be no less than nder control, the effect of de-control is likely to be as lough traffic has shrunk. This is inevitable with a return : the normal arrangement of payment for work done, in lace of the charter arrangements which some hauliers say ere more profitable when vehicles were idle. This all ads up to competition—that state of affairs which the -esent Government deliberately set out to bring back. Livestock carriers will be better placed than meat hauliers , maintain rates at a reasonable level, unless they lose eir,nerye. Unfortunately, recent events have rather made It nervousness. It is natural in all of us to dislike the ea of changes which we ourselves have not introduced, Id when other people's reactions fo those changes seem to
confirm our own fears, it becomes the more difficult to sit back and survey the position calmly and critically.
Even now, when the Fatstock Marketing Corporation have made clear that they have no sort of binding arrangement with U.C.L. and wish to deal with the individual carriers, there are operators who do not want to face the new rough world alone, but want United Carriers to shield them from it. How they will fare with the corporation, who apparently do not intend to buy their haulage through U.C.L., is something of a puzzle.
Inevitably and incorrectly, the F.M.C. loom in the mind
as the successor to the Ministry of Food, although they are in fact only one of many. Already their plan to supply all the bacon factories with all the required pigs is not possible of fulfilment, At least one large concern of bacon curers has decided ta make its own arrangements ra obtain the pigs it needs and there are rumours that the wholesale butchers in Smithfield intend to have no more to do with the F.M.C. than they can avoid without great difficulty.
Farmers are told not to arrange transport for stock sold to the F.M.C., as the corporation wish to arrange the collections and to employ the carriers. This seems reasonable, yet there are one or two elements that occasion doubt,
A farmer whose stock is sold to the F.M.C, tnd delivered to a distant slaughterhouse will be likely to question paying the same transport charge when his stock is sent to a nearby slaughterhouse. I-le will expect a lower charge for the short haul than for
the long. Similarly, the big producer with full loads of stock will probably and rightly expect to pay less per head than the producer of one or two beef-cows.
Transport charges will be a large proportion of the costs of the corporation's expenses and it is certain that they will look for competitive rates from carriers. But the farmer will similarly look for competitive transport deductions by the corporation. If he does not get them he will examine the economic attractions of private sale and of sending to auction, and he may disregard the F.M.C. as a customer except when it suits him.
Livestock carriers would, therefor-e, be wise to refrain from quoting to the F.M.C. rates for cattle and sheep that they would quote only to the large producer, until it is clear that the corporation are offering so much traffic as to justify being given such preferential rates.
Costly Network
To the meat carrier, neither United Carriers, Ltd., nor the Fatstock Marketing Corporation am likely to be important on their own. U.C.L. could be important in cartage from ships, but there are no indications that importers have decided to give them the chafice. For other sections of meat transport, United Carriers are likely to find that the organization necessary to run their clearing-house, with its network of services, will be too costly to enable them to compete with the' independent carriers', the importers' and the wholesale and retail butchers' own vehicles.
Meat and livestock carriers in the Road Haulage Association have given the impression of waiting for things to happen and of making no attempt to assess the position for themselves in order to give members guidance on what to expect, if not on what to do. It is curious that they have preferred to wait on U.C.L. and then on the F.M.C, rather than do any original thinking.
There is still time, however, for much useful work to be done by the leaders of the two groups concerned. Advice on rates and conditions of carriage would be most valuable, even if it meant reissuing some old information. A lead to members in their localities to strengthen their spirit of co-operation would be invaluable.