AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Continue The Fight

3rd January 1947, Page 21
3rd January 1947
Page 21
Page 22
Page 21, 3rd January 1947 — Continue The Fight
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

ON December 18 the second reading of the Transport Bill was carried by 362 votes to 204. The figures, although naturally unsatisfactory from the point of view of our industry, do indicate the growing opposition to this drastic measure, for this is the first time in the life of the present Government that so many votes have been recorded against legislation promoted by it.

Now the Bill has to go to a Select Committee— an example of fear on the part of the Government of the increasing tide of opposition in a full House. Later, and possibly amended in some important particulars, it will proceed to the House of Lords, where there will certainly also be considerable frank criticism. No doubt several months will elapse before it can possibly become an Act.

In the meantime opposition to it should be strengthened in every conceivable manner. This is no time to sit back and say "That's that." The battle is not yet lost, and at the very least the Government might be forced to accept some important amendments which would put a slightly better complexion upon the matter.

In this connection road transport should have a particularly good case. It has already been acknowledged by high Government spokesmen that road transport is efficient, and that it would not have formed by itself a reasonable subject for nationalization. It is apparently due to this fear —of its competitive efficiency against a Stateowned system of rail transport—that the Government is proceeding to take over a large part of it and rigidly restrict most of the remainder.

Amendments Which Are Essential If it be assumed that the Bill will go through in some form, then it is essential to give mature consideration to particular factors in it, the favourable amendment of which must be fought for to the last ditch.

Various vague promises of kind treatment to • ancillary operators who may require permits to exceed the present 40-mile radius limit have been made, but they will mean nothing unless they be actually incorporated in the legislation. Guarantees, not promises, are essential. No ancillary operator should be allowed to suffer inconvenience and waste of effort in connection with the transport of his loads. He has quite enough worries without this addition. He should not even be required to supply the extra clerical labour which would inevitably be involved in constantly making applications for permits. ln addition, the limit of 40 miles should be raised to at least 60, which would cover a fair number of needs, although by no means all of them.

As to the haulier, a radius range of 25 miles is ridiculously small, and, clearly, calculated to be oppressive or suppressive. If there must be some restriction—and, obviously, with the Government owning long-distance transport it would not tolerate competition—then the radius should be made the same as that for the C-licensee, i.e., 60 miles. A 40-mile radius might ensure a reasonable future for a fairly large number of haulage concerns, but this, again, would involve invidious distinctions between large and small traders, i.e., the man not running his own vehicles would be placed at a disadvantage compared with those who did. Low and Vague Compensation In the matter of compensation, the present terms are, to say the least, not generous, whilst they are far too vague, particularly in respect of the twoto five-years net profit. The exact proportion of this profit is to be based upon the ultimate effects of the legislation on the affairs of the concerns, the activities of which are transferred in part or as a whole to the Commission. Thus if any company which is to be acquired operated Aand B-licensed vehicles as only part of its work, has other activities, and carries on with the latter after the date of transfer but with increased overhead charges, then. the compensation in respect of severance is fairly to represent the burden of that increase over the five years beginning with the date of transfer. It will also depend upon whethen the increase and expenses could not reasonably be avoided. There is no doubt that this proviso alone could account for endless argument, for only the lapse of time could provide any real proof.

Then there is the peculiarly hard case of the operator who, although not compelled to "sell out " to the Commission because his business is not predominantly long-distance haulage, feels that. shorn of this, he will not be able to carry on. Admittedly, he can then demand that either a part or the whole of his business shall be taken over. In that event, however, he will receive compensation merely for the particular assets taken by the Commission, but will receive nothing for severance. There will undoubtedly be many instances of this kind, for some operatotli! will consider that they stand little hope of transferring their long-distance vehicles to short-distance work and, consequently, theft would be redundant. It seems that this is a very clever and somewhat unscrupulous means by which the Commission could obtain both additional vehicles and business merely at the price of the former.

No one as yet, so far as we are aware, has paid much, if any, consideration to the hard case of the clearing house. Many of these concerns have performed, and are performing, a most useful function as links between buyers and providers of road transport. Some have achieved an enviable reputation for good service and integrity, but, of course, they are mainly concerned with longdistance transport, and it appears that they will be entirely severed from business; they and their staffs will be forced to suffer great losses, and be faced with the need for finding other employment. Thus efficient businesses will, through no fault of their own, lose their all.

Whilst this may be a striking example of the ultimate effect of this penal measure, there will unquestionably be hundreds and probably thousands of other people and businesses which will be detrimentally affected, for in a huge field there will be one buyer instead of many.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus