The Four Freedoms
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentary, By JANUS pREEDOMS apparently go in fours. For his traffic, the trader is accustomed to claim that he should have freedom to choose the form of 'transport he prefers,
freedom to operate his own vehicles, freedom to carry his goods anywhere in Britain, and freedom also to take them into other countries if he desires. He has had these rights for so long that he is tempted to regard them as on a par with the better-known quartette of freedoms. He forgets that to some other people the rights look very much like privileges, which they are anxious to whittle down. He must not only fight for his freedom, but must be diligent to justify it.
Of the four that I have named, the last freedom is the novelty. It was little more than theoretical in Britain until the development of the Continental Ferry Service, coupled with the increase in international goods transport and the promise of the European free trade area. Now that such possibilities are expanding, the untrammelled right of the operator "on own account" to cross frontiers at will is being questioned.
As Sir Brian Robertson reluctantly admitted in his paper at the Dublin congress of the Institute of Transport, European countries are like Britain in imposing no restrictions on the private carrier. Each country, however, has its variation On a licensing system for hauliers. The operator must seek permission to take his vehicle into another country. If the other country is Britain, an A or B licence is required, and no foreign haulier has so far succeeded in obtaining one.
Among other countries, a quota.system has worked fairly
well. British hauliers have made-an advantage out of the necessity by developing the use of trailers, which can be handed over to a foreign operator on the other side Of the Channel.
Unique Position
The trader with his own vehicle does not haye to bother
with quotas or licensing systems. His position is more than privileged; it is unique. There is some explanation, therefore, for the new thinking, abroad as well as at home, on the true functions of the private carrier, and on whether, when his vehicles are in another country, they, should have to bear, not perhaps the same restrictions as those on road haulage vehicles, but some compensating obligations. .
So long as the private carrier stays in his own country, he has to endure few complaints from professional carriers, either in Britain or abroad. The exception in Britain is the British Transport Commission. In their report for 1957, they continue the attack, and even introduce a diagram to illustrate their theme. Nevertheless, the hauliers, who might be thought to have more reason to grumble, keep clear of the subject.
The haulier, in whatever country, is bound to protest sooner or later when he sees on his native roads an increasing number of foreign vehicles, even if they are operated by the importers. The situation has not so far arisen in this country. If and when it does, one may expect strong expressions of opinion from the haulier who is unable to get traffic at a dock, but sees a loaded private vehicle disembark and set off on perhaps a 200-mile journey.
Something may have to be done internationally to deal with the situation before it becomes serious. If it is found necessary to impose any sort of restriction, however slight, this will involve some cutting of what I have described as the fourth freedom, that of the frontier. The trader should not regard such a development as in any way an attack on his other three freedoms. They are fundamental, and the fact that international circumstances alter cases should strengthen his determination to resist the coming attack on the domestic front.
Too many C-licence holders seem to be under the dangerous illusion that they have a divine right to their four freedoms, and that, even when danger threatens, some miracle will avert the blow, as happened when the Socialist Minister of Transport, Mr. Alfred Barnes, decided to take out of his Transport Bill a clause limiting C-licence operation to 40 miles. One or two realistically minded traders have recently given warnings, but there has been no united action to meet the growing threat.
The C-licence holder has heard more than enough to know what sort of struggle faces him when the Labour Party return to power. He cannot believe that they subscribe to any of his four freedoms, except possibly the first, the right to choose his own method of transport. There may even he doubts about that. It is true that the right was actually embodied in the 1947 Transport Act, but its value would be very greatly reduced if the trader were faced with a transport monopoly, and his own right of operation were restricted.
Efficient Service The haulier is making plans to present his case to the public. He has the advantage over the C-licence holder in that he can simultaneously sell his wares, in such a way that his plea against nationalization comes in almost incidentally. His -case rests largely on the efficient service that he offers. The trader cannot similarly disguise his message. His publicity and his advertising must amount to no more than the bald statement that the four freedoms the first three at all costs—are essential to the efficient distribution of his goods.
He must emphasize that he would not bother to run his own vehiclesif he could get as good a service elsewhere. It is at this point that his enemies think him weakest. They insinuate, and at times say plainly, that he is not the best judge of his own transport requirements, and that he puts vehicles on the roads for reasons other than efficiency.
The B.T.C. report for 1957 leaves the reader to draw this inference It speaks of the sharp increase in the number of C-licensed vehicles, and concludes that "there must have been a considerable decline in the amount of traffic available to public carriers after the C-licence operators had kept their own vehicles employed." If the Commission felt strong enough to attack the ancillary user, they would no doubt add that he must be actuated by caprice, as there is no other reason why he should abandon the public carrier, who is continually improving hts service.
The reports of the Licensing Authorities, recently published although they apply to 1956, put the figures in a different light. , They point out that the increase in C-licensed vehicles is not steady. There is a very high turnover. Where licences fell due for renewal during the year covered by the reports, a high proportion was not renewed, in some cases "amounting to 20-30 per cent, of the vehicles involved."
The significance of this high turnover is at least worth investigating. The representatives of the C-licence holders might well look into the other facts of the case, and ask the public to judge whether there is any truth at all in the Picture too commonly drawn.