Janus comments
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Finger on the trigger
BY the time that the introduction of quantity licensing seems appropriate or feasible the unhappy Minister of Transport who has the responsibility of naming the appointed day may sympathize with the mythical man in the Pentagon who has to make the decision when to press the button. Whatever happens the Minister will have to take the blame.
A hint of a possible way out was given by Mr. G. W. Quick Smith, chief executive of the Transport Holding Company, in his paper at the CM Fleet Management Conference. If the measure of support for the Freightliner service is sufficiently high, said Mr. Quick Smith, "it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Minister will find it unnecessary to make the requisite order".
It may be more than a coincidence that Mr. D. E. A. Pettit, chairman of SPD Ltd., has said something on much the same lines. He has recently been appointed to the organizing committee of the National Freight Corporation, so that both he and Mr. Quick Smith are in a better position than most people to know or sense the way in which the Government is thinking.
In each case a different route was used to reach the same conclusion. Mr. Quick Smith envisaged a benevolent authority taking good behaviour into account in deciding to withdraw the threat. To some extent, he said, the issue lies in the hands of potential Freightliner users. "If they are wise enough to make the fullest use of these services compatible with their requirements as to speed, reliability and cost they might well save themselves from the compulsions they resent."
Mr. Pettit sees the need for wisdom in another quarter. Quantity licensing, in his opinion, will not work. It is hardly likely, he said, "to make the railways viable, nor is it likely to involve any major setback or constraint on the road haulage industry. But in the short term it can be ruinous to comparatively small independent operators."
Confusion Large as well as small operators have opposed quantity licensing so strenuously that they are bound to welcome evidence of a change of heart in the present Government where it will do most good. Unless, however, the offending provisions are deleted from the Bill—and this seems unlikely—the confusion in the minds of operators may be increased rather than diminished.
That the plan for quantity licensing is impracticable has long been the contention of many of the Bill's opponents. They have assumed in spite of this that it will be introduced during the life of the present Government and have hoped that its shortcomings will conveniently be made plain for all to see by the time there is a change of Government and the present Opposition is in a position to carry out its threat of repeal.
Some such forecast has been the basis on which operators have planned their own future. Many of them have decided to give up the struggle. As Mr. Pettit said: "I am getting five or six hauliers a week coming to me asking to be bought .out. Some of them are very good little businesses."
Are many of these hauliers likely to change their mind because of a hint that quantity licensing may never happen? It would be a heavy responsibility to suggest this to them especially in view of the fact that the abandonment of one part of the Bill may not solve their problems.
They have built up their "good little businesses" against the background of the present licensing system. It has given them some protection and certain privileges. These will be taken away by quality rather than by quantity licensing. If after all there is no need to obtain special authorizations the operator will still have to provide for an increase in competition.
His task will be made no easier by the suggestion to his customers that the price of freedom from quantity licensing will be good behaviour and full Freightliner trains. At least the Bill as it stands ranges the haulier and his customer on the same side of the fence and will often link them in an endeavour to get traffic carried by road in spite of the objections of the railways and the National Freight Corporation.
It is odd that as background to his suggestion of what might happen Mr. Quick Smith should quote the statement in Mrs. Barbara Castle's White Paper on freight transport that ''the Government intends to be satisfied that the new Freightliner service has proved itself in practice before quantity licensing is introduced-. This has certainly been taken to mean that quantity licensing will not be introduced precipitately but the inference is that there must also be firm evidence that sufficient customers are using Freightliners.
Opposite effect On this reading the voluntary full use of Freightliners advocated by Mr. Quick Smith would have the opposite effect to what he thinks. It would encourage the Minister to introduce quantity licensing all the earlier. Theoretically it would be better advice to trade and industry to use the Freightliners as Little as possible. The Minister would then never be in a position to show that the service had "proved itself in practice". The chairman of British Railways has seen the danger of unpopularity and obviously has no relish for putting the boot in. There can be no doubt that the NEC will feel the same especially in view of the close relationship of the THC road transport companies with independent operators. If quantity licensing never happened there would be many relieved consciences in State-owned transport.
This is not altogether good enough for hauliers or for trade and industry. Operators are too much in doubt already. When they are buying new vehicles they would like more precise information on the likelihood that they will be allowed to use the vehicles on the work for which they are intended.
When they are planning new depots or extensions to existing premises they have no sure guide to the amount of traffic they will be allowed to take into or out of the depots or whether they will be able to run their own linking vehicles. Their applications for licence renewals or variations are likely to seem more and more unreal as the time approaches when a different type of licence or authorization will be required.
What may seem surprising is that so many operators show few signs of worry. They are continuing to run their businesses normally. The signs are that so far they have found no obstacles and that for example hire purchase facilities are still being made freely available to them. Those few that are public companies give no indication that their shareholders are rushing to sell.
Strong as ever There is no reason to suppose that this continuation of confidence is due to lack of foresight or a refusal to face the facts. The general public agrees with operators that, whatever the political antics in which the Government indulges, there will emerge more or less intact a road haulage industry as strong and comprehensive as ever with scope for operators both large and small.
In spite of this it is right to continue opposition to the harmful elements in the Bill and to what Mr. Pettit called the "old Adam of political dogma and non-commercial discrimination". It could be said also that operators and users have a right to know exactly what it is they are opposing.
Mr. Quick Smith and Mr. Pettit highlight the fact that even if Parliament passes the Bill as it stands the Minister will have substantial powers to block the implementation of the Bill or in other words to frustrate the will of Parliament. There are other signs, slight at the moment, that the Minister might do this especially where quantity licensing is concerned.
If there is any truth in the rumours and portents it would be more sensible even at this late stage to withdraw the licensing provisions from the Bill and to prepare new legislation which would take full account of all that has been learned during the yearlong discussions in and out of Parliament. One small bonus to the Government is that the truncated Bill would then pass that much more easily through its remaining Parliamentary stages.