Do C-Licensees Accept Haulage? • T HE position of the Clicensee; that
Page 25
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
is the man who normally carries only his own goods and must not work for "hire or reward," is definitely a delicate one. On one side he always has the legitimate haulier, who, naturally, is jealous of his rights, and, on the other, the British Transport Commission, backed by the Minister of Transport. It behoves him, therefore, to "gang warily" and not to offend either of these rivals by accepting work which is forbidden by the condi-tions of his licence.
This is not the first time that we have referred to this matter. As recently as September 26 we issued a similar warning. It seems, however, that we may have been a little too severe. We had accepted in good faith certain accusations made against ancillary operators by members attending the inauguration of the London Centre of the National Conference of Road Transport Clearing Houses, which, incidentally, were repeated by the chairman of the Conference at its annual luncheon and in the presence of high officials of the Ministry, as well as the chairman of the Road Haulage Association.
Few Flagrant Cases Found It appears, however, that at least some of the examples given had been founded on wrong premises. We are assured by the Traders' Road Transport Association that in practically every case which it has investigated as a result of complaints of this nature the explanation has been satisfactory. Either the C-licensee in question has been carrying under a dispensation given by a Government Department or the carriage has been undertaken by a subsidiary concern for its parent company. In fact, the chairman of the T.R.T.A. told, us recently that he is becoming rather tired of these constant assertions for which convincing proof is usually lacking.
Naturally, the Association has been able to conduct inquiries only or mainly in connection with its own members, and, possibly, they may be better behaved than the thousands of other operators in this sphere who are not yet within the fold. There must, obviously, continue to be many in the latter position. Unfortunately, the average trader who employs perhaps one or a few light vans looks Proof upon them merely as a useful adjunct to his business, and is little concerned with association matters or the polities involved. He probably does not realize that a representative body can do a great deal to facilitate the operation of his vehicles and that, in fact, without the stern fight made against the Government proposals, he might soon have found himself working in a very restricted manner.
It was alleged not long ago, in our hearing, that cases of C-licensees working as hauliers had been reported to the Ministry of Transport, but that apparently no action had been taken. We are -surprised if the latter be the case, and can only assume that research showed that there was little substance in the complaints.. The Licensing Authorities would certainly not look with favour upon any flagrant misuse of carriers' licences.
Forewarned is Forearmed However, we are unrepentant. If a man be walking towards .a precipice, it is better to warn him before he falls over it, and C-licensees are in something like the former position. If, in the view of the Minister, they behave themselves, carry only their legitimate loads and do not attempt to compete unfairly with the British Transport Commission and hauliers, then we hope they will be able toretain their freedom from further restriction. The Minister himself has said that their relief is dependent upon their conduct, and that the concession could be withdrawn if it were to be abused.
From one source there has come the opinion that far from the C-licensee being the culprit, it may, in some cases, be the man operating under a Contract licence. He, of course, is supposed to carry exclusively for one concern, but if the latter is not for a period able to supply adequate loads, there is a grave temptation for the operator to accept other freights which will enable him to balance his budget. If there be any justification for this assertion the responsibility of disproving it is upon this particular section of the haulage industry. and -not on the C-licensee.
Whether or not there be anything in some of the complaints, we can be sure that the situation is being closely watched by the authorities concerned, and some may be only too anxious to discover adequate proof. The cards should, therefore, be played most carefully. A few misdeals might mean the reimposition of restrictive measures, and the loss of what was gained after a hard fight.
One of the difficulties is to bring this fact to the knowledge of all operators, ewecially that of ancillary users. Possibly this could be done through their own trade organizations.
Not Half an Inquiry ?
FOUR just men have been hearing representatives from the Central Fares Committee as to a doubling of the fares-increase for express coaches. They have undertaken to make recommendations on the evidence given.
On the final adjournment of the court, however, Sir Henry Piggott, Brig. Dowse, Col. Tucker and Sir Alfred Faulkner were clearly a little worried about the whole thing. Sir Alfred's preoccupation was connected with the depreciation of all the costly new luxury vehicles taking, and soon to take, the road. Reluctantly he had agreed that their value would drop rapidly, but he stood resolutely by his theory that this would be offset by comparatively light costs for maintenance.
Sir Henry was battling with a problem even more crucial. Where, he asked, were the bigger orrators? Where were the people whom they all knew? At the inquiry they had had George Ewer and Co., Ltd., and a few other and smaller operators. The big battalions had not appeared on parade.
What was worrying him was that the case did not seem to be complete. A small operator might show that if he did not raise his fares he would operate at a loss and thus be put out of business. But what of a large operator who also ran stagecarriage services? Could he not continue to run tours, excursions and express services at existing fares and still continue to show a profit on the whole undertaking? What, then, was the position if a Licensing Authority was able to authorize higher fares? Was he to discriminate? The questions remained unanswered, not merely because they were rhetorical, but because nobody could give the answers. Mr. Baynton, chairman of the Central Fares Committee, was persuaded into the witness box, however, and said that if smaller operators charged higher fares, but larger ones were forbidden to do so, the former might manage well enough in 1948, but not after that. They would not be able to attract the traffic.
So that problem remained a problem. Somebody, however, must explain why the great ones were not there. That somebody was Mr. Fox• Andrews, K.C., sage and skilled, who explained that it had not been thought advisable to include representations from concerns that might subsidize tours, excursions and express services from other parts of their businesses. That might prejudice the case of the smaller men, whose cause he and Mr. Thesiger were pleading.
There the matter stands. Rightly or wrongly, Some of the big operators have been silent on a matter of potentially national importance. We shall be surprised if the matter be allowed to rest there.
What is clear, in a confused situation, is that public need is the greatest need, and the first to be met. Could this be the case if the many smaller operators suffered?