Poles Apart
Page 56
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NT1L recently, any survey of the road haulage industry could make a convenient division betwe..n British Road services dispensing a discreet form of monopoly and the under-privileged hauliers inspired by the banner of free enterprise. Now that one side has begun to assimilate the other it might be thought that at last there would be a completely united industry. What in fact seems likely to happen is the appearance of a new dividing line. The small independent men are still in the majority, but provide a contrast to the larger companies or groups that are not unwilling to take over where the State monopoly leaves off.
Last week, I commented on the astute timing of the statement by B.R.S. about their future structure and the services they could still offer. The contradictory response to the statement was a good indication of its success. The Road Haulage Association were of the opinion that it would create an "unnecessary atmosphere of uncertainty in the minds of traders." On the other hand a spokesman of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, representing several thousands of the traders for whom the R.H.A. were showing such concern, said that the statement "would remove many of the uncertainties and doubts " in their minds.
Tribute to B.R.S.
B.R.S. could ask for no nicer tribute than to have these two comments framed side by side. Many a doctor might find it profitable to have a bedside manner that made his'patients apprehensive at the same time as it soothed them.
One aspect of the statement that annoyed hauliers, but evidently helped to reassure the traders, was the scarcely disguised preference for substantial buyers. Most hauliers dislike the possibility of a number of large companies comfortably settling in as B.R.S. move out. They have reason for their sentiment. One large company may bar the way for 50 small men who would have liked to secure a stake in long-distance road haulage. There is a danger that a few big concerns will carve up the best routes and the best traffic among themselves, and combine to drive away intruders. An industry so organized is unlikely to offer the best defence, either physical or moral, against renationalization.
Large Companies Necessary
Nevertheless, there will have to be some large cornpanics, as there were for many years before the Transport Act, 1947. It may be that the operations of B.R.S. have produced in certain districts, or for certain streams of traffic, a situation which only the large company can meet. If it is not formed, the traders, in,so far as they are able, will refuse to transfer their traffic to small hauliers. It was trade and industry that persuaded the Government to extend the opportunities provided in the 1953 Act for the formation of large companies.
The recent improvement in efficiency—and, of course, in the financial results—of _ B.R.S. has made some traders think twice about the evils of big business and monopoly. The extreme opposition to these evils has slackened recently, not only in this country and not only in connection with transport. In the U.S.A., a recent report refers to ardent advocates of a relaxation of anti-trust measures. It is being maintained that the mammoth corporation is largely responsible for the present high standard of American commercial prosperity.
In Great Britain, it is not yet customary to praise a monopoly in such terms, and even the Socialists would hesitate to do so, unless they happened to be talking about the British Transport Commission or the Coal Board. When it comes to the point, most transport users prefer to have a choice among competitive services, and the intention of the 1953 Act is that the large company should be the exception rather than the fashion. The hauliers, therefore, despite occasional checks, are wise to reaffirm their dislike of any form of monopoly. A. belief in the virtues of competition is a useful means for promoting the goodwill of the customer.
The belief is being tested in more ways than one. As well as meeting the challenge of an apparently rejuvenated B.R.S. hauliers find within their own ranks. many people who are now having to make up their minds whether to strike out on their own or partly lose
their identity in a huge trading concern. • The present predicament of the meat-carrying operators is obvious. They have become accti,stomed to working for the Meat Transport Organisation, Ltd., whose contract with the Ministry of Food ends on June 30, or possibly a little later if the de-control of meat is delayed. When the butchers, and other people interested in the handling of meat, are free to make their own arrangements, they may decide not to employ the hauliers who have carried the traffic in the past. They may choose other hauliers, or put their own vehicles on the work.
Meat Carriers Sheltered
This is an occupational hazard that the meat carriers have not had to run during the period of control. Many of them can see the advantage of keeping in being the M.T.O.L. or some organization like it, acceptable to the traders and in a position to allocate traffic fairly. The organization might be able to find suitable alternative traffic for surplus vehicles. It would save operators a good deal of trouble in matters of administration, accounts and rates, and could perhaps negotiate substantial discounts on tyres, fuel, vehicles and accessories. An apparent attraction of such a scheme is that it could be tried for an agreed period, say two years, during which operators could seek to build up goodwill with the customers.
Almost certainly, however, once the organization was established, it would not be broken up. There is a trend towards the larger unit, but it seldom works in the opposite direction, except by an Act of Parliament, as in the case of B.R.S. Parliament will not force the M.T.O.L. or any similar organization to disintegrate. What could easily happen is that another Socialist Government would assume control or ownership, on possibly not-too-generous terms.
Hauliers in general, and not only those engaged in carrying meat, can see another disadvantage. They are anxious to know whether the 576 meat-carrying vehicles to be sold by B.R.S. will be offered in small units as part of one or a few large companies. If some private trading organization like the M.T:O.L. is set up, it may make an offer for all the vehicles which even the Disposal Board would find hard to resist.
The meat carrier has a difficult choice and must make himself. It may help him to note the similarities :tween his problem and that of the prospective buyer E a transport unit. By direct Government intervencon, members of the public have the opportunity to art in business as long-distance hauliers. They are ot forced to do so. If they prefer, they can keep their ioney where it is. But once they have decided to buy ad have paid the price, it is sink or swim. The future epends upon their skill and enterprise.
The meat carrier is not a newcomer. For a long time the system of control has given him shelter, even if it has denied him opportunity. He has not had to go ou1 of his depth. Whatever happens, he may find that the tide rises and forces him to strike out for himself. What he cannot know is whether it would be better for him to make his own way at once. De-control of meat is nothing to do with denationalization, but the meat carrier is faced with his problem just at the time that the road haulage industry as a whole is in danger of being polarized by the distinction between the large and small operator.