THE AULD ALLIANCE
Page 80
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
operators.
When rail officials past and present cannot make up their minds whether hauliers are friends or foes it is not surprising that the attempts at liaison over the years have made so little progress. Even Mr. Margetts' comments, although they must have been received sympathetically in that part of the world where he chose to make them, were not intended to comfort the railways' road competitors.
It had to be accepted, he said, that real rationalization of freight transport could be achieved only by intelligent limitation of individual choice and that Governments alone had the power and the detachment to bring this about.
"Unless we are careful and look ahead," said Mr. Margetts, "there will be two systems competing—road (however owned) and rail. And one of them may die." It was hardly necessary for him to say which one.
Alternatives
It is not particulary precise of Mr. Margetts to imply that the only alternatives are unrestricted competition and complete integration. The present licensing system controls the growth of the road haulage industry and to that extent limits individual choice. The Minister of Transport's plan would tighten the control beyond the point generally thought acceptable in spite of the belief of Mr. Margetts that the present Government's policy is to the liking of a greater proportion of the community than the policies of any previous administration.
This is an odd point to choose for the purpose of praising Mrs. Castle's proposals. The emphasis on merit as a qualification for becoming a road operator may have been welcomed but the same is certainly not true of the suggestion which Mr. Margetts chiefly has in mind, that the carriage of traffic beyond a certain distance should be made almost a railway prerogative.
He does not specify which sections of the community he imagines are feeling pleased. It might be useful to attempt to outline a policy likely to satisfy everybody who is actually concerned. High on the list should come transport users in general and road transport operators—whether on ownaccount or for hire or reward—as well as the railways.
These interests should be sufficient for a beginning. perhaps there are others that ought to be given equal priority, such as the railway unions and the road transport unions. When it comes to the point their opinions have in no case been adopted as the main theme for legislation or at least no Government has cared to admit the fact.
Vital
What the relevant interests have in mind is not difficult to ascertain. The railways would like to have that elusive two per cent of road goods traffic which Mrs. Castle thinks is vital to them.
They would much prefer, one imagines, to win it fairly and to be seen to win it fairly, rather than to have it dropped into their laps by the direction or near-direction implied in the Minister's plan. It need hardly be added that in any event the railways would want the control over road transport to be certainly no less stringent than it is at present.
Transport users and traders operating on own account cannot easily be separated. Their desires are virtually identical. They want freedom to run their own vehicles to carry their own traffic and a free choice between road and rail.
They would not seriously quarrel with the existing restrictions on the haulier and they would welcome a joint road-rail service with certain reservations. They would ask that the joint service was not so closely integrated as to deny their proper freedom of choice or come near to a monopoly.
Hauliers are not against some measure of regulation. Broadly speaking they would support a simplified and modernized version of the present licensing system. They have pursued patiently over recent years the willo'-the-wisp of voluntary co-operation or liaison with the railways which would leave both sides free to negotiate separately with the customer where this seemed to their advantage and to his.
These few points might fairly be said to represent what each of the principal interests requires. What is remarkable is that hardly any of the points find a place in the Minister's plan. It is hard to understand how Mr. Margetts can substantiate his suggestion that the plan is popular.
Mrs. Castle evidently believes she is moving forward and is even in advance of the times. In a sense she is returning to the old-fashioned concept of a railway or railway-dominated monopoly.
Compromise
Ever since road transport became a force to be reckoned with history has been moving in the direction of a special but not monolithic relationship among the professional providers both by road and by rail.
This was recognized clearly by Lord Beeching at the time when the report was published on the re-shaping of the railways. Long before that time it was a frequent theme in the reports of the railways and of the British Transport Commission.
At times the hauliers were even encouraged to regard the C-licence-holder rather than the railways as their competitor. On the whole they failed to accept this adVice. but were prepared to acknowledge their community of interest with the alternative form of transport.
The way out of the present difficulty could be along these lines. Road operators and users have examined the Minister's plan and decided that in general they do not think much of it. Their verdict is broadly the same although the directions from which they reach that verdict are different In this situation they may feel—and evidently do feel— that their common ground is more easily expressed in opposition than in concerting proposals of their own.
If such an alternative is to be produced the professional providers of transport are best qualified for the task. The alliance between hauliers and railways has at times been close and at other times tenuous. There may still be time for joint consideration of a positive plan which will point the way out of the railways' difficulties without inflicting corresponding damage on the road transport industry.
Janus