Do Not Destroy M.T.O.L.
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PERHAPS I may be permitted to comment on the article on meat haulage by" Matador " in your issue dated April 23.
It should be emphasized in the first place that the proposed company to replace Meat Transport Organisation, Ltd., would not be profit making. It would be a co-operative enterprise composed of free hauliers, and its aim, as stated in the blue booklet referred to in the article, is to give the best possible service at a level of charges which would be fair both to customers and to the operators.
Freedom is not necessarily synonymous with disorganization, and the growing tendency towards organization on the part of customers in this particular field must, in the opinion of the authors of the M.T.O.L. scheme, be paralleled by organization in the transport industry if a satisfactory service is to be given at reasonable rates. This is realized by many of those concerned with meat and livestock who have displayed great interest in and strong approval in principle of the new scheme.
It is not clear what Matador means by the beneficent interest shown by the Ministry of Food in the hauliers. Their object quite properly, has been to get the best possible service at the lowest possible price. It is M.T.O.L. rather than the Ministry which has been concerned with the interests of the hauliers. It is quite true, as your contributor says, that the Bacon and Ham Division of the Ministry of Food arranged much of their own transport, but to say that they circumvented, M.T.O.L. quite successfully is rather a queer way of putting it, and by no means every haulier concerned would applaud the result. , It would certainly not be the object of the company to act as an intermediary between the haulier and the customer in any officious way. Its aim would be efficiency and not unnecessary interference, and it would encourage personal contacts between them. The cost of the existing organization is an element in the present cost of meat, and it by no means follows that if there were no organization either the customer or the haulier would benefit. In the long run both might suffer, especially if large con;timers provide their own transport rather than rely on in unorganized industry to meet their requirements.
Your contributor asks that free enterprise should be ;iven a trial in meat haulage. The new company would tself be a trial for a limited period of free enterprise in in organized form. It is possible to destroy at this stage he organization provided by M.T.O.L. as the result of 5 years' experience, but once destroyed it could not be et up again.
• London, S.W.1. S. C. LEWIS, Secretary, Meat Transport Organisation, Ltd.
A Prospective Haulier's Problem '
S an ex-Serviceman, I had, until recently, hoped that eventually, as promised by the Conservatives in their re-election campaign, I would, upon denationalization, e able to purchase one or two vehicles and embark upon modest career in the field of haulage. After what seems ke a lifetime of battering one's head against the pro.trbial stone wall, and having been quite unable to obtain formation from any of the official sources known to
me, I have at last come very close to admitting defeat. Before giving up all hope, however, it occurs to me that perhaps you, or some of your readers, may be able to shed a little light on the following points:—
I. Sales of vehicles being negotiated by tender only; is it a fact that large numbers of tenders are automatically rejected without consideration?
2. Is it true that such tenders as are accepted usually include, above the estimated value of the vehicle, a figure of anything up to .£200 per unladen ton to cover the necessary A licence?
3. Is it a fact that a would-be purchaser, whose first, quite reasonable, tender was rejected, made a second bid for four vehicles, added a further sum of £2,000 and was still turned down?
4. If it is the Government's sincere intention to return road haulage to private enterprise, why the dearth of information on the subject?
An employee of British Road Services was recently heard to observe that vehicles were not being reclaimed by private concerns sufficiently quickly to satisfy his colleagues. This rather leads one to wonder whether this promised return of transport to the, people is going to be on such prohibitive terms that small men, such as myself, are put completely out of the picture.
Could anyone advise me how to acquire a vehicle and A licence, and still remain reasonably solvent during the process?
Preston, Lancs. NIL DESPERAN1DUM.
[The procedure for the disposal of transport units is laid down under Section 3 of the Transport Act, 1953, and here arc a few points which may be of interest to this correspondent. The British Transport Commission. when inviting tenders for one or more vehicles and other property. and when imposing conditions of purchase, must have in mind the object of enabling the purchasers to engage, without delay, in the carriage of goods for hire or reward. They must also have regard to the needs of persons proposing to enter, or re-enter. the road haulage industry on a small scale. No transport unit is to consist of more than 50 vehicles with a total unladen weight of more than 200 tons, except for "additional vehicles," specified as such in the notice to tender. The Commission are to have regard to the. desirability of avoiding any step as a result of sales which might reduce competition in haulage, but they must not, without the Minister's consent, refuse any tender on that ground alone. The general principle is to secure the best possible price for the property sold. Throughout this disposal, the Commission must consult the Disposal Board and no invitation to tender is to he issued, nor any tender either accepted or refused. without the Board's approval. It would certainly be very wrong for the Commission to reject tenders without consideration. It does appear, however, that a very high value is being placed upon the special A licences, and there have been many complaints that a large number of the vehicles for disposal is not in a • condition to justify the refusal of reasonable tenders.— En.]