Civil War
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TO hear some people talk, one would imagine that the transport industry was permanently in a state of civil war. The fact that British Road Services made a profit in 1957 has been welcomed in some quarters as a triumph, and by Mr. Ernest Davies as.a justification of nationalization. Presumably, the triumph is supposed to be over independent hauliers. There is no evidence, however, that they have incurred a loss, and it would be just as appropriate for them to be celebrating a victory.
Many of them would prefer to see B.R.S. come out on the right side, as this provides an assurance that nationalized rates have not been cut too drastically, and that, however much the British Transport Commission may grumble in general, at least B.R.S. have no excuse for complaining about excessive competition. Significantly, B.R.S. are sparing in the use of military symbols, and have not so far even joined in the attack on the C-licence holder. .
There may be a simple reason for this. B.R.S. are concerned only with goods transport, and, therefore, are not subject to theconfused thinking that sometiines bothers the Commission, who deal with both goods and passengers. There is an obvious and irreconcilable ground for quarrel between the bus and the private car—or between the bus.
and television. . .
A man buys a car.because it provides him with a -service of a kind that he could .not possibly get. from public transport, even if the CoMMission could run .a: bus or a train to his door. His .deeision is not greatly affected by changes in fares, and only to a limited extent by the public facilities that are available. The Cormnission have no Way of persuading him to change his mind and to sell, his car.. The only outlet—and not really a very sensible one—for their chagrin is to declare war upon hitt, perhaps in the .hope that he will be made subject to restrictions -and will consequentIV be forced to use a train or a -bus..
The Commission's Mistake . .
. From time to time the Commission have indulged in this kind of attack, although without any great success. They have apparently satisfied themselves thatthe same tactics are suitable for dealing with the C-licence holder. They are making a mistake, however, in imagining that there is
an analogy.
It is true that, if the trader is restricted in the use of his vehicles, the professional carriers must reap the advantage, and that the same thing would happen if the running of private. cars were similarly restricted. The two sets of circnrnstances are otherwise completely different. . The car owner travels on journeys that could, for the most part, be taken by means of public transport;he uses his car because it is beyond comparison more convenient.. Nothing could make him think otherwise.
The operations of the trader fall broadly into two divisions: those, such as retail delivery, for which public transport offers no comparable service and those that could well go by public carrier if he were in a position to provide the right service at the right price. In the second category, there is no impossible gulf between what the public carrier can give and what the customer can arrange for himself. The Commission can get their way with the car owner only by going to war; with the C-licence holder, they are in fair competition.
The B.T.C. more than hint that the competition is anything but fair. The C-licence operator, they say, "naturally employs his own vehicles so far as he can before making use
of public transport," so that when there is a glut in freightcarrying capacity, as.the Commission maintain is the case at the present time, the public carriers are "the first to sutler." There is no need for the Commission to be-any more bellicose than that. They can rely upon Mr. Davies, and others in his party, to threaten the C-licence holder in plainer terms, with the help of the ammunition that the Commission supply.
What about the ancillary user himself? • His policy has recently been pathetically epitomized as one of 'nonaggression" by Mr. S. C. Bond, president of the Traders' Road Transport Association. The ancillary user can hardly escape from the Commission's indictment, always supposing it to be relevant. He -is bound to give his own vehicles the preference. and to leave hauliers and nationalized transport at the end of the queue. They would no doubt do the Same by 'him.
The hardest thing for the C-licence holder is to turn the other cheek and refrain from hitting back when he is , attacked. Some hint of the irritation he must feel was given recently by Mr. E. J. Chamberlain, chairman of the YorkShire (Hull and East Riding) Division of the T.R.T.A. 'Many C-licensees, he said, would use hired transport, leaving their capital for business needs, if only they could be sure of g.etting a reliable service from hauliers.
On the Rebound
° Mr. Chamberlain has a good point, but he has worded it a little unfortunately, possibly because of the prevailing atmosphere of fisticuffs. With the Commission and the Socialists belabouring the C-licence holder, he can be excused from ,expressing his oninidn, in the form of an attack. It is somewhat unfortunate that he should pick on the hauliers, who have done nothing to offend him; In the confusion, the only thing one can be certain of is
that something is wrong somewhere. -The Commission complain of too many vehicles chasing too few goods, whereas Mr. Chamberlain says that his goods, at any rate, are left out of the pursuit and he has to carry them himself.
Mr. Davies alleges, almost simultaneously, cut-throat competition by hauliers for such scanty traffic as is available, and excessive hours and mileages, presumably not in respect of vehicles running empty. .
In this atmosphere of paradox and strife, it is reasonable to suppose that the fault mainly lies with the system. There must be plenty of hauliers in Yorkshire anxious to give Mr. Chamberlain the service he lacks. They need only the facilities, and, perhaps most of all, the licensed tonnage. Whether or not he has in the past given evidence at traffic courts in support of their applications, they appear not to be adding to their fleets a sufficient number of the right type of vehicle to give trade and industry what is required.
Hauliers may be hesitating to spend more money while one of the major political parties is threatening to put them out of business; or the Licensing Authorities, hampered by the tightening grip or case law on the licensing system, may be reluctant to grant extra tonnage without more than adequate reasons. The new importance attached to the declaration of normal user is also having a hampering effect. All the while, the volume of traffic carried illegally, without benefit of licence, is increasing. It may well be, therefore, that the licensing system is unduly restrictive and is distorting the structure of the transport industry in such a way as to cause friction and apparent contradictions.