Open Letter to M.P.s
Page 39
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Our Ref: T.(A.) B.1]. Your Ref T.A. 1947: Regarding the Part that Free Hauliers Should be Allowed to Play in an Integrated, Adequate and Efficient inland Transport System, and the Attitude the B.T.C. has So Far Adopted on This Point
Dear Menthe; of Parliament e"
" OU will be voting next Friday upon a Bill that
Dear Menthe; of Parliament e"
" OU will be voting next Friday upon a Bill that
seeks for the first time to make some amend
ments to the Transport Act passed in 1947. It Ly be that you voted for that Act. It may be that it still favour the nationalization of transport. Before -.iding to reject the amending Bill, however, you may di to inquire how far nationalization has followed ! progran-une you intended to lay down in 1947, and 'ether in the light of experience the new Bill may not in some respects desirable Very likely no two M.P.s would agree exactly upon at they thought they were bringing into force when If passed the original Act. With such a complicated ce of legislation, this is not surprising. From staterits made before, dui ing and after the passage of the t, however, it is reasonably clear that, although the lways and canals were to be taken over as a whole, id transport was to be nationalized only in part. in 1, on the road ;haulage side about 40,000 vehicles ve been acquired by British Road Services, and the rnber is not likely to grow significantly; whereas 1,000 vehicles remain in the hands of free-enterprise ..rators.
=liven this division of road haulage into two sections, s obviously in the best interests of the country that .h should be as efficient as possible. Responsibility seeing that this is done is laid upon the British Insport Commission by the Act itself. The Commisn's duty is "to provide, or .secure or promote the ivision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and
operly integrated system of .transport." In other ids, the Commission has either to provide a good vice itself or to see that somebody else does.
The Difficulty
rhe definition of the word "integration " has caused ne difficulty. The Commission is probably, correct assuming that it means some sort of fusion between d, rail and canal. If independent operators are to re any part in integration, in accordance with the. :ntion of the Act, they must be allowed the use by Commission of those facilities, notably the railways I canals, where it has a monopoly. For example, a ilier with a collection and delivery service in both ndon and Glasgow must be allowed to sub-contract the Commission his traffic between those two towns. iron may wonder to what extent the Commission has ;n successful in carrying out its duty to the public I to other carriers. Has the Commission provided a id service? You must already have heard or read nerous expressions of opinion to the contrary. You I probably hear a good many more next Friday in the House of Commons. Strictly speaking, they will be irrelevant. On this occasion the Commission is not standing trial for its blunders, its delays, its extravagance and its high charges. It should merely be remembered that the complaints concern traffic that would previously have been carried satisfactorily by companies now restricted or suppressed altogether at the Commission's hands.
The important question at the moment is whether the Commission has helped to ensure the provision of a good service by somebody else. Before an answer can be given, it is necessary to consider what powers the Commission has over its fellow carriers for good or evil, and how it has used those powers.
Transport economists, whatever they thought about nationalization, have for many years past urged that the railways should drastically reduce the number of goods stations, largely leaving the short-distance work to road transport, and that in return long-distance carriage of goods by road should be curtailed. This principle was obviously followed in the framing of the Transport Act. Predominantly long-distance hauliers
were to be compulsorily acquired, and the remaining operators were not to carry goods outside a radius or 25 miles, except under a permit (or unless the goods were in certain excluded categories which need not concern its here).
The System
Now, if one may beg the question of nationalization, here was material for an ideal transport system. The Commission would be able to ensure that the railways concentrated their efforts on through journeys between main centres of population, and to euFb the competition of hauliers in this particular field. Hauliers doing regular long-distance runs would be bought out. The bulk of the short-distance work would be done by the remaining hauliers, who would also. be allowed to make longer journeys provided they did not interfere with the Commission's plans for integrating its services by road, rail and canal.
The plan has so far not worked very happily. The
e Commission, like the greedy girl in the fairy story, has snatched the gifts provided by the kind Fairy Godmother of Westminster and used them solely for the satisfaction of its own appetite. Parliament thought it necessary to give the Commission the right to grant or refuse permits to carry outside the 25-mile limit. The Commission is, using its power with the ultimate aim of keeping every haulier within that limit. In due course, no permits will be granted at ail.
Meanwhile, the Commission is carrying on with its own scheme of integration, not without protests from the workers concerned. It has no intention of allowing , the haulier to develop his own plan If he be doing any long-distance work, he is allowed to continue on sufferance, until the Commission wants to take the traffic from him. In the short-distance field he meets massive objections even to his licence The situation is chaotic. Thousands of traders who were satisfied with the service they_previously received find it is no longer available. They cannot understand the reason and are unhappy with the alternative service offered them by British Road Services. In face of the storm aroused by the latest batch of permit revocations, the Commission has had to forswear itself in many cases arid agree to continue the permits for the time being.
Something must be done to protect the haulier against. the Commission. Let us agree that integration is desirable and that the Commission must have a virtual monopoly for really long-distance trunk journeys. Must we not also agree that free enterprise should be helped to provide the best possible service within its own sphere of influence? That sphere of influence should be large enough to enable the haulier at least to ply between cities in the same industrial complex, as for example Manchester and Liverpool. In some cases, particularly when he is off the main routes.or carrying perishable traffic, he should be allowed to go even longer distances. In the short-distance field, he should be on terms of equality with the Commission. he Transport (Amendment) Bill would extend his pe mit-free range to 60 miles. For some hauliers this w uld be more than enough, but it is not so great as to onstitute a menace to the Commission's long-distance ac vities. Under the Bill, permits would be in the ne tral hands of the established Licensing Authorities, w would naturally be carelul to see that the terms of an permit did not allow the haulier to encroach on the sp ere of influence of the Commission.
e Bill also provides that vehicles taken over by Br tish Road Services should continue to operate under lie nces in the same way as those of free-enterprise ha hers lithe hauliers' handicaps were reduced by the en I ctment of these points, the Commission and the ha diers would be able to work much more closely to ether in an attempt to fulfil the objects of the Tr. nsport Act.
ompared with other matters calling for your attentt n, the Transport (Amendmentl Bill must seem very s all beer. The little issues and the, big issues, however, ar bound up together. The country faces growing pr blems. More urgently than ever it requires a transrt system each section of which is free to give of its be t, a system enjoying the complete confidence of the pi lie and not weakened by internal quarrels. Yours faithfully.