1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
HAULIERS, TOO, OPPOSE COMPULSORY DIRECTION
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1ZEPRESENTATIVES of the Road Haulage Association will have a long list of questions to put to the Minister of Transport for clarification of her licensing proposals when they meet her today (Friday) in London. They are particularly concerned about the rights of existing hauliers under her plan, and they wish to be clear about such points as whether own-account operators will indeed be free to carry for hire and reward, and what term of currency she envisages for a licence.
The executive board of the RHA met on Tuesday and after their meeting issued this statement: "According to the Minister's statement her two objectives are the protection of public safety and the more rational division of traffic between road and rail. With the first of these objectives the RHA is in agreement although there may be criticisms of the methods by which they are to be achieved.
"The RHA vigorously opposes the second objective. As worded it provides for the compulsory direction of traffic from road to rail solely to protect the railways. The Minister is ignoring the interests not merely of hauliers but also of the whole of trade and industry, and is depriving the trader of his freedom of choice.
"The reassurances which she has attempted to give are unlikely to satisfy the public. She has said that before confiscating the traffic of the haulier the railways would have to state—but not to prove at that time— that they can provide just as satisfactory a service, taking into account speed, reliability and cost. The only person to whom this statement ought to be of interest is the customer, as presumably he would make the switch of his own accord if the railways were able to make good their claim. In any event the comparison of costs is as unrealistic as it is unfair so long as the railways, exempt from all but 2d per gallon of the tax on fuel, follow a charges system that yields an annual deficit exceeding £134m a year.
"The Minister's proposals are clearly designed to eliminate competition wherever it confronts the railways and to give them traffic which they would be unable to capture by ordinary commercial means. Such a measure would inevitably cause hardship to many hauliers, destroy their businesses without compensation and leave the customer without an alternative service."