Hauliers' Private Business Exposed to the Railways.
Page 35
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT would appear that there is no indignity or injustice which officialdom is prepared to spare the haulage contractor. Not the least deplorable feature of the administration of the Road and Rail Traffic Act is the disregard for the sanctity of the road-transport applicant's business' arrangements.
Not only is little effort made by the Licensing Authorities to treat these details, often vital, confidentially, but the practice has arisen— apparently an unwritten regulation —of requiring that two copies of such details shall be available, one for the Authority and one for the objectors. It is monstrous that these intimate details of an applicant's business should be circulated, to find an ultimate home in the dossier which the railways keep for each haulier.
Delicate Negotiations Harmed.
In addition to the railway interests, complete with their staff of pseudo reporters, absorbing and tabulating every scrap of valuable information, there may be upwards of 20 competing hauliers in the court room. The damage which the business of an applicant may suffer by an appearance before the Licensing Authority is, therefore, obvious. What is more, letters disclosing proffered rates and other matters equally private are bandied about in the same unceremonious manner.
T cannot illustrate this statement better than by describing an incident which I witnessed during a case in the Metropolitan Area court.
The application was one for increased tonnage. Part of the applicant's evidence consisted of a letter from a timber firm, offering him a contract for the conveyance of their wood at a certain price per ton.
Cross-examined on Rates.
This letter was handed to the Licensing Authority, who, later in the sitting, without permission being either sought or obtained, handed it to railway counsel. As a result, part of the cross-examination consisted of an inquiry into the comparison between road and rail rates, matter which was totally irrelevant to the hearing and which, from the wording of the Act, was not even admissible. • The question of rates does not figure largely in the Act. In Section 8 (3), it is ruled out as a condition which may be applied to a B licence. In Section 5 (2) (a) appears the only reference with which we need concern ourselves. Among other things, this section lays it down that :—
" A person applying for a licence . . . shall, if required by the licensing authority, submit to the licensing authority in the prescribed form . " (a) Such particulars as the licensing authority may require with respect to any business as a carrier of goods for hire or reward carried on by the applicant at any time before the snaking of the application and of the rates charged by the applicant."
Details Need Not be Revealed.
The observant reader will notice three important points in the wording of this section. The particulars shall be submitted to the Licensing Authority ; he shall give particulars of rates charged—the wording is not " to be charged "—and there is no instruction that the rates shall be identified with any particular customer.
There is nothing here which suggests that the Authority must make public the information obtained. Rather would it appear to be information which he is entitled to demand to aid his own personal judgment. There is, however, from the choice of words a definite indication that the Licensing Authority is not entitled to demand information as to rates which the applicant, if the application be granted, proposes to charge.
At first sight, this may not appear to be an important point. Let us consider this particular case a little farther. The application was for an additional vehicle on an A licence, and, if the application were success ful, a definite contract was to be entered into.. ,The traffic being unilateral, the question of a contract licence did not arise.
It is obvious that rates which are still the subject of negotiation, by reason of the fact that the contract cannot be completed until the licence is granted, are of a peculiarly confidential nature. Even if the applicant offers such information to the Authority, as evidence that there are persons ready and willing to employ him; it is manifestly improper that such evidence should be made public.
Luring Applicant's Clients.
Let us suppose that the applicant has secured the offer of an excepttionally good rate. Not only is this information available, to be used by the railways, but any other haulier who may be present at the hearing has the opportunity of calling on the contracting firm and of offering his services at a more competitive rate. What a pretty state of affairs would ensue if the applicant were to secure the licence, and then called on his proposed employer only to find that the work had already been secured by a competitor.
In this particular case, the application did not succeed, so that it may be contended that not much harm was done. To the contrary, it was open to this contractor to approach the employing firm and say : " I cannot obtain an additional vehicle, because you will employ me only one way. I could obtain a contract licence, but the rate you offer would not warrant a single-road journey. If you will increase the rate, I will make the journey, carrying only your goods."
Vital Data Given Away.
It is within the bounds of possibility that he would be able to negotiate a rate that would justify him in applying for a contract licence. This solution, however, is equally jeopardized by the broadcasting of his provisional negotiations.
Only those who have made regular visits to the traffic courts can appreciate the vast amount of vital information which has been made available to competing interests. I have actually heard railway counsel, without rebuke from the bench, ask such a question as this: "Tell us the names of some of these _customers."
I have known it to be contended that, as all railway rates are public property, there is no reason Why the haulier should not be placed on the same footing. This argument, however, is so manifestly absurd that it requires little thought to realize the inherent fallacies.
Higher Rates by Road.
In the first place, railway, rates are not the object of competition by competing railways; that is to say, there is no competition of a parallel nature. In the second place, for specialized traffic, as opposed to bulk goods, more often than not, road rates are considerably higher than rail charges. To quote just one example, I was re-, cently in conversation with a haulier who was purchasing three new vans, because he had regained the longdistance traffic of a customer, who was proposing to pay him 13s. per . ton mom than he had paid for rail transport. The reasons I will leave to your imagination.
For over 18 months the process of extracting information has been allowed to proceed, and it is typical of the inferiority complex that has been engendered in the road-transport industry, that little or no protest has been forthcoming. Possibly, this docile acquiescence is due to the fact that most inquiries have been concerned with the rather pitiful Blicence applications.
The plea which, in these cases, I have heard so often reiterated—" I only want to live "—is one which does not apparently come within the scope of the Act. In order to substantiate this unnatural ambition, applicants have been suavely invited to reveal the most intimate details of their business management.
" Self-extertnination."
Then .,queezed dry—they have generously been allowed to depart, with a radius of such a nature and so many restrictive conditions that, like hungry mice in a circular cage, they will ultimately exterminate each other. This method, of course, allows them to live—and die—without any stigma attaching to the Ministry of Transport, the railways, or, in fact, to anybody. " Uneconomic competition " will be the verdict at the inquest :
The time is fast approaching, however, when every A-licence holder will have to satisfy the railways' unquenchable thirst for information. Fortunately, as reported in The Commercial Motor, a firm stand has recently been taken by a
B2G prominent A.R.0, official against this exploitation cif hauliers' private affairs.
Mr. F. G. Bibbings, secretary of A.R.O. Yorkshire Area, successfully protested to the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority against,the practice of railway representatives noting the names and addresses of a haulier's clients, who had written to support his application. On another occasion Mr. Bibbings objected to questions by a railway representative as to the purchase price of a haulage business, which an applicant proposed to take over as a going concern.
No Concern of Railways.
This matter, he quite rightly contended, was no concern of the railway. He went on to say that if a railway. were in the same position as the applicant, it was more than probable that the company would refuse point-blank to reveal the same intimate information which the railways usually succeeded in obtaining from hauliers.
Undoubtedly, a feature of Alicence renewals will be the same " roving-commission " type of examination by the railways which has characterized their objections in the past. As some Licensing Authorities obviously do not appreciate the unfairness of the latitude which they allow to objecting counsel, the associations must immediately take a strong line in the matter.
The unwary applicant must be protected against submitting lists of customers and other private information in such a manner that it can be used by his Competitors. Where it is considered necessary or desirable to provide duplicate particulars for railway counsel, these copies should be coded in such a manner that only information essential to the inquiry and harmless to the. applicant is divulged to the opposition.
By coding, I mean that if a list submitted to the Licensing Authority bears the names of several customers, the turnover with each, or, perhaps, the rates charged, then, instead of names and addresses, the schedules passed to opposing counsel should bear only the symbols: A, B, C, etc.
Business Secrets—Gratis?
It is well known to the business. community that certain agents, by supplying the names and addresses of possible clients, reap a regular income from tradesmen who are pleased to pay for this information. How valuable, then, must be the information which the railways have so easily obtained—for nothing !
This question of the evidence demanded from applicants has been a disgrace since the commencement of the administration ; at every turn the bias has been against the applicant. The railways have been able to whittle down licences without offering,a shred of evidence, save generalities, in support of their cases, whilst applicants have been forced to bring forward an array of facts and figures to support the most trivial increases.
Balance Against Applicant, A Deputy Licensing Authority, when challenged on these lines, namely, that he did not require the same weight of evidence in a case against an applicant, actually admitted the charge.
Again we are confronted with the grim suspicion that it is neither desired nor expected that road-transport shall prosper—until such time as it is a railway monopoly.