Railway Aces Trumped By Road Witnesses
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE honours of the principal witness, on Thursday of last week, were very nearly carried off by Mr. J, S. Nichol', when Major H. .E. Crawford, that witness, was presenting the case for road transport to the T.A.C. in the course of investigations into the justice of the railways claim for a "square deal."
Mr. Nicholl is, of course, a member of the above Council. During the hearing of Major Crawfurd's evidence, in the course of which he had presented the B.R.F. view that none but a road haulier should have the right to object to an application for a licence on the part of another road haulier or would-be road haulier, Lord Stamp asked this question : "Would you not accept the view that some other authority, not directly interested in road transport, should have the right to object?"
"What kind of authority have you in mind?" asked Major Crawfurd, " I am thinking that a body of ratepayers or some authority representing them might object on the grounds that the granting of additional licences would be unwise, having in mind the congested state of the roads."
.Major Crawfurd replied that he did not think that such authorities should have any more right to object than they have at present.
Mr. Nicholl's opportunity to ask a question came a little later in the morning.
"Can you tell me approximately what is the total number of motor vehicles already on the roads?" "About three million."
"Of that number how many are there to which objection might be raised by any authority?"
"One hundred and thirty-eight thousand."
0 Major Crawfurd Plays a Good Hand S.
My own impression, hearing Major Crawford give evidence and hearing him deal, forthrightly, with the questions put to him, was one of thankfulness. Thank goodness, I thought to myself, we have, this time, someone handling the case "or road transport who is not only thoroughly acquainted with the whole subject, with all the difi5,culties under which our industry labours. but who is also the type of advocate who cannot be browbeaten and who will not be misled or cajoled into giving way on essential points in response to protestations of goodwill on the part of the other side. . In other words, road transport, this time, has a worthy champion.
After some preliminary questions by the Chairman. Sir Arthur Griffiths-Boscawen, devised to elucidate and • probably explain for the benefit of the Commission the precise standing of the B.R.F. and its right to represent road transport as a whole, in which Major Crawfurd 136 was able to demonstrate that the Federation not only represented Aand B-licence holders and passengervehicle operators but also practically the whole body of ancillary users, the main business of the morning commenced.
Major Crawfurd pointed out that, with one exception, all those complaints made by the railways against the road-haulage 'industry in the course of the past 10 years. have been met. Those complaints related to hours of work, wages and conditions, speed limits, mechanical fitness, insurance against third-party risks, taxation, expansion of the road-haulage industry and road-haulage rates. Of these only the last named is still unrernedied and is actually being dealt with by the Liaison Committee of the B.R.F.
• Following the Rules of the Game -0 In answer to a suggestion that there was some feeling that some at least of the regulations which had been made in order to overcome these objections were still, to some extent, disregarded, Major Crawford claimed that the industry itself had been remarkably successful in organizing itself from within. It was remarkable, he said, because this was essentially a post-war induitry, built up of a large number of individuals who turned to it as a means for Jiving on returning from overseas, After some questions dealing with the differentiation in taxation as between oil fuel for road and rail transport, Major Crawfurd was asked what was meant by the Statement that the railway companies had executed a complete volte-face; further, is the Commission to understand that as the result of that you have abandoned yenr attempts to build up a road haulage rates structure?
Major Crawford pointed out that a year ago the railway companies approved the T.A.C.. Report. An' important paragraph in that Report stated that. " As regards rates, it was felt that before proceeding farther, opportunity should be afforded for the road hauliers tO build up a rates structure for their own industry. . . . Such structure should be the product of the industry itself and the rates should be arrived at in relation solely to factors affecting road transport, rather than by attempting to relate them to rates prevailing in other forms of transport. . ."
The road transport industry has accepted the Report. The railway companies have accepted it. It has been accepted by the Minister and by the Government. The railway companies in their Memorandum, which is actually embodied in that Report, did not ask to be exempted from their obligations. Their present attitude, therefore, which does ask for such exemption, is a complete volte-face. The position is that, whilst road transport is doing its best to implement the Report, the railway companies, in the middle of everything, entirely reverse their attitude. They expect the Minister to eat his words, they expect your council to reverse its decisions and opinions, and they even ask the Government to reverse its policy.
Sir Arthur Griffiths-Boscawen then said : "I gather that it is your view that if the relief for which they ask is afforded to the railway companies you would expect relaxation of some of the regulations governing the road haulage industry. For example, you would expect that other transport interests should be deprived of the right to object to the renewal of A and B licences. Why do you take that attitude?"
• Operators Who May Not Deal • "I should like to explain that in this way," replied Major Crawfurd. " The road haulage-industry in this country is in a peculiar, almost unique, position. Apart from vendors of poisons and purveyors of alcoholic liquors, it is the only industry the individual of which must have a licence to operate, and the restrictions upon the operations of the road haulier are much more stringent than those on the others I have mentioned. There is, first, the fact that the road haulier, although he may keep the law and adhere strictly to all regulations which govern him, may yet be deprived of his licence or refused renewal when that becomes due. Above all, he cannot, at the call of enterprise or to meet ordinary trade expansion, add to the number of his vehicles or expand his business. The proprietor of licensed houses is not subject to such restrictions. No one sets a limit upon the quantity of beer which he may sell to his customers. There is, on the contrary, a strict limitation upon the tonnage a haulier may carry.
"We maintain that this should not be so. We hold that a road haulier should be given a licence if.he obeys thelaw and if he shows he is a fit and proper person to be given a licence. Beyond that there should be no restriction, If and when road haulage rates are stabilized this freedom to extend and freedom to obtain licences will not result in uneconomic competition."
Major Crawfurd further pointed out that this freedom was recommended by the Royal Commission on Transport, of which Sir Arthur was chairman. Whereupon Sir Arthur rejoined that whilst the Royal Commission recommended that, the Salter Conference went farther (in limitation).
• Permission to Sell the Bank • He went on to claim that a haulier should have the right to dispose of his business freely so long as it was established that there was a real business existent : that, provided he does not break the law and if he adheres to rates schedules he should have his licence reneived automatically and be allowed to expand his business if the demand for his services increases.
Sir Arthur : " Would you say that should be subject to the approval of the Traffic Commissioner?"
Major Crawfurd "No: The railway does not have to have permission to run extra trains, neither should the haulier if he wishes to run additional vehicles. It should be accepted that as the railway companies do not put on additional trains unless there is need for them, neither will the haulier purchase extra vehicles unless there is work for them to do."
"You think," asked Sir Arthur, "that these matters should have consideration in the event of any relief being afforded to the railway companies?"
" Yes. Give the road transport industry time to complete its rates schedule' and let them be made statutory. Then, if it be considered that the old regulations against • which they complain should be removed from the Tailways, .those new regulations which were put on road haulage because of the difficulties which the railway. ., companies suffered on account of those old regulatiefig' must simultaneously be removed. That would give the trader complete freedom to choose his own transport" The Chairman: "I see. You are of opinion that if unilateral action in favour of the railways be taken the result will be destruction of the road-haulage industry. How could that come about and what form of protection do you suggest?"
"Transport is not an end but a means to an end_ Trade and commerce should have free choice amongst all forms of transport which are available. Suppose you give freedom to the railways and leave road transport bound as at present. Several things might happen. The railways might say to a commercial concern, ' Unless you give us all your traffic we will increase the charges on that portion which you are bound to give us.'
• Winning Tricks With Clubs • "Again, the railways might take a particular section of the country and lower their rates in that section to such an extent as to kill road haulage in that area, meantime recouping themselves for the losses thus involved by increasing their charges throughout the rest of the country. That process can be continued, taking districts in turn, until the industry is destroyed.
"And the weapon which will faciltate this lies in the fact that, as things are at present, a haulier losing his business in this way cannot restart elsewhere for he will lose his licence on the ground of having changed the nature of his business."
An important point was made by Major Smith, who was suporting Major Crawfurd, in response to a question from Mr. Gaunt relating to alleged competition with the railways by C-licence holders. Major Smith was of the opinion that such competition was very limited in extent. He recalled happenings subsequent to the implementing of the 1933 Act as the result of which hauliers' businesses were restricted and the number of Aand B-licensed vehicles diminished. C licences commenced to increase and have continued to do so because the traders concerned refused to use the railways. He was of opinion that if the railways did by any means bring about further restriction of road hauliers' activities that process would be intensified.
Further, he pointed out that this purchasing of vehicles was contrary to the best interests and general wishes of many ancillary users who, generally speaking, and for economic reasons, would prefer to utilize tin facilities which the road haulier provides.
• Railways May Want a Full House • Sir Ralph Wedgwood gave Major Crawfurd one of-the opportunities for those rapier-like returns for Which he is so famous. Sir Ralph was discussing the fear, already expressed, that the railway companies would endeavour to wipe out the road-haulage industry and he said that he gathered that one of the principal objects the B.R.F. had in view in their proposals was to eliminate that risk.
Whereupon, Major Crawfurd said that he felt that the case was comparable to that of St. Anthony, who prayed to be delivered, not from sin but from temptation.
It was following this that Lord Stamp • asked the question, which I have already mentioned, which brought forth the question from Mr. Nicholl and that In effect brought Major Crawfurd's evidence to a conclusion.