Fight the Case of the B-Licensee
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Public Interest Requires That Persecution of Limited Carriers Should be Stopped. A-licence Holders Will Next Share the Fate of B-licence
I F the present policy of the Licensing Authorities in further restricting the activities of B-licence holders, principally at the behest of the railway companies, be continued, the future of this class of carrier will be one of grave doubt. It was recently suggested at a public inquiry that B-licensees would be driven out of business in five years, because by that time their liberty 'would be so curtailed as to make continuance futile.
A striking commentary on the trend of events as regards the limited carrier is provided by a recent sitting of a Libensing Authority, at which 26 Blicensees applied for renewals and all were further restricted.
Unjustified Restrictions.
It is difficult to see how the authorities can justify their actions, in view of the declaration of Lord Blanesburgh, in the Hill and Long case in the House of Lords, that a B-licence is prima facie unrestricted as to radius. Sufficient use does not seem to have been made of this judgment in pressing applications, and the process of attrition continues. As the result, Blicensees are in peril of being saddled with diminishing businesses, without hope of revival or compensation. • The B-licence holder appears to be nobody's friend—at least in the transport industry. He is regarded with suspicion by the A-licensee and with open distaste by the railways, and the attitude of most of the Licensing Authorities towards him may be gauged by their decisions.
, Yt in many parts of the kingdom,
• and particularly in rural areas,' the 13licence carrier provides the staple goods-transport facilities. The first annual . reports of the Licensing Authorities showed that there are 35,279 current B licences in the hands of 35,089 operators, who run 55,558 authorized vehicles. By comparison, A licences number 28,739 and are held by 27,096 hauliers, running, in the .,aggregate, 100,182 machines.
More Sympathy Deserved.
Although B-licensees are more numerous than public hauliers, their businesses are smaller and, therefore, require greater protection. They render an invaluable public service and merit far more sympathy than they receive.
No doubt they have themselves partly to blame, for they are often negligent in the preparation of their applications for licences and do not support their associations. But, in view of the benefits which they confer upon industry and commerce, they should be protected against themselves —and particularly against the railways.
Many B-licence holders could, but for legal technicalities, justifiably hold A licences and would' thus, perhaps, be spared some --f the anxieties and re
-1122 strictions which they now suffer. In numerous cases, the operator's other business is seasonal and 'transport for hire or reward is the mainstay of his organization.
In such instances, it is most unjust that--anapplicant should be treated as one who is carrying on a prosperous enterprise as a manufacturer or trader, but who is seeking to earn a little " pin money" by taking the bread. from the mouths of professional hauliers. Such are the shades of Hollywood melodrama in which astute railway lawyers paint the humble limited carrier. And the Licensing Authorities, despite their vast powers of assimilation and discrimination, seem to be impressed by this inflamed oratory.
Is Trade Being Subsidized?
The test of the bona fides of an application for a B licence should be the question: " Is the applicant's other business being subsidized by transport for hire or reward? " If the answer be "yes," he should, in the interests of the public and of other operators, be limited to purely local work, perhaps for customers with whom he deals in the course of his manufacturing or trading undertaking. Otherwise, he should rank as a public car. rier and his , case should be judged solely by that standard.
Apart from this class of operator, there is the haulier who has no separate trading euterprise, but is compelled, through the pressure of objectors, to accept a B licence and its consequences.
A legal ruling is urgently required to determine whether it is lawful for a B licence to be granted to a full-time carrier.
It has been suggested that if the intention of the legislature had been to limit the granting of B licences to parttime hauliers, it would have used the word -" the," instead of "any," in Section 2 (3) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. The terms of the subsection are as follow:— " A limited carrier's licence . . . shall entitle the holder thereof to use the authorized vehicles . . . either for the carriage of goods for or in connection with. any trade or business carried on by him, or . . . for the carriage of goods for hire or reward."
There is some force in this argu
ment, but Parliament would surely have made the matter clear had it intended the restriction of the professional carrier. In equity, there is no reason why one full-time haulier should be placed in a more favourable position than another as regards licensing.
One of the greatest injustices to the B-licence holder concerns objections. After hearing a complaint by a solicitor that he (the Authority) did not require the same weight of evidence from an objector who sought the reduction of an applicant's activities as from an applicant who desired increased scope, the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority confessed: "No, I probably don't."
Balance Against the Applicant.
In other words, although the Authority stated that he started with a mental presumption in favour of renewal, he agreed that the balance was weighted against the applicant—a contradiction in terms. The traditions of British justice require that a defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt. The administration of the 1933 Act has no respect for established canons of justice, and the unfortunate defender of , his livelihood is saddled with a burden of proof which cannot be supported on any ground of fairplay., The persecution of the B-licence holder is a matter that requires national action. We do not assert that in every area the limited carrier is dismissed with scant consideration. The West Midland Licensing Authority has shown an appreciation of the principles of justice for the B-licensee, but is that attitude as widespread as it should be?
The fate of the B-licence holder, yesterday and to-day, is a fair exaniple of the reception to be accorded, tomorrow, to the public carrier. Yet how many A-licensees take the long view? There is far toe; insular an otitlook in the road-transport industry, too much jealousy and distrust among the individual classes of operator. The railways are not out for the extinction of any one type; they are deterrinned to crush the whole of road transport.
A-licensees to Suffer Next.
The fact that they first fell upon the B-licensee is due purely to the particular period of validity of that class of licence; it does not infer that they find A-licence hauliers any less desirable prey. Their turn is about to come. The ancillary user has not long to wait, either.
All types of goods-vehicle operator must stand together. The established haulier must not try to stifle the entry of new blood into the industry, for that is the surest way of encouraging a railway monopoly. Petty jealousies and sectional interests must be forgotten'in the great push to save the industi-3r from uncompensated and ignominious extinction.