Excluded Traffic
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Crisis
Is the B.T.C. Justified in Passing to a State-owned Subsidiary, Excluded Traffic Acquired with Public Funds or Should it Remain the Province of the Free Haulier ?
F4VENTS are taking place all over the country, the underlying signifi
cance of which carriers of traffic excluded from the provisions of the Transport Act cannot afford to ignore. The trend is for the British Transport Commission, whether by accident or design, to enlarge its activities in the fields of furniture removal and the haulage of indivisible loads through the agency of the Hay's Wharf Cartage Co., Ltd., which was acquired as part of ihe assets of the railways, and its subsidiary company, Pickfords, Ltd.
A number of long-distance carriers acquired by the Road Haulage Executive has operated a few vehicles on excluded traffic. Not wishing to use its full powers to carry out removals, the R.H.E. is passing the vehicles over to the Hay's Wharf Cartage Co., Ltd., to be absorbed into the organization of that concern.
Events Foreseen
A forecast of present events was made in The Commercial Motor," dated June 6, 1947, and one case which illustrates the trend was an application by Hay's Wharf which was heard before Mr. S. W. Nelson, Northern Licensing Authority, at Stockton-on-Tees, last week.
On March 3, 1949, the R.H.E. acquired the undertaking of Walton's Carriers, Ltd“ Stockton-on-Tees. Of the 17 vehicles run by this company, two were pantechnicons employed on furniture-removal work. As a result of the policy of the British Transport Commission, the Hay's Wharf Cartage Co.,. Ltd., applied •for a licence for Pickfords. Ltd., to run these two vehicles, The name of Walton's Carriers, Ltd., an old-established concern, would be retained for goodwill.
Mr. A. W. Elaine, an official of the Hay's Wharf Cartage Co., Ltd., statedthat the B.T.C. had passed the two vehicles to his concern so as to be co-ordinated in Pickfords services.
No Encroachment
The application, he submitted, did not represent any taking of traffic from other removers. The vehicles had been run under licence by Walton's Carriers, Ltd., and for a brief period under B.T.C. discs.
Mr. T Campbell Wardlaw, for the 10 objectors—local furniture removers and general hauliers—described the applica tion as preposterous. He questioned Mr Balne as to the financial set-up of his company and Mr. Balne informed him that Hay's Wharf was the holding company of Pickfords, Ltd., and that most of the shares of Hay's Wharf were held by the B.T.C.
Mr. Wardlaw asked why the B.T.C., through Hay's Wharf, -should have recourse to the licensing system. It appeared that the B.T.C., using Hay's Wharf, was attempting to build up a vast organization to carry traffic excluded from the provisions of the Transport Act. The company was a newcomer to the district and evidence of need should be produced to support the application. To state that it was made to suit requirements of operation and co-ordination, "a miraculous manceuvre," was not sufficient, he argued.
Mr. Elaine denied that the application should be treated as if from a newcomer. The Licensing Authority had been satisfied that a need existed for the vehicles when he authorized their operation by Walton's Carriers, Ltd.
Mr. Wardlaw then observed that the reason for the Hay's Wharf concern's applying for licences to run Walton's vehicles was obscure. The principles a licensing had been completely disregarded in that the. applicant had produced no evidence of need.
The Licensing Authority said that the circumstances differed from those in the Enston case, Which laid down the rules to be followed by new entrants to the industry. As the B.T.C. had paid public
money in compensation to Walfon's Carriers, Ltd., for loss of business, it would not be fair to let this businesspass to other hauliers.
Examination and cross-examination of the objectors revealed that removals traffic in the area had been declining of late. In answer to Mr. Balne, the objectors admitted that they would not have opposed the application had it been made by Walton's Carriers, Ltd.
The crux of the matter, as put by Mr. Wardlaw, was that the vehicles would be run more intensely He further submitted that the goodwill of Walton's Carriers, Ltd., had not been acquired; only compensation for loss of business had been paid. Walton's Carriers, Ltd., still existed as a legal entity and Pickfords had made free use of the name. "1 cast a grave doubt upon the legality of the arrangement," he said.
No reason had been produced to show why the applicant should have anything to do with the matter, Mr. Wardlaw continued. The arrangement by which Hay's Wharf had to deal with the application was not known. There was no reason why the company should be given preferential treatment: it should be treated as a newcomer.
He submitted that Walton's Carriers, Ltd., was not making full use of its vehicles and that the applicant was seeking simply to enlarge its field of operation. He asked why the B.T.C. should divest itself of its powers and seek to be ruled by the 1933 Act, Hay's Wharf also applied for a licence to run a vehicle based at Middlesbrough. The R.H.E. had acquired the concerns of Fred Robinson (Transporters), Ltd., and T. 0. Harrison. Ltd., and Hay's Wharf asked for one vehicle to deal with the small amount of furniture-removal work previously carried on by these two companies.
Possible Justification
• The Licensing Authority reserved his decision in both cases.
As similar events are taking place in many parts of the country, a likely development is that a meeting of the Licensing Authorities with the Minister of Transport will take place.
As Mr. Nelson said, it is reasonable to expect the B.T.C., having spent public money, to pass the excluded traffic to its own subsidiary and not to private concerns. It must be conceded that Pickfords is a highly efficient machine and this fact possibly justifies the Commission's policy.
However, although the total number of vehicles engaged on removal work in the country is not increased, the smaller operators see in the coincident expansion of Pickfords a threat to their businesses, more so than if removers of their own size were increasing their traffic.
It may be accepted as a sign of sincerity on the part of the B.T.C. that it is willing to run its vehicles on excluded traffic under the same licensing system as other hauliers. To operate under its own authorization would be a gross injustice.
Legality in Question
It seems that the Commission does not regard Hay's Wharf as a unit of the R.H.E., but as a separate undertaking to which, having acquired its stock, it may most judiciously pass excluded traffic. The legality and fairness of this policy are now in question and future developments are likely to demonstrate the B.T.C.'s motives.
Whether any threat to free hauliers was intended, they are greatly aggrieved and suspect that the matter may not end with the mere transfer of excluded traffic to Hay's Wharf. To claim licences for vehicles on a basis of co-ordination is to them a matter for misgiving, especially when they feel that they have the sole right to the traffic formerly carried on by concerns that have been nationalized.
The question is fundamentally that the free hauliers feel they are the only concerns with the right to carry excluded traffic, and that the Commission considers itself justified in passing such traffic as it obtains through the acquisitions of the R.H.E. to its own subsidiary as State funds have been expended. Whatever solution may be found, it cannot satisfy everyone, and the whole matter serves to show the confusion, discredit and mistrust that inevitably arise when the _State interferes with industry.