Janus comments
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Anything known?
WHEN a Midlands haulier countered strike pressure by deciding to close down his business, Mr. Alan Law is reported to have threatened to object through his union to any application by the operator concerned for the new type of operator's licence. Apparently the opposition will be extended to other operators if it becomes necessary. Mr. Law has a dossier of alleged misdeeds which he will not hesitate to put before the Licensing Authority when the time comes.
The threat is of course an empty one. There is no right of objection to an application made by the holder of an old-style carriers' licence for an equivalent new licence. In psychological warfare what counts is the extent to which the threat curdles the blood.
More interesting is the light thrown on Mr. Law and on his mental processes. He could be regarded as the almost perfect example of the one-track mind. He aims to get the best possible terms for the men whose cause he serves. Other considerations, it seems, become irrelevant. He disregards so-called national and local interests— perhaps with some justification since nobody has satisfactorily defined what those interests are. The welfare of the businesses in which his members are employed is apparently a matter of indifference to him.
Shutters up Sometimes this approach can take him too far. When one of the businesses decides to put up the shutters rather than give way to his demands the drivers and other staff may not feel particularly grateful for his efforts on their behalf. There have been occasions when some of them have expressed their disapproval.
Mr. Law has no right to assume that the objection procedure was included in the Transport Act 1968 in order to preserve the Birmingham differential. On the other hand he is entitled to ask what other purpose the machinery serves and it may not be easy to find an answer.
Section 63 of the Act (Objections to grant of operators' licences) has not received a great deal of attention. It follows closely the promise in the 1967 White Paper on the transport of freight. A new right of objection, it was said, would replace "the rights of existing carriers to object to the grant of a licence to a public haulier". It would bring to the notice of the Licensing Authority "any relevant facts which he ought to know" when considering an application.
There may have been something comforting in the very phraseology. The proposed procedure sounded so much like what it was designed to supersede. The grounds for an objection would be that the applicant "could not satisfactorily meet the criteria" laid down. This is a possible description of the present system except that the criteria will be completely differeot.
First impressions have persisted long enough for some organizations in the road transport industry to protest strongly at their omission from the list of prescribed organizations with objection rights. The protesters are those whose members have these rights under the present system. It may be significant that organizations to which this does not apply; such as the National Union of Railwaymen, have made comparatively little fuss at being overlooked, although from some quarters they have been almost incited to do so.
The draft regulations limit the right to the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association and to four trade unions. The Act had already specified chief officers of police and local authorities.
Past conduct
Although under the present system objections are chiefly related to the traffic which the applicant wishes to carry the objector often reinforces his arguments with observations on the applicant's past conduct. Many appeals have been based largely on the grounds that the Licensing Authority has not taken that conduct (or misconduct) sufficiently into account.
On this basis it might seem that there would be just as many, if not more, objections when operators' licensing settles down— that is to say when established operators have been given their initial objection-free licence. However, the new framework that develops may be completely different from that envisaged or even desired when the Bill was framed.
Much as one would like to believe it there is not much hope that the objections would be wholly altruistic. They are supposed to be based solely on the shortcomings of the applicant as an operator or prospective operator. The objectors would also be bound to take into account how the application, if granted, would affect them or their members or constituents.
Mr. Law has given a broad enough hint of what could happen. When an operator falls foul of a trade union he may find that an objection is lodged against him when he seeks a variation or renewal of his licence. Whatever is discreditable in his past record will be brought out and given its full weight. The case may even be taken to appeal. He will be put to a good deal of delay and inconvenience and there is always the risk that he will lose.
It is easy to say that he should so act as to be beyond suspicion. In the hurly burly of road transport there are few operators who have not on occasion found themselves on the wrong side of the law possibly through no fault of their own. The mere rattling of the skeleton in the cupboard may be enough to persuade an operator to agree to the kind of settlement that has in the past brought down the strictures (to some extent justified) of the Prices and Incomes Board.
The operator with the really bad record will capitulate even more quickly. The terms that he accepts may diminish still further his chances of running a well-conducted business. In this case, at least, the objection procedure—or at least the tight of objection —could be working actively against the purpose of the Transport Act as a whole.
Other influences may be at work within the associations. Hauliers are usually busy people. It would be public-spirited on their part to ask their association to object to a notorious applicant; but in practice they would probably only notice his application if the grant was likely to affect their businesses.
Mysterious role The role of the local authorities is mysterious. Like the police they may be in a good position to collect discreditable facts about an applicant. Would they (or the police) take the trouble when they have so much else to do? The local authorities, one feels, would be zealous only when they find the activities of an applicant annoying.
The man who parks his vehicles in the street because he is not allowed to build a garage would be a favourable target for a municipal objection. If successful it would at one and the same time silence the neighbours who complain about the lorries and close the file on the request for planning permission.
Other possibilities may arise. An association would be embarrassed if both the applicant and the informant were members. In another case a member may persuade the FTA to object to an application by an RHA member who will enlist his own association in his defence. There will have to be machinery to ensure that the two associations are not seen to be squabbling in public. In fact something like the present road-rail negotiating committees may well be set up.
What would they be considering? The Licensing Authority ought to have sufficient information on the applicant without the help of official objectors. They would find that for the most part they were sifting rumours and hearsay evidence which they would often have neither the time nor the means to examine properly.
They would be extremely chary about pressing an objection. If there was any hint of partiality or malice the Licensing Authority or the Transport Tribunal would not hesitate to place an opinion to this effect on the record.
Where an objection might be worth while —as in the case of a pirate operator seeking to legalize his activities—laying of information by an individual might be just as, if not more, effective. There is presumably nothing to stop him from writing to the Licensing Authority and it may well happen that this kind of approach will become more general than the official lodging of objections by "prescribed" organizations.