1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Agoraphobia
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
0 NE comparatively minor feature of the Transport, Act, 1947, which was, nevertheless, a source of dissatisfaction and rancour to hauliers, was that A or B licences were not required for vehicles operated by the Road Haulage Executive. This provision appeared to place nationalized transport above the law, almost as if it had been exempted from the need to observe speed limits.
It is perhaps strange that the R.H.E. seems to have taken little advantage of its freedom. It has fewer vehicles now than the aggregate of those taken over, and had it been subject to the jurisdiction of the Licensing Authorities it would have had little difficulty in substantiating everything that it has done.
As it began to take shape, there were .fears among some observers that the R.H.E. would acquire a large number of new vehicles and elbow free-enterprise operators out of the business. There are various reasons why this has not happened. The destined role of the R.H.E. is more and more obviously that of subservience to the railways, and a rapid expansion that diverted traffic from rail to road would not have been allowed.
The explanation more frequently given on behalf of the R.H.E. is that, by careful planning, it has succeeded in concentrating the same amount of traffic in fewer vehicles. The argument is a doubtful one at the present time. The tonnage carried by the R.H.E. each month is declining, whilst the number of vehicle miles remains much as before. Transportivity falls, but the number of C-licensed vehicles goes on increasing.
Clock Turned Back
Certainly, until a few months ago, there was traffic available and there was one operator subject to no restrictions as to the number of vehicles he `put on the road. Except that there was no possibility of cutthroat competition, the clock appeared to have turned back to the time before the Road and Rail Traffic Act.
Whatever the explanation may be, the curious thing is that nothing much happened. One is inevitably led to speculate what would be the effect if the licensing system were abolished altogether. It is surprising that the Liberal Party, when recommending this course, did not draw attention to the striking example provided by the R.H.E.
Although there may be an element of fantasy in the speculation, it provides a useful mental exercise for any hauliers who may be suffering from a form of agoraphobia, or an irrational fear of open spaces. The haulier has lived so long within the palisade of the licensing system that he too easily visualizes the rest of the world hungrily waiting outside for a chance to come in. What if the barriers were pulled down, and nobody bothered?
Compared with the root-and-branch policy of the Liberals, the changes that the Transport Bill proposes in the licensing system are mild. There is much that commends itself in the very first sub-section of the licensing provisions, which states that the interests to be considered by Licensing Authorities shall henceforward be primarily the interests of persons requiring facilities for transport and only secondarily those of transport providers. Whether or not this will make much difference in practice, the deliberate homage to Transport Man is at least something of a novelty.
It is also doubtful whether the licensing procedure will change much because the objector must in future bear the onus of proof instead of the applicant. The Government and its advisers evidently consider that the scales are weighted too much on one side. The provision may be intended to protect the haulier and the prospective haulier against the formidable legal batteries of the British Transport Commission. It is significant that, according to the reports of the Licensing Authorities, during the year 1950-51 about two-thirds of the total number of objections were lodged by either the Railway Executive or the R.H.E. The proportion is even greater when it is considered that often several hauliers will lodge objections to one application.
Obscure Purpose
The purpose is obscure of the provision empowering the Licensing Authority to consider, not only the relative efficiency, reliability and adequacy of the rival facilities, but also the rates charged or proposed. This can be taken to mean that the Licensing Authority will be able to decide either that rates are too high, or that they arc uneconomic. Whether it means one thing or the other, or both, may provide a fruitful source of legal argument in days to come. The rates question, however, is not one with which the Licensing Authority need be concerned in respect of every application. It will arise only when objections are being considered, and even then— as the onus of proof is to lie with the objector—only when the objector himself raises the matter.
The possible effect of the final sub-section on licensing must depend mainly on the extent to which applicants in the past have borrowed solely from their imagination for supporting evidence. The proposal is that licences may be suspended or revoked if the facts justifying their grant be subsequently found to be fiction. No distinction is made between a deliberate falsehood and a genuine mistake, although it is difficult not to imagine that the distinction would come to be accepted in practice.
Unfriendly Opinion
So far as one can gather, the general opinion of hauliers is unfriendly to these, or any other changes in the licensing system. The Transport Bill provides the obvious opportunity of making amendments that may be thought necessary in the Road and Rail Traffic Act. A careful review by operators of the Act and of the Government's proposals would not, therefore, be out of place.
It is hard to imagine that an Act passed 20 years ago to regulate the road transport industry in its infancy should still be ideal in every particular. The original structure, devised and still employed to restrict growth, has become such that only the expert is familiar with all its ramifications. However ungainly it may seem, operators are reasonably satisfied with it. They should not close. their minds to the possibility that it may be capable of improvement.