AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Railways Rule the Licensing "Racket"

24th July 1936, Page 39
24th July 1936
Page 39
Page 40
Page 39, 24th July 1936 — Railways Rule the Licensing "Racket"
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Inconsistency of Argument in Applications for Increased Tonnage Glossed Over, Under the Guise of Implementing Public Policy and Serving Commerce and Industry

ALTHOUGH the Licensing Authorities may deny it, a study of licensing procedure appears to show a distinct bias in favour of the railways. This is the case not only in connection with objections, when the railways are allowed a most unjust amount of latitude, but also in applications by the railways for increased tonnage.

With a fine display of fair-mindedness, the railways have themselves admitted that, in making an application, they are in no more favourable a position than is a road haulier. At the same time, they have produced arguments purporting to show that, under the statutory obligations relating to collection and delivery services imposed upon them by the Railways Act, 1921, they are in an advantageous position. On the strength of these duties, they have taken just those liberties in connection with evidence for which they are ever decrying the haulier.

Railway Application Fails.

Let us examine the position as seen by official eyes. In the Loftus case (L.N.E. Railway Co. and Sanderson and others) the Northern Licensing Autbority refused to license a vehicle to the railway company, on the grounds that the existing facilities for transport were adequate and that the railway had not shown that the proposed work could not be done by other local carriers.

In evidence, the L.N.E.R. admitted that traffic would be abstracted from hauliers in the district, who had hitherto been working for the company. It was submitted in justification of the grant that the vehicle was required in pursuance of a development policy designed to afford better service to the public.

The railway further agreed that it had laid itself out to compete with hauliers in the transport of roadborne goods and evidence showed that active measures had been taken in this direction. The opposing carriers were able to prove that their businesses bad suffered by the methods of the L.N.E.R: In view of this evidence, it is not surprising that the application was refused.

When the matter was taken to appeal, the usual argument regarding statutory obligations was pressed forward. It should be noted, however, that the Railways Act, 1021, 'does not require the railways to collect and deliver goods in their own vehicles.

Mr. Alfred Tylor, for the L.N.E.R., declared that, in exercising his discretion, the Licensing Authority should have regard to Section 6 (2) . of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, which requires that he shall pay attention " primarily to the interests of the public generally including those of persons requiring, as well those of persons providing,

facilities for -transport . . We quote this paragraph, because it has an interesting bearing on later submissions by :Mr. Tylor.

Was Public Inconvenienced?

The respondents rightly pointed out that to justify the application, the L.N.E.R. should show that the public was being inconvenienced and that the public would benefit by the railway having control of .the vehicles which ,it used. In other words, they sought that the company should—as Mr. Tylor had already agreed—be placed on the same footing as a haulier.

No evidence of inconvenience appears to have been given, but the Appeal Tribunal found that, with direct control, the railway would he better able to conduct its business and allowed the appeal. No comment was made on the question of abstraction of traffic from other established operators.

Hauliers' Traffic Abstracted.

Would a road haulier be allowed to acquire an additional vehicle on those terms? We doubt it. Abstraction is one of the staple grounds of objection by the railways, yet they are permitted to continue this practice and to flout their own interpretation of the spirit of the Act.

This was one of the arguments used by the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies in the Dunnett appeal, which has since achieved some fame from its association with the Smart case. In both these appeals, the railways submitted— with the agreement of the Tribunal —that if an objector established that suitable' transport facilities were already in excess of requirements, or

would be so if the application were granted, the case should be dismissed.

In -the Smart appeal, Mr. Tylor again stressed the responsibilities of the Licensing Authorities under Section 6 (2). He contended that regard should be had to the interests not only of the competing parties, but also of the man in the street. In Mr. Tylor's view, public safety demanded that the number of heavy Vehicles in use should be reduced to a Minimum, commensurate with the needs of trade and industry. Moreover, wasteful competition should be avoided. (These words come well from the lips of railway counsel, in view of the reputation of the railways for rate-cutting.)

Had He Forgotten?

Mr. Tylor then went on to say that the Authority would also have to consider whether it would be in the public interest for an existing operator to be left with a useless vehicle. Had he forgotten the Loftus case, in which the evidence showed that the business of road hauliers had been hard hit by the increase in railway tonnage—that traffic which they had previously carried for the railway had been taken from them by that very company? There is an inconsistency somewhere.

The Tribunal's decision on this case endorsed, in part, the ruling on the Dunnett appeal. The Tribunal concluded that, generally speaking. excessive facilities for transport, giving rise to wasteful competition, were not in the public interest. It added that, in considering whether suitable facilities existed or whether they would be in excess of requirements, if an application were granted, regard should be had to current industrial and commercial needs.

These decisions, prompted by the railways, have not discouraged the railways from making wholesale applications for increased tonnage in areas in which they have hitherto maintained that adequate and suitable facilities already exist. These decisions have not deterred the Licensing Authorities from granting the applications, in some cases on a scale said to be quite incomparable with that applied to road hauliers.

Moreover, the railways are being granted A licences for local work, when they have forced road carriers making similar applications into accepting B licences and the inevitablestrife which accompanies them. The railways are• also being allowed to substitute motors for horses, on lavish lines, without giving an undertaking to abandon the horses. Generally, a road haulier who makes such an application has _to promise to discard his horses and. trouble

awaits him if he fails to honour his word. Not so the railways.

The Northern Scotland Licensing Authority recently pointed out that the fact that an applicant was disposing of his horses was no reason why he should be granted a licence for motors. In the case of the railways, that fact seems to be allsufficient. They ask and they receive. Meanwhile, a road haulier who .brings evidence to show that there is an acute shortage of a certain type of vehicle in a particular area, is unable to increase his fleet. ' The Licensing Authorities seem generally to be under the impression that the Road and Rail Traffic Act was designed mainly for the protection of the railways. Constant repetition of the railway theme song" our preservation is essential to the national well-being "—has had the desired effect. The railways are allowed to contradict themselves by basing their applications on arguments which they have previously discredited and are generally allowed to rule the roost.

In every traffic court, there should be hung over the Authority's dais a large notice bearing the legend, " What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The application of that moral would soon cause discomfiture in the railway camp.


comments powered by Disqus