AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Away With This Secrecy!

26th July 1968, Page 17
26th July 1968
Page 17
Page 17, 26th July 1968 — Away With This Secrecy!
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?

For over 30 years hauliers have publicly stated the nature of their applications for carriers' licences, or the reasons for their objections to them, in open court. We have never heard that this practice has damaged an applicant's or an objector's business. In fact it is largely through this free and open statement of the cases that the industry and its advisers have developed an expertise in preparing such applications and has kept up with licensing trends. Now, by a Government amendment in the House of Lords during the Transport Bill debate, all this open discussion may be swept away. Under pressure largely from trade and industry, the Government has agreed that, at the request of either party, applications for operator's licences, special authorizations and appeals to the Transport Tribunal may be held in camera.

While understanding the motive behind these moves, we believe industry will come to regret its pressure for closed courts, especially as it will take effect at a time when operator's own right of objection will have been completely removed. The fear of disclosing vital trade information to competitors is understandable, but we believe that this particular manifestation of that fear is based on a misunderstanding of how the licensing courts work. Not all the information is publicly stated when an application is under consideration; Licensing Authorities are almost always discreet in handling documents which give detailed information about the business of an applicant or objector. It is common for documents to be referred to by name or number and handed to the LA so that he can draw conclusions from them without the contents being given in open court. But even where figures are given openly, the transport Press has always used its discretion and we believe that the two million or more words published on the subject in Commercial Motor in the past 30 years have been enormously to the advantage of road transport and not the reverse.

Cloaking railway practice

The present amendment to the Bill, being merely permissive, may seem very mild. But we believe it is wrong in principle, on the basis of the old saying that justice must be seen to be done; it will be found regrettable in practice, in that the industry will receive little regular guidance on how to go about successful applications if the secrecy clause is frequently invoked; but worse than this, it is an open invitation to the railways and the National Freight Corporation to impose a clamp of secrecy on an important part of carriers' licensing. Surely, this result would be exactly the opposite of what trade and industry in particular have been seeking; namely to bring the operation, rates and accounting of the railways into the open so that it can be seen that there is no hidden subsidy nor false basis of costing, nor "buying" of customers at uneconomic rates in order to get the traffic.

The trader's fear concerning his financial and other business details can easily be met by means less drastic than the imposition of secret courts. Either by regulation or by discretionary advice to Licensing Authorities, an extension of the present system of taking evidence in traffic courts could provide sufficient safeguards, without imposing a cloak on the whole business at a vital time.

Fortunately there is still a safeguard, in that secrecy will be permitted only where the LA or the Tribunal feel it is genuinely merited. But a far better solution would be to have the amendment withdrawn.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus