Negotiations in Camera
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By JANUS
7-07— EVER since road-rail negotiating machinery was set up, the policy has been to make public as little as possibleof what it is doing. The negotiat
ing committees have for the most part won approval. They lighten the work of a Licensing Authority without usurping his function. On the whole; hauliers are in favour of them, and applicants, as well as objectors, seem willing to appear before them.
Criticisms have not been lacking. If is pointed out that the committees include representatives only of the
British Transport Commission and the Road Haulage Association, and no influence can be brought to bear on an objector who does not belong to either of these organizations. In any case, the R.H.A. have no power of compulsion, and can use only moral force to persuade members to withdraw objections after agreement , has been reached through negotiation. It is suggested that information gained at meetings of a committee may be used to the disadvantage of the applicant when a case is not settled out of the traffic court. Another suspicion is that the committees select for investigation only those applications that seem likely to succeed at a public inquiry.
The weight of these criticisms is not great. In practice, few objectors come from outside the ranks of the R.H.A. On the whole, the gentleman's agreement to abide by the decision of a negotiating committee is observed, or is ,not broken without good, reason. The Executive Committee of the R.H.A. have recommended members to keep all licence applications under constant review at the present time, and this may mean that circumstances will on occasions make it necessary to disregard the verdict of a negotiating committee. The machinery must be voluntary, and this means in, the last resort an occasional defiance.
Unfair Selection?
There are fairly elaborate safeguards against the misuse of information given to a negotiating committee • in confidence. If the abuse were widespread, complaints would be frequent, and the machinery would fall into discredit. The fact that complaints are rare seems to argue an equal rarity for the fault.
The basis on which cases are ,selected for discussion is confidential, and for this reason alone it is difficult to decide whether the selection is unfair. Obviously, out of 2,000 or 3,000 applications published every month, not more than perhaps a quarter would be chosen. With few exceptions, applications for renewal with no, or with slight, modification would he ignored. Again with some exceptions, new entrants would not appear before a negotiating committee unless they themselves asked for an opportunity to discuss their case.
There seems no reason why the basis of selection should not be made more widely known as a means for allaying suspicions of the work of the negotiating machinery. Other details might also be published from time to time. At present, all that the selected applicant knows with any certainty is contained in a polite letter he receives from the secretary of a committee. He is asked to bring figures, and perhaps a friend or adviser, to a confidential discussion for the purpose of disarming objectors in advance of the public inquiry, either by proving his case or by modifying his application in some respect which may be helpful. The response to the invitation has been remarkably good. Eight out of 10 applicants accept, and more than half of them reach an agreement which involves either the withdrawal of the application or a recommendation to objectors to stand down. Apprehension may be partly responsible for the good attendances. The applicant may have an uneasy feeling that he is missing something, or that a refusal will make the objectors more determined than ever.
At the meeting he finds several people waiting to receive him. Some or all of them may be strangers to him. If he gets his own way, no problem arises; but if he is persuaded to make drastic modifications in his application, or even to 'withdraw it, the uneasy suspicion may linger that in some way he has allowed himself to be duped. Apparently, this does not happen very often, but those people responsible for working the negotiating machinery should guard against the possibility by giving an occasional account of their stewardship.
. Public Interest .
According to the document on road haulage liaison issued jointly by the B.T.C. and the R.H.A. six years ago, the work of the negotiating committees is dealt with by a licensing sub-commitee, responsible to the road haulage liaison committee, and ultimately to the road haulage liaison conference. As and when the subcommittee meet, they should receive some interesting reports from the local committees, and one wonders why the sub-committee themselves do not publish an occasional report for public interest.
Such a report might be statistical only., It would show how many invitations to attend committee meetings had been issued to applicants for licences, and how many accepted; and what proportion of agreements had been reached. This information would at least show the extent of the work done. It might be supplemented from time to time with some account of any changes of emphasis in the activities of the committees, and possibly an attempt to give the reasons.
Secrecy is of the essence of the activity of the negotiating committees themselves. Their discussions must be confidential, and no written evidence should be ' retained, at any rate in any case where agreement has not been reached. Although unavoidable, secrecy is a potent breeder of suspicion, and something might with advantage be done occasionally to lift the veil. Whilst it would not be proper fr the local committees to make announcements, the national sub-committee could effectively, and in general terms that would constitute no breach of confidence, make kridwn something of what was being done.
At best, the licensing situation is not simple. Case law isuilt up over 20 years was still further complicated by the licensing provisions of the Transport Act, 1953.
and some of the problems raised by that piece of legislation still await an answer. Unlike the old appeal
tribunal, the Transport Tribunal, who now decide appeals against the verdict of a Licensing Authority, have what seems almost a reluctance to commit themselves to writing.