Is Negotiating Procedure Unfair?
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Changes Needed in Methods of RoadRail committees. to Prevent Unnecessary Disclosure of Information by
E. H. B. Palmer, O.B.E. ' T HERE is no denying that a lot
,of useful work has been done by the road and rail negotiating committees in every traffic area, and it might be considered that criticism of their methods of procedure is a little belated.
The purpose of these committees is to discover whether or not objections to applica‘tions for carriers' licences, or variations, should be withdrawn or pursued. The applicant is invited to a meeting and advised to be in a position to produce figures.
No doubt other details of his business are required in the course of discussion, and it is admitted that such divulgence is necessary to avoid waste of time. On the other hand, to refuse the invitation, through a wish to mind his own business, leaves the applicant with an uneasy feeling that he may be missing something to his advantage.
The Waiting Panel
Probably as many as 75 per cent. of those who receive these invitations accept them. This is what the applicant finds. There are six people or more waiting to receive him, half of whom represent the road and rail sections of the British Transport Commission and the remainder members of the Road Haulage Association who operate in the applicant's district.
The chairman is invariably a B.T.C. official, probably because he is likely to be better briefed. Except for the B.T.C. officials, who may be regarded as hardy annuals in this respect, the other members are, as a rule, unknown to the applicant.
On this point, there are observations to make. Would it not be fair to the applicant were the chairman to introduce each member, giving the applicant the opportunity to object to the presence of any of them during the discussion for obvious reasons? Again, some applications are opposed only by the railway or the road section of the B.T.C. Why should the matter, in such cases, be freely ventilated in the presence of potential competitors who have not officially objected?
As already stated, the object of these meetings is to decide whether or not opposition should be withdrawn. Should this be in the favour
s I 2
of the applicant, the committee recommend withdrawal to those who have objected, but this recommendation is limited to the B.T.C. and to objectors who are members of the R.H.A.
It cannot and does not influence any objector who belongs to neither of these groups. He can and does pursue his objection, which means that the meeting, despite good intentions and a friendly conclusion, has done little good.
Again, in some traffic areas, when objections have been withdrawn, the Licensing Authority does not require the applicant to appear at a public inquiry provided he can be satisfied, otherwise, that the application is well founded. In other areas, withdrawal of objections makes no difference. There is merit in each method and, of course, there is the overriding fact that, always, is the Licensing Authority free to exercise his discretion.
Returning to the point that at a meeting of a committee there are those who have not objected and who,cannot be said to represent anyone who has objected, is it right that the chairman should invite each and everyone present to ask questions of the applicant?
They may do so in all good faith. They may do so to satisfy their own curiosity and their own ends. Would it not be better to cut this out altogether? It is a mischievous inquisition that many an applicant has had to face.
Prior Introduction
It is suggested that before an applicant is invited to attend these meetings, he should be told who will be there. It is further suggested that. failing this, everyone present should be introduced by name and concern. and that the applicant's objection to any particular person should be respected. Again, why should members of the R.H.A. be present when no independent haulier is objecting to the application?
There are many cases where there are no haulage objections and it is surely unfair that an applicant should disclose his affairs in the presence and in the hearing of potential corn petitors. It is true that, before the proceedings start, the applicant is assured that whatever he says will be treated in confidence and will not be made use of elsewhere.
It is true that those present may be regarded as honourable men, but here is an occasion where they are gaining information of the activities or proposed activities of a fellow haulier of a kind that they would get in no other way. To dismiss such knowledge from their minds is, surely, expecting the impossible.
"Can't you break these figures down?" asks the chairman, and the applicant either has to do so by quoting individual accounts or he can close up like an oyster and leave them dissatisfied.
To make what transpires at these meetings absolutely confidential, no one should be present who is not directly and officially concerned and no one, who is present. should attend any public inquiry dealing with the same case.
Lesser of Two Evils
To the point that attendance by the applicant at these meetings is voluntary, there is the reply that the strongest swimmer, who finds himself in difficulties, will grab at anything that promises to bring him "into less disturbed surroundings.
Before the war we were happy without these unofficial inquisitions. We took our case straight to the Licensing Authority and, with rare exceptions, we accepted his decision. In most traffic courts, we faced crossexamination by experienced counsel and we survived. Those of us who served such an apprenticeship are quite ready to accept the modern trend. We acknowledge that in part it may be good, but we do resent an applicant having to discuss his business affairs before other people.
We feel that the modus operandi of these committees is due for an overhaul if they are to continue above criticism on the grounds of inequity.
It is reasonable to suggest that only those applications which look like being successful at the public inquiry are dealt with by the committee. On this there is much evidence and it will, therefore, be argued what purpose these meetings serve, except to acquire information that would otherwise be unobtainable?