Striking Condemnation of Ulster Board
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Northern Ireland Haulage Association Reveals Shocking Details of the -Alleged Inhuman ,Treatment Meted Out to Operators of Goods and Passenger Road Services.
ADOCUMENT just issued by the Provincial Hauliers Association of Northern Ireland forms an astounding indictment of the ROad Transport f Board formed under the Road and Railway Transport Act (N.I.), 1935. The Association has resolved that the time has come to show the ,effects of this Act upon their 'members and upon other owners of roadtransport undertakings for passengers and goods, as misleading and prejudicial reports have been put into circulation as to the motives which have guided the actions and attitudes of the Association. Whilst the public has a growing appreciation of the effect of the Act upon itself, it has little reliable information as to that upon the owners of commercial vehicles, and still less of the way in which it has been applied and interpreted.
The Press Muzzled.
From the first the Arbitration Tribunal has prohibited the Press from publishing any account of proceedings taking place before it, insisting on regarding these as a purely private affair between the particular owner concerned and the Road Transport Board. This is a notable departure from the practice of the London Traffic Arbitration Tribunal. Publicity and open court have happily always been the policy in England. The result of the opposite policy in Ireland is that the public, Parliament and Government do not know the manner in which the Board is carrying out the powers entrusted to it, nor how the Tribunal has interpreted the Act.
The members of the Association and other road operatom who instituted at their own expense pioneer services and developed them to meet public needs, furnish transport facilities of the greatest benefit to the community which are highly appreciated and patronized.They made accessible tracts of country hitherto inaccessible, fostered districts which would have remained undeveloped, encouraged rural and suburban building, and thus spread the population away from crowded areas.
Railways Miss a Chance.
From the first it was open to the railways of Northern Ireland to provide road transport facilities, but they did not do so and left their provision to hauliers and bus operators. It was not surprising that the extensive and efficient road facilities and the lower fares and rates charged resulted in the gradual transfer to the roads of the greater proportion of passenger and goods traffic, notwithstanding a vigorous campaign of railway ratecutting.
The 1935 Act gave effect to the scheme formulated by Sir Felix Pole, late general manager of the Great Western Railway. It was a deliberate policy to protect the railways. This was sought to be achieved by establishing the Board and empowering it to acquire compulsorily all road transport undertakings and for pooling the receipts of the Board and of the railways. The scheme aroused great apprehension in the minds of road operators, but when the Bill was in preparation they received the most explicit and repeated assurances
B30
from the Government that full compensation would be made for all loss and damage inflicted upon them. They accepted those assurances.
Compensation in law has an accepted meaning, i.e., that so far as money can do it the owners of acquired undertakings would be placed in the same financial position as if they had continued to operate them.
The promises made have not been fulfilled ; the Act has either not been framed or is not being applied to give the owners anything like proper compensation. A convincing illustration of this is effected by the treatment accorded to " owner-operators" and " ownermanagers" when their undertakings are acquired.
In many cases the owner of a small haulage or bus service has operated some or all of his vehicles himself, and is classed as an " owner-pperator." In other cases he has managed his undertaking himself and become art " owner-manager." In the first case he was forcibly deprived of his occupation as an operator, and in the second case his occupation as a manager, and the Act provides no compensation for the loss of this occupation. On the other hand, when an undertaking has been operated or managed by an employee of the owner, he is given a statutory right to compensation for loss of occupation. This invidious distinction is a cause of much hardship, and must be equally mystifying to the public and Parliament of Northern Ireland when they learn of it. Many of the men concerned are of such mature age that it is impossible for them to secure other remunerative occupation.
Arriving at Basic Compensation.
The general basis on which the Board assesses coinpensation should be brought --t0 the attention of the public. Parliament and Government. It would be well known but for the • atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the proceedings. First there is ascertained the capital, value of the assets, secondly, the true annual net profits, thirdly, from these profits there is deducted interest at 4 per cent. on the capital value of the assets, fourthly, the result of the figure of the net annual profits is multi:plied by a particular number of years of purchase, fifthly, the capital value of the assets is added to this capitalized figure and the total is what the Board say's is the basic compensation in sterling that should be paid for the acquisition.
In the particular case of an " owner-operator " who had been driving his own vehicles, the Board deducts from the net profits a notional sum to represent wages which, it states, it should be assumed that he was paid, although actually he was not paid any such wages at all. The sum so deducted is generally £104 per annum. If the Board adopts 10 years as its usual multiplier, this results in a reduction of £1,040-in the compensation. In the same way and for no better rea.on, it assumes a salary of some £208 per annum for the owner who has managed his own undertaking, and so reduces the compensation by £2,080.
Thus the paradoxical position is reached when an owner-operator or owner-manager is •denied by the Act
the right, which every employee has had granted to him, of claiming compensation for the loss of occupation, whilst the value of his undertaking is reduced by the assumed capitalized value a the remunerative occupation which he has lost—and he is a person who was assured by the Government that he would receive full compensation for all loss and damage. Lacking this pledge it is impossible to justify such treatment on any ground of equity or reason.
In the case of smaller owner-operators the method of calculation is such that the assumed value of undertakings which have supplied operators with their livelihoods are reduced either to nil, or, as frequently happens, a minus figure. If the latter be the case the true inference is that the operator should pay the Board for relieving him of his undertaking. In such cases the Board cannot support the glaring injustice of , this fallacious method of computing compensation and offers " ex gratia" compensation arrived at on no basis of computation, but knowing well that public opinion would not, if it knew, tolerate confiscation.
The Association adopts the view that the Government is not aware of how the Act is operating or being enforced, but it holds that it is entitled to call upon the Government to see that its undertakings and promises are honoured, whether that requires amending legislation or entails Government pressure on the Board.
No Hurry to Pay Compensation.
Another cause of hardship and injustice of growing moment is the grievous delay in the payment of compensation. The Board was established on August 23, 1935, but the Arbitration Tribunal to assess disputed cases was not appointed until March, 1936. Notwithstanding this, beginning on November 1, 1935, the 13oard expropriated a large number of owners. These owners were left with the hard choice of accepting whatever compensation was offered, or to go without.
According to the Association, the Board has given scanty consideration to the speedy settlement of compensation, its chief activity being directed to absorbing the undertakings. What it has done constitutes a remarkable departure from usual procedure. It has imposed upon owners the labour and responsibility at their own expense, for in most cases they have had to pay accountants to prepare the information which the Board should have obtained for itself. During the time which so elapses the owners are left to subsist upon the charity of the Board, which may or may not make small payments on account.
Owners Deprived of Their Livelihoods.
It is stressed that there are many hundreds of cases, and the number ig steadily growing, where the livelihoods of owners have been extinguished, though the Board has not yet made any offer of compensation. In the history of the British Empire there has been no similar instance of bureaucratic power so arbitrarily exercised in complete disregard of those against whom such power was intended to be exercised in a considerate and equitable manner.
The owners are powerless to protect themselves, and in many cases are forced by sheer necessity and despair to accept any compensation, however inadequate, which may be offered. Another injustice is the payment in stock of a substantial part of the compensation. Under the Act any excess over £5,000 may be paid in Transport A Stock for assets and Transport B Stock for goodwill. The market value of Transport B Stock has dropped heavily, and in factit is practically unsaleable at a
reasonable figure. In the view ot tne Association no argument can be advanced to justify the Board paying for sterling• value in what amounts to debased currency. As the Government is responsible for empowering payments in stock, it should guarantee both the principle and interest of all stock substituted for sterling, gtherwise owners are being subjected to confiscation of a substantial part of the sterling compensation to which they are entitled.
No Accounts Published.
In arriving at net profits the Board rightfully insists upon debiting the total receipts with an amount for repairs, renewals and depreciation, but what it actually charges or makes provision for. in its accounts, is not known. The proper measure should depend upon conditions under which the owner has been operating. Where the owner is operating a light service it is unfair to load working expenses—thereby reducing compensation—with what would be required in a case of an important service in dense traffic. Although the Board took over many transport services in 1935 no accounts have yet been published or disclosed, and, this also is depreciating the value of the stock.
This withholding of accounts is also depriving the Board of the confidence of the public, so that the stock will probably continue to decline in market value and make it impossible to arrive at any satisfactory estimate as to what ought to be the true value of the stock, as compared with sterling, for the purpose of compensating road-vehicle operators.
It is understood that the Board contends that no accounts should be published until the pooling arrangements with the railways are completed and have been applied to the traffic receipts.
One of the greatest elements of value in the publication of accounts before the position is thoroughly obscured by this arrangement would be the opportunity afforded of comparing the operation by the Board of the undertakings taken over, with these as operated by their owners before the Board acquired them.
Operators' Services Better and Cheaper.
The Ministry of Home Affairs takes the view that a local carrier's licence cannot be assigned or transferred, and the Association is emphatically of the opinion that such a narrow view of the Act was never contemplated by Parliament. A local carrier may have spent his life in building up his business and has perhaps invested his entire capital in it, but he can never retire, for this would involve the transfer of his licence. It also results in depriving his business of any real value after his death. According to the Association, every district throughout Northern Ireland is of the opinion that the services and facilities formerly provided by the owners of the undertakings and the prices at which they were afforded were in every way superior and cheaper than those provided and charged by the Board. The interest of railway transport cannot justify the treatment meted out to road operators, nor can it be justified on any ground of public._ expediency.. A defence fund has been formed to bring the whole of the facts and circumstances to the knowledge of the Courts of Law, and, if need be, to the House of Lords, but to avoid this necessity it desires to make the strongest possible representaticin that the grievances should be inquired into by the Government at an early date, and. effective steps taken to redress them, and to fulfil the pledges and promises made by the Government to the owners of road-transport.