AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Bouts-Tillotson Hearing Ends

9th October 1936, Page 40
9th October 1936
Page 40
Page 41
Page 40, 9th October 1936 — Bouts-Tillotson Hearing Ends
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?

THE time has arrived when road. haulage facilities should be dealt with strictly on the basis of "need." Road transport should be confined to a limited radius, leaving long-distance work to the railways.— Mr. Maxwell Fyffe, K.C.

Railway cartage facilities are, if any. thing, in excess of requirements.— Railway witness.

Onus of proof does not rest with one party or the other. I must not be ex. pected to allow tonnage in respect of vehicles out of commission, although I am disposed to ignore the point this year.—Metropolitan Licensing Authority.

The 1933 Act does not envisage the elimination of established hauliers.— Mr. E. S. Herbert.

These statements were made when the hearing of the application for the continuation of an A licence by BoutsTillotson Transport, Ltd., was resumed on October 1 by Mr. Gleeson Robinson, Metropolitan Licensing Authority.

Mr. E. S. Herbert represented the applicants, whilst Mr. D. Maxwell Fyffe, K.C., M.P., with Mr. Alfred Tylor and Mr. B. de H. Pereira, appeared for the four railways. Mr. Herbert intimated that the parties concerned had been unable to agree regarding the number of vehicles required.

Mr. Maxwell Fyffe resumed the task of dealing with allegations regarding delays to goods in transit by rail. He called four railway officials to supplement the evidence on this score already given by Mr. Ashton Davies.

Careless Consignors. • The general trend of this evidence was to show that many of the instances brought forward indicated that the period in transit had included a Sunday and sometimes a Bank Holiday. Others were occasioned by errors in direction and illegible writing of labels by consignors. Questioned by Mr. Maxwell Fyffe as to Whether the railway cartage facilities were adequate, a Southern Railway official replied that, if anything, they were in excess of requirements.

Mr. H. C. Manley, chief engineer of Bouts-Tillotson Transport, Ltd., endeavoured to explain the position in which he found himself, owing to the withdrawal froin' service 0 of certain vehicles in anticipation of their imme-. diate replacement. He was still awaiting the delivery of 14 vehicles to complete the change.

He described how, in consequence of this shortage, it was impossible for him to carry out a satisfactory programme of maintenance and overhauls, as all vehicles now in operation were fully employed and could receive attention only at night or on Sundays. He had to meet the situation by "juggling" with spare parts, in order to release vehicles without delay.

In his address, Mr. Maxwell Fyffe

declared that in the Dunnett and Smart appeals, the Appeal Tribunal had upheld the views which he himself was now putting forward. He held that if the Licensing Authority were not satisfied, as indicated by Section 6 of the 1.933 Act, he could but come to the conclusion that the granting of the application before him would result in wasteful competition.

Mr. Gleason Robinson questioned whether the issue did not really depend on the interpretation of the word " suitable."

Mr. Maxwell Fyffe urged that proof of commercial ability on the part of objectors must likewise be proof of wasteful competition, should the application be granted. An excess of suitable transport facilities must mean wasteful competition and evidence of this discounted the ability of the Licensl lag Authority to use his discretion.

Stabilization and "Need."

Two years ago, he said, conditions were different. The object at that time was to stabilize transport as then in operation, in order to obtain proper control of the situation. That was not, however, the entire object of the Act, which, in his opinion, indicated the necessity of reviewing the situation on the termination of the first currency period, so as to carry the effect of stabilization into the future. The time had now arrived, therefore, to

decide these questions on the score of need."

, Before proceeding with his second point, Mr. Maxwell. Fyffe explained that, owing to the absence of figures for certain periods, he found himself in some difficulty. Mr. Gleason Robinson then decided to adjourn the hearing until October 3 for this matter to be dealt with, for counsel to complete his submission and for Mr. Herbert to state his case.

Rate-cutting Alleged.

When proceedings resumed, Mr. Maxwell Fyffe found that the supplementary figures required by him showed that turnover had been not only sustained, but even increased. He submitted, however, that prior to October, 1935, uneconomic rates and system of operation had been in force and that the former had attracted tonnage on a false basis from those now loath to make any change back, even in the face of a higher tariff, to the carriers whom they formerly employed. He suggested, therefore, that only a proportion of this traffic, and the unladen weight in relation to it, should be considered as evidence of "need."

Mr. Maxwell Fyffe pointed out that this class of competition must strike at merchandise of higher classification and the railway companies could meet it only by lowering the tariff and working uneconomically, or lowering the tariff and adjusting the balance by

increasing the rates for merchandise of inferior classification. " Competition needs curbing in the transport industry," he said.

Complaints as regards goods in transit by rail had been confined mainly to small packages and cresscountry routes--a class of traffic that road operators were well content to leave to the railways.

Counsel suggested that the two forms of transport be made compleMentary, so that the road had the responsibility of traffic within a limited radius, whilst long-distance work was entrusted to rail. The railway companies were capable of considerable expansion as regards the handling of trunk traffic. " We can," said Mr. Maxwell Fyffe, "deal with the traffic covered by this case, and inferences are all in our favour that we can deal with a very large amount of trunk

traffic." Hauliers' Complaints.

Mr. Gleason Robinson expressed his appreciation of the wonderful organization of the railways and the inherent difficulties with Which they had to • deal. He suggested that mass operation provoked its own problems and remarked that, as regards road transport, many of those who came before him had excused their own inability to subcontract work on the score of the inefficiency of their contemporaries.

Mr. Maxwell Fyffe summarized his submission under the following nine headings:— (1) The railways provide suitable transport facilities.

(2) " Requirements " as interpreted by the Appeal Tribunal, means requirements of suitable transport facilities.

(3) Excess of such requirements proves wasteful competition. (4) Wasteful competition is not in the public interest. (5) The prolongation of the status quo, as hitherto defined, defeats the purpose of the Act.

(8) Wasteful competition and the prolongation of the status quo exceeds the limitations of Section 6 of the Act.

(7) There had been no proof, hi this case, of need as regards the tonnage desired. (8) Part of the justification for

unladen weight had been based on " false traffic."

(9) Public wish or preference is not necessarily public need.

Mr. Herbert, in his submission, stated that the real issue was a question of confiscation, as witness the frank evidence, on this score, given by Mr. Ashton Davies..

Mr. Gleeson Robinson disagreed. In his opinion, the refusal of a licence could not be construed as giving to any party the ability to confiscate. " Would it not be wiser," said he, " to submit your case on the question of discretion?"

Mr. Herbert held that in Section 6 the jurisdiction of Licensing Authorities was made clear and that such jurisdiction was absolute. Likewise, in considering public interest, one had to 'include those providing transport as a part of the public.

Would Railways Suffer?

Then there was Section 7, concern ing contract licences. " Suppose applicants adopted this course," was Mr. Herbert's argument. "Would it not damage the railways?" To this plea Mr. Gleeson Robinson's reminder was that a contract licence was actually a substitute for a C licence. Mr. Herbert then referred to claimed tonnage and the views which Mr. Maxwell Fyffe apparently held as regards the first currency period, on the termination of which the road operators were expected to offer their heads for decapitation. In his opinion, however, Parliament, whilst recognizing that some restriction would be necessary, had no intention of eliminating operators already established. The principle of maintaining the status quo was not based on operations in 1913.

In a discussion regarding onus of proof, Mr, Gleeson Robinson remarked that there bad been no decision of the Appeal Tribunal indicating that this should rest with one party or the other. The Licensing Authority himself must oe satisfied and this position would obtain, whether or not objections had been made.

Mr. Herbert affirmed that there had been no evidence from the railways as to their carrying capacity on the routes operated by the applicants, and no evidence regarding traffic handled by road transport along those routes. Without this information, the Licensing Authority had no course but to disallow the argument that facilities exceeded demand. Likewise, the railways had not shown that road transmit had abstracted anything. like that for which they were now asking. "There is more carried by road, to-day," contended Mr. Herbert, " than the difference in tonnage carried by rail in 1913 and 1935."

Against Mr. Gleeson Robinson's suggestion that low rates would be an inducement, Mr. Herbert countered with the point that "agreed charges" had induced at /east two large customers to return to the. rail.

62 Lorries on Trunk Work.

Dealing with the question as to whether all the tonnage asked for was actually required, he pointed out that 62 vehicles had been shown as neces• sary to the tnuale services. There was also Mr. Manley's evidence regarding the difficulties of maintenance.

Mr. Gleeson Robinson expressed the opinion that he should not be expected to allow tonnage in respect of vehicles out of commission, although he was disposed to ignore the point as regards this year. On such basis, the justifiable requirement would appear to be met by the restoration of eight vehieles to the list of those now shown in operation. Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus