ROAD TRAFFIC (LICENSING OF VEHICLES). (Hansard, 2 March 1937)

Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the granting of licences to use goods vehicles and public service vehicles on roads. This is a moderate Bill, and I am confident that the Ministry will seize avidly upon it to remedy certain injustices. It relates to the road transport industry and deals with the procedure on application for certain classes of vehicles both for goods and public service passenger vehicles. It aims at providing a remedy for certain definite grievances which have arisen owing to that procedure, and as a result of the experience of the working of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It is estimated that the number of goods vehicles on the roads of this country is about 460,000. The "A" licences for public carriers number about 100,000, the "B" licences for limited carriers 56,000, and "C" licences for private carriers 304,000.

184 The system for regulating the use of those vehicles on the road is by means of a licensing authority. This experiment was introduced in 1933 in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, and, as is always the case in new administrative experiments, certain unforeseen difficulties arose. The first Clause of the Bill will, I hope, deal with some of those difficulties. It deals with the question of notices of objection and requires that when notice of objection to a licence is presented, specific particulars should be given with that notice and not generalities, as at present happens. The applicant for a licence does not, as a rule, know upon what particular point objection is to be raised until the actual day when he is in front of the Traffic Commissioners. The onus of proof should be upon the objector. The present procedure is that the onus is upon the applicant to prove that the facilities do not exist. A negative is always very unsatisfactory to prove. It is not easy and it is generally most unconvincing. The Bill would require the applicant to prove that employment for his vehicles is waiting, and it would be up to any objector to prove that the application was redundant. That is a simplification of procedure making it easy for both sides.

The third point is that renewals of "A," "B" and "C" licences should be automatic unless it is proved that the applicant has so altered his carrying capacity that he has increased it, or that he has not been fully using the carrying capacity which he had, or that he has not been observing strictly the conditions of the licence that was granted to him. That is the whole of Clause 3. The system of licensing should not be used to force hauliers off the road. They are carrying out a most useful and necessary work for the community and for the trade of the country. I would draw attention to articles which appeared in the "Times" last week by Sir William Beveridge, rather underlining the necessity for road transport in the event of this country being involved in war. If we drive these vehicles off the road by any means we shall be making a great mistake. This provision as to automatic renewals should give some security of tenure to the holders of "A" and "B" licences.

Clause 4 is very vital and necessary. It says that there shall be no disclosure of the business of the applicant for the 185 licence by the Traffic Commissioners to a third party. There have been very bitter complaints that information which has been extracted from the road haulier has been used by competitors for canvassing his customers. I would like to read particulars of one case from a letter which I have received on this subject. It says: At the hearing of the renewal of our application for goods licences on Monday last, we had a lengthy discussion on the procedure of the court, and the question of railway opposition. The deputy licensing authority gave a ruling to the effect that he was entitled to instruct us to supply him with an analysis of our tonnage carried on various routes together with the tonnage for short distance haulage. We were applying for a renewal of our "A" licences when the railway company insisted on my defining what a trunk route was. I refused to do this, owing to the fact that I contended an "A" licence was granted and could be operated anywhere in the United Kingdom. After four or five hours of the cross-examination, the Commissioner adjourned the case so that we could bring forward some of our customers to prove the suitability of the service in comparison with the railway. We were also instructed to let the railway company have our figures in turnover, monthly tonnage, half yearly tonnage and yearly tonnage, and in addition to this he instructed us to prepare a three year analy.1s of the tonnage carried, with comparisons during each year showing the increase or decrease. During the hearing we discovered to our amazement that the railway company had taken a copy of the confidential document which was handed to them for inspection, namely, our turnover for the year and other important matters which we consider should never go outside the Commissioners' court. The Clause with which I am dealing proposes to stop any disclosure from the Commissioners' Court to competitors of the business, and we consider that it is most important.

The remaining two Clauses deal with the passenger side of the business. The first of them says that representations should be considered into the position of coach and omnibus proprietors. The Traffic Commissioners have the power to impose upon coach and omnibus proprietors conditions as to routes, fares, and frequencies of service, but the Commissioners have no power whatever to regulate the conditions of the railway companies in these respects. This appears to be one-sided and to require a corrective, and the Clause lays down that only competitors on the road shall be entitled to lay objections to a licence of this kind.

186 The last Clause deals with the duration of the licence, and really does for the passenger side what the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) did for goods. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, passenger licences had to come up for renewal every 12 months. I do not know that that is in the direct public interest, and it is suggested that the period should be three years. The main point is that we want more security of tenure for road operators. The man who invests money in the business, who has to pay for one lorry £110 in tax plus 10 per cent., and then has to pay legal fees, which are in some cases very large, in order to get his renewal, together with other taxation, should know that at the end of 12 months he will be able to continue his licence. I trust that in this short time I have given to the House a sufficient explanation of the necessity for the Bill, and I now ask leave to introduce it.