CASE HISTORY LESSON
Page 79
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RUTTING aside its tendency to theorize on inadequate evidence, the Prices and Incomes Board ought to take a few lessons from diligent attention to detail and to actual case histories shown the reports of licensing appeals and in the published decisions.
What the Transport Tribunal works rather than assembling the parts on 'ears to relish in particular is a case ere the necessary facts are reasony clear and where logic, economics I common sense can all have full y. Such an issue was probably that olved in a recent appeal against the nt of a low-loader on B licence to ry machinery within a radius of miles of York. Reynards (Excaions) Ltd., the successful applicant, s already using the low-loader under -2 licence for its plant-hire business. is meant that the vehicle was often yelling empty on the way to collect deliver a load in circumstances en other suitable traffic was avail e.
Aflk BETTER LOADED IR 4THAN EMPTY fhe Tribunal was reminded of its judgnt in a 1963 case, when it said that in the )lic interest special vehicles should be used the maximum extent. "It is better", the gment continued on that occasion, "that 11 a vehicle should be carrying a load her than that it should be travelling on the ids empty." This particular ace was mped by another reminder from a later gment in 1964. At that time the Tribunal d that the cost of providing and taxing the ivier low-loaders was so great and the op-tunities for their use so limited that it was
the interests of persons requiring ilities for transport that the hauliers >uld have some measure of protection from npetition".
No difficulty was found in reconciling se two apparently contradictory principles. its latest decision the Tribunal has limited use of the low-loader by Reynards for hire reward to the carriage of machinery on outward or return part of journeys made :essary by their plant-hire business.
Competition on low-loaders was the theme mother of the Tribunal's recent judgments. was called upon to determine whether ;kson's Transport (Ossett) Ltd. was en:Id to the low-loader which the company
been granted in the traffic court. The 3rator's intention was to widen the scope the service to existing engineering cusners who were turning to the practice of Ming complete machines in their own
the customers' premises.
The impression which the .evidence left upon the Tribunal was that business was expanding in general and not merely in the low-loader field, where the established operators were therefore entitled to enjoy the benefit. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. It could see no advantage in the grant to "the persons requiring facilities for transport". There would be unfair competition for "those providing facilities for transport in this rather limited field". The customers had adequate choice of low-loader operators and were in no danger of being exploited.
Perhaps the Tribunal should get together with the Prices and Incomes Board. The familiar licensing principle that the provider of transport has some right to be considered as well as the user might have helped the Board to avoid some of the absurdities in its recent memorandum to the Minister of Transport. What strikes most hauliers and probably most of their customers as particularly odd is the exhortation to traders, supported with a vigorous nod from the Minister, that they should approach claims for rates increases "in a spirit rigorously critical of the automatic passing on of cost increases".
Some customers must find it hard to resist the implication that it is their patriotic duty to refuse to pay more for their road transport. There are plenty of licensing decisions, however, particularly where contracts are concerned, which establish that the haulier has a right to at least a minimum return for his efforts.
elMONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIONS
An equally inept proposal from the Board is that the Government should consider extending legislation governing monopolies and restrictive trade practices to cover the periodical suggestions from the Road Haulage Association that its members should seek increases in their rates. One can imagine how the Tribunal would dispose of this kind of argument if the representative of an appellant or respondent dared to put it.
In the first place the Tribunal would call for particulars of the present legislation. It would be found that the Monopolies Commission set up by a Labour Government had power to examine the affairs of companies large enough to account for e third or more of the output of any one product. This is an exclusive club which certainly has no hauliers among its members. The Restrictive Trade Practiced Act, passed under a Conservative Government in 1956, is concerned with agreements on prices and other matters between independent manufacturers. Where there are such agreements among hauliers they are generally made in collaboration with the customer, or even at his dictation. Neither category seems to qualify for a reference to the Restrictive Practices Court. There has also been legislation recently on resale price maintenance and on official approval for mergers on a substantial scale.
/14\ THE ILLOGICAL 2. 4' CONCLUSION
The next step would be to examine what new legislation or other action was needed to prevent road operators from ever again troubling the Prices and Incomes Board. If hauliers could be persuaded to merge into a single undertaking—or better still if they were nationalized—the Monopolies Commission could step in and proper prices could be fixed. Almost certainly they would be a good deal higher than most of the rates now being charged; but at least the customer would know that he was not being asked to pay more than somebody else. He would have no need to run his own vehicles—and as an extra precaution would probably not be allowed to run them either.
Failing this ideal solution official rates schedules could be drawn up presumably by the Ministry of Transport. Experience in other countries might not be found encouraging. In practice the maximum has to be fixed so high and the minimum so low that existing rates could probably all be accommodated between the two extremes.
An alternative would be a tribunal to which the customer could appeal if he felt he was being victimized. Legislation to this effect was introduced during the war and remained on the statute book for some years afterwards. It would appear that only one complaint was ever filed—against a furniture remover and unsuccessfully at that. Hauliers might find it in their interests to support the passage of similar legislation with an additional clause, as seems only equitable. giving them also the right to appeal against a particularly stony-hearted customer.
Janus