IN A TANGLE
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
COMPARISON between the written judgement of the Transport Tribunal in the Merchandise Transport case and the earlier written decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority brings to mind the gladiatorial contests in the days of ancient Rome between a Man with a sword and another, with a net and trident. The Licensing Authority hacks his way towards what seems to him a sensible conclusion, whereupon the tribunal proceed to entangle him in a coil of words and jab him gently wherever they see an opening.
On each occasion that he ventures to express an opinion, they make plain that they do not share it. He suggests that it would be against the clear intention of Parliament and against the public interest to allow private carriers with surplus capacity to make inroads into the business of professional hauliers. The tribunal retort "we are by no means certain that we understand this passage ", but nevertheless construe it as something that was disposed of four years ago in the decision on the Reed case.
THE Licensing Authority makes a distinction between the desire of Harris Lebus, Ltd., to employ Merchandise Transport, Ltd., to carry their goods and their desire that the vehicles should have A licences and earn extra money from return loads. In other words, the Harris Lebus group as a whole were interested in the case both as customers and as hauliers. It is evident that the Licensing Authority thinks their main interest was as hauliers and that the other interest was subordinate. The tribunal refuse to accept the distinction and say that "he was confusing the object sought with the motive for seeking it."
The Licensing Authority is also called to order for indicating that the application was bound to fail, because the objectors had established that the proposed services would be in excess of requirements. The tribunal go further. They do not even think that the objectors established their claim. The Licensing Authority, "if we understand him aright," was contending that, provided traders, although only occasionally, had a choice between two or more carriers, transport facilities in the district had become "in excess of requirements." "We do not think these words ought to be so construed." say the tribunal.
The final legal decision on the whole tangled case is now to come from the Court of Appeal. Hauliers, even if they still hope for the best, must prepare themselves for the worst; and the worst could be very bad indeed. There is little comfort in the tribunal's decision if it stands. The Licensing Authority may not have to grant all the vehicles for which he was asked. The tribunal point out that there was a boom in the furniture trade during the period covered by the statistical information supplied by the applicants. He is enjoined, however, to grant sufficient vehicles to carry the traffic now carried by Harris Lebus. Ltd.. under the C licences they are to surrender.
THE surrender is made a condition of the grant and Harris Lebus, Ltd., must also promise not to apply for any C licence during the currency of the licence now to be granted to Merchandise Transport, Ltd. Such a provision has been made in other cases and presumably the necessary undertaking has usually been given with a light heart. But, to borrow an expression from the tribunal: "I am by no means certain that I understand this passage." Section 174(3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, compels a licensing authority to grant a C licence with two exceptions, neither of which refers to an undertaking such as the tribunal are now exacting. It would be interesting to know what action could be taken if a trader who had given the undertaking proceeded to ignore it. He could not be refused a C licence if he asked for one, and it would be difficult to penalize the subsidiary haulage company, who would nominally be blameless.
IN the present case Merchandise Transport, Ltd., asked for a total of 119 vehicles and are likely to get most of them. The object is the A licence, the motive is to make money—the distinction is the tribunal's. The same motive animates many other traders and they may soon make the transition to the same object. The decision, if it stands, appears to give almost any C-licence holder the freedom, if he so wishes or if it is worth his while, to exchange his C licence for an A licence, A number of preliminary steps have to be taken, but they do not present insuperable difficulties and there are bound to he advisers and helpers on hand.
Whether or not this development is good for trade and industry and for transport operators, and whether or not it is strictly in accordance with the letter of the law, it was almost certainly not envisaged by Parliament when they passed the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and the later Transport Acts. It seems reasonable to suggest that Parliament should be given-the opportunity to look at the matter again.
Hauliers are almost bound to ask for this to be done if the Court of Appeal do not see fit to disturb the tribunal's decision. A request for changes in the law must always be made with diffidence. The people who draft legislation and the people who pass it are apt to take the opportunity provided by any new measure of including items not envisaged, and even actively disliked, by the original sponsors. With the transport industry as it is, there may be many items, not necessarily in the interests of road transport, that the Government would like to see on the Statute Book. Hauliers may find themselves both supporting and opposing a new Transport Bill that is ostensibly sent on its way for their benefit and with their blessing.
THE actual volume of applications similar to those in the Merchandise Transport case will in the end influence the decision of the hauliers whether or not to press to the utmost the demand for new legislation; and it will no doubt have a similar influence on the Minister of Transport. If many hundreds, or even thousands, of vehicles are to be switched, there could well be a serious dilution in the strength of the A-licensed fleet as a whole. The Government may be more inclined than hauliers to wait and see
whether this happens. •
The pros and cons will be argued before the Court of Appeal by representatives of the same parties that have 'taken the case step by step through the earlier stages. Many other interests will be curious or anxious to learn the result. They include not only hauliers and a good many traders and manufacturers, but also the Government and Parliament. One only wishes it were possible to know on which side these various interests would like to see the scales of justice fall.