1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Page 107
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"I was thinking," Alice said very politely, " which is the best way out of this wood; it's getting so dark. Would you tell me, please?"
But the fat little men only looked at each other and grinned.
UNTIL their latest statement, the Disposal Board had given no information about the prices they were getting for transport units. In order to show that the highest prices offered for most of the units in lists I and 2 were "not reasonable" the Board have now compared the total of the top offers for units in list RI with the results when the same units were offered earlier. The statement, issued in conjunction with the British Transport Commission, reveals that the two figures are £583,707 and £411,489.
Evidently these figures are conclusive for the Commission and the Board, and confirm what was previously only an opinion that few of the prices offered were "up to reasonable values." The bidders who have obligingly provided the evidence "are entitled now to be told that in general their second round bids are reasonable, although the bids made for about onefourth of the vehicles are still too low."
Faintly reminiscent of the pronouncements of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, this statement would be more conclusive if all the facts in its support were given instead of a selection. The only information about the prices offered on the first round is that the total of the highest bids in respect of 227 unsold units without premises was £411,489, an average of about £650 for each vehicle. This average may or may not be reasonable having regard on the one hand to the privileges offered, notably the special A licence, and on the other hand to the age, condition and type of many of the vehicles; but it is not derisory.
Materially Higher
It is reasonable to assume that the average price given for the vehicles sold on the first round was a good deal higher than £650. It may be that many of the second and third bids for those vehicles were also materially higher.. To complete the comparison outlined by the Board and the Commission, one would have to know how much has been paid for units in the first two lists; what was the total of the second bids for those units; and possibly also how the total of £583,707, representing the highest offers in respect of list RI, was divided as letween successful and unsuccessful tenders.
We are still a long way from knowing whether the Disposal Board have a formula for their reserve price, ind must use with caution the information that has tow been given. If the top bids for 654 vehicles 'mounted to £583,707, the average was £893. According o the Board's first report, the value of the British Road lervices fleet stands in the Commission's books, after !eduction of accumulative depreciation, at £21,900,000, ir an average of £626 per vehicle assuming that there re 35,000 of them.
By taking this average away from the average of £893 fferedl at the top of list RI, we are left with £267, early all of which could be regarded as the price put pon the special A licence. There are many reservaons that are bound to make this conclusion inexact. 'he vehicles so far offered are on the whole the least linable, and many must have been written down to a very low figure in the Commission's books. The first two lists did not include any of the 4,000 parcelscarrying vehicles, which it is conjectured may fetch £9m., an average of well over £1,000 per vehicle, even if half the total price is reckoned to be in respect of the premises.
Another point to remember is that the figure of £583,707 includes offers which were rejected for 180 vehicles out of 654. The average of successful bids for vehicles in list RI must be higher than £893, and is probably something near to £1,000. It is unlikely that the average for the first three lists is less than this, and even if the better vehicles fetch no better prices the total received when all the vehicles are sold would be £32m., almost exactly half the value of all the assets that are for disposal.
On the whole, the Disposal Board are entitled to be pleased with the financial results so far. It is tantalizing that they should show the corner of the picture and refuse to draw the curtain any further. Perhaps their next report, which should be published very soon, will give the missing details, including those I have indicated.
Naturally Anxious
It is not merely the prospective purchasers who would like to have the information. The miscellaneous crosssection of the public called upon topay the transport levy are naturally anxious to know how long it will continue. The resentment caused by this tax which is not a tax is widespread, perhaps out of all proportion to its severity. The victims mostly appreciate the necessity of the levy, but fail to understand why it should fall upon them alone.
Already about £4m. has been paid, and the contributors have no serious expectation of getting the money back. A similar amount falls due early in 1955, and only by a miracle will it be possible for the owners of the appropriate vehicles to avoid payment. Subsequent annual payments will be fixed by the Minister of Transport in advance for each period of three years.
In deciding the rate for the first triennium the Minister will no doubt be guided by the provisional estimate he has to make before the end of next September of the amounts to be paid to the Commission out of the Transport Fund. Good salesmanship by the Board may ensure that very little has to be paid, and the Minister may feel justified in reducing the rate of the levy for 1956 to 1958 well below the present figure of 13s. 6d. for each quarter-ton of unladen weight. Apparently the earliest date by which he can abolish the levy is 1960.
Book Value of Assets
Obviously the Minister must have reasonable time in which to make up his mind what payments should be made to the Commission. There is no. reason why the information on which his decision will be based should not be made known earlier. The "road haulage capital loss" which the levy is intended to meet will be assessed by deducting from a number of fixed items, including notably the book value of the B.R.S. assets to be sold, the amount of money brought in by the sales. The more information there is to help estimate this amount, the more accurately will it be possible to guess the future rate and the duration of the levy.