Unravel the Contract Carriage Tangle
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Says A Suggested Formula to Remove Anomalies from the A. E. Sherlock-Mesher Law on Private Hire and Allow Reasonable Freedom
for Operators Without Injuring Licensed Services
0 NE of the most difficult problems facing the Thesiger Committee is to determine the proper limits of contract-carriage operation. It is obviously undesirable that private hire should be too loosely controlled, yet it is equally against the public interest that bodies of people having a common cause should not be able freely to hire coaches for private outings.
To have a clear mental picture of the kind of work that is legitimate without a road service licence is one thing, but to express those intentions in general terms of scientific precision is quite another. The draughtsmen of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 and 1934, failed to do so, and it is doubtful whether any form of words will ever be found to define exactly, and in a way that the layman can understand, the dividing line between operations that are desirable without a licence and those which are not.
The industry's wish to regulate unfair competition is seen in the formation of vigilance committees of operators in the West Midlands. The determination of the Licensing Authorities and the police to stop what they believe to be illegal running is shown by the large number of prosecutions of coach owners taking parties to speedway and other sports meetings and entertainments. Both sides are hampered in their good intentions by the ambiguity of the governing Acts, and by apparently conflicting interpretations of the law by the High Court.
Section 61 (2) of the 1930 Act provides that "a vehicle used on a special occasion for the conveyance of a private party" may be run without a road service licence, even if separate fares are charged. A special occasion is not defined, although Section 61 (1), in referring to vehicles adapted to carry fewer than eight passengers, speaks of "race meetings, public gatherings and other like special occasions."
In the 1934 Act, the Legislature tried to clarify the rights of contract-carriage operators by introducing several important qualifications to Section 61(2) of the 1930 Act. Section 25 of the 1934 Act says that "a vehicle shall be deemed to be used on a special occasion for the conveyance of a private party" if certain conditions are satisfied.
One is that the holder of a public service vehicle B6 ' licence, or his agent, must not arrange to bring the party together and the organizer must not receive "any remuneration" for doing so. This provision is not as clear as it might at first appear to be, because the question arises whether a party organizer who accepts, for instance, free seats from a theatre management is receiving " remuneration." This point has not been finally determined.
Secondly, the journey must be made without previous advertisement to the public. The public, presumably, comprises those outside an organized body, the membership of which is limited by subscription or qualification. An announcement in a parish magazine of art intended outing of the Mothers' Union is obviously an advertisement to the public, because the magazine can be purchased by anyone. On the other hand, a notice displayed in a club, to which an " outsider " has access only as the guest of a member, could not be held to be a public advertisement.
All the passengers must, in the case of a journey to a particular destination, be carried to that destination or to its vicinity or, in the case of a tour, for the greater part of the journey. Every passenger must also pay the same fare.
Other steps were taken in 1934 to tighten up contractcarriage work by requiring records of journeys to be made and kept.
In trying to protect licensed operators against unfair competition from contract carriages, the 1934 Act created new confusion whilst preventing other abuses. Section 25(1) (e) declares that "in the case of a journey to a particular destination, the passengers must not include any person who frequently, or as a matter of routine, travels at or about the time of day at which the journey is made, to that destination from a place from or through which the journey is made."
Why does the paragraph stress the time of day at which the journey is made? This suggests that the draughtsmen had in mind, possibly, the case of works services and wished to ensure that daily journeys to and from work should be properly regulated by licence. If they intended to exclude also less frequent journeys from private-hire work, one would have thought that they would have referred not only to the time of day, but to the day of the week or month. Yet coach operators
are being prosecuted for making weekly trips to sporting events. It is left to the courts to find their way through the maze.
One of the most important court decisions was that given in the Victoria Motors case in 1951. It was held that an occasion must be special not only according to the examples in Section 61(1) of the 1930 Act (race meetings, public gatherings and other like special occasions), but that all the requirements of Section 25 of the 1934 Act must be observed.
The Lord Chief Justice said that a special occasion could include a day excursion, a Sunday school party, a Mothers' Union party or an outing to a dance or football match. The implication is that the occasion may be special only to the people concerned in the outing, whereas in the case of Miller v. Pill, in 1933, the Divisional Court took the view that the occasion must be an event that was special not only to the people combining to make the trip. An annual Sunday summer outing was not regarded as a special occasion.
Not a Special Occasion Earlier, the Divisional Court had ruled in the case of Nelson v. Blackford that the Blackpool illuminations were not a special occasion and that a special occasion must be particular and individual. It therefore appears that, according to the Victoria Motors decision, a Mothers' Union may legally hire a coach for an outing to the seaside, whereas if the case of Miller v. Pill is invoked, the trip is illegal.
These conflicting views have not been resolved by the Court of Appeal, and it devolves on the Thesiger Committee to suggest to the Minister of Transport some way by which the muddle may be satisfactorily cleared up. Confusion cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
The operation of contract carriages on week-end leave services for troops has been held by the Licensing Authorities to be of dubious legality. Presumably they have founded their view on the proviso that a person who frequently, or as a matter of routine, makes a certain journey to a certain place, may not do so in a contract carriage. This opinion cannot be justified without investigating the facts of each case. Most
troops cannot afford to go home frequently at the weekends and the opportunity may not regularly occur. In any event, what occasion more special is there in a soldier's life than leave?
Another example will stress the stupidity of the exist
ing law governing private hire. Mr. Smith,-a night worker, lives at A and each evening, from Monday to Friday, travels to the factory at B to join the shift starting at 8 p.m. On Saturday evening the annual staff dance is held in the works canteen. That, according to the Lord Chief Justice, is a spccial occasion. But Mr. Smith "frequently, or as a matter of routine," travels in the evening from A to B and, according to my reading of the law, he cannot therefore hire a coach to take his friends to the dance.
The fact that he does not normally go to the factory on Saturday evening will not help him, because Section 25 (1) (e) is not concerned with the day of the week, but only with the time of day.
Therefore, although every other condition is satisfied, and the occasion is special in the sense that the event occurs only once a year, it ceases to be special under Section 25(1) (e) because Mr. Smith normally goes to work in the evening. If he hires a coach to go to the dance, both he and the operator are liable to prosecution. A law so futile is not worthy of respect.
In amending the law, the first thing is to expunge the meaningless phrase, "special occasion." The occasion is not important, but the bona fides of the party are. There should be no previous public advertisement of the trip. The organizer should not be a licence holder or his agent, and should not receive any payment, consideration, favour or reward for his work in arranging or conducting the party. Every passenger should pay the same fare and proper records must be kept.
Exclusive Travel
Every passenger must be travelling exclusively for the purpose for which the trip has been organized. In other words, if a football supporters' club hires a coach to attend a match, every member of the party must go to it. Members of the club should not be allowed to abuse the privilege of private hire by taking their wives on shopping expeditions in the town where the game is to be played. No person who has not travelled on the outward journey should be brought back and everyone who makes the outward run should return with the party.
Some limit must also be placed on the frequency of journeys by contract carriage. I suggest that no private party should include a person who travels to the destination concerned, for the purpose for which the trip has been organized, more often than once a week. That provision would allow supporters' clubs to visit football matches and other sporting or social events at a particular place once a week, which is reasonable liberty, without encroaching too deeply on the preserves of licensed operators.
In redrafting the law, care must be taken not to circumscribe too closely the right of the citizen to engage in communal pursuits. At the same time, the operator of licensed public services must be protected against unfair competition. The subject is one of utgent public importance and the views of experienced operators on the solution which I have suggested would be interesting. The good of the industry as a whole must, however, be placed before individual interests.