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 
A Doubtful Decision
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DEFINING the public interest is a fascinating pursuit indulged in not infrequently by Traffic Commissioners. At Manchester last week the chairman of the North Western Commissioners, Mr. C. R. Hodgson, posed the question as to whether the Comtnissioners could control inclusive fares on extended tours, as distinct from the fares for the journeys.
It was the outcome of a remark made by Mr. S. Moss, appearing for Kirkbright and Clarke Ltd., of Burnley, in opening the company's application seeking to reduce from £12 to • £1.0 the minimum inclusive fare on three tours to south coast resorts, originating at Collie, Manchester, Preston, Oldham and Clitheroc.
• After • referring to complaints from passengers on these tours that private party tours were cheaper; that the objectors had authority for a CIO inclusive fare, therefore what was now sought could not he considered uneconomical; that the company's booking agents were losing money, and that resorts' hotels had asked his clients to come into line with other operators. Mr. Moss said he thought it was the only traffic area where inclusive fares were included on the licence.
Mr. F. 0. Walker, for Shearings Holidays Ltd., submitted that the Commissioners had power to consider what the public should he called upon to pay and it was in the public interest that they should exercise control over inclusive fares as between operators themselves. Mr_ J. Atkinson. secretary of the applicant company. gave evidence of the competition arising from private coach tours. particularly at Burnley. He agreed with Mr. Walker that competition for " Thrift Tours " business . to Torquay and Bournemouth was keen, Mr, J. P. Beaumont. a director of Shearings. said they faced competition from private coach tours throughout the season, and should not he called upon to face further competition from licensed operators during the lean months. They had offered a 110 tour since 1958, and the Torquay charge of 10 guineas was likely to apply to all such tours next year. The charge included a journey fare of 124 Is. 6d. to Bournemouth and £3 15s. to Torquay against the applicants fares of +:3 7s. 6d. to both places.
In the event, Mr. Walker's submission that Shearings were meeting requirements and that no evidence of unsatisfied demand had been furnished was upheld.
Mr. Hodgson said the Act gave the Commissioners wide jurisdiction and they would refuse the application because of insufficient evidence of need and the objectors' plea that their carryings would be adversely affected.
The welcome growth of extended tours —even beyond Europe--suggests that we may not have heard the last of this question.
It seems to me that the North Western Commissioners have defined the public interest too narrowly in the case cited. Clearly, if competition is carried to ruinous lengths one would expect the Commissioners' discretion to be exercised in favour of its moderation, to protect the reasonable commercial interests of established operators.
There is always an element of "public interest " in the manifest private interest of coach operators, but John Citizen's interest in fares and tours, whether inclusive or not, is the total drain on his pocket. In the current climate of economic affairs it seems hard to deny that the North Western Commissioners arc engaged in a tug-of-war with Mr. Brown.
In another sense, I feel the Commissioners' decision was unduly restricting. Suppose an enterprising coach operator owns and stairs all the cafes and hotels patronized on an extended tour, and is well prepared to accept the total profit on the various activities as his reward. In such a case, is it in the public interest if coach operators are denied the right to charge what they feel to be reasonable for each aspect of the service they provide?