Kite -flyin g e-fly e n T HE idea of hauliers attacking their fellows
Page 41
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
in order to twist the tail of a powerful customer who arbitrarily forces down rates is novel, and is probably unpalatable to some of them. As The Commercial Motor reported last week, the suggestion emanated from Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, who has put more cats among pigeons than any Licensing Authority during the 27 years of road haulage control. The proposition, however, merits examination.
It is based on Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which extends Section 13 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to allow a Licensing Authority to suspend or revoke an A or B licence, or to remove certain vehicles from it, because "the holder of the licence has been persistently charging, for services which consist of or include the carriage of goods by road in any of the authorized vehicles, sums insufficient to meet the cost of rendering those services, and has thereby placed other holders of licences at an undue or unfair, disadvantage in competing with him as respects the carriage of goods by road." The operator is, of course, entitled to have the offence considered at a public inquiry.
The question arose out of an allegation that the Consett Iron Co. had, without consulting their hauliers, introduced a new scale of rates and had cut them so savagely that little profit remained. Mr. Hanlon's solution of the problem was a complaint by operators that those who were still carrying the traffic were infringing Section 44 of the 1956 Act. He went so far as to suggest that it was not necessary to show that vehicles were being run at a loss. There must be a sufficient margin of profit to enable vehicles to be properly maintained, and for drivers to be paid the statutory rates.
Little Hope of Success There is little likelihood of Mr. Hanlon's being able to take effective action in the present case. For one thing, much of the traffic is apparently being carried as return loads by hauliers licensed in areas outside his jurisdiction. In the second place, Section 44 speaks of a licensee " persistently " charging rates insufficient to meet the " cost " of the service. The implication is that, to qualify under this section, rate-cutting must be wilful on the part of the haulier.
Surely such an accusation cannot be levelled against an operator who accepts a rate laid down by a customer in a universally applicable schedule, even if it shows no profit. He is a victim of circumstances. Moreover, he cannot be held to have "placed other holders of licences at an undue or unfair disadvantage in competing with him," because they have an equal opportunity of carrying the traffic at the scheduled rate.
Then, again, the section speaks of the " cost " of rendering a service. The term is not defined, but presumably so long as the rate covers all essential outgoings, it has met the cost of the work. The section does not specifically require a fair return for services rendered. The Transport Tribunal have assiduously fought shy of this question, because it is almost impossible to lay down a standard of cost. No two operators can work at the same cost, and a complaint under Section 44 would be extremely difficult to substantiate. But Mr. Hanlon is apparently willing to entertain the matter, and some good might come from a test case. If the question were taken to appeal on the specific issue of Section 44, the Tribunal would no longer be able to evade an opinion on it. In any event, a refreshing breeze of publicity would be admitted to the iron company's haulage dealings. The company might at least be persuaded to send a representative to court to explain the basis of their rates schedule. It is possible that the hard things said about -them are not entirely justified, but their deliberate policy of silence in licensing matters invites criticism, whether well founded or not.
Echoes of Agitation
pUBLIC disapproval of the movement of abnormal indivisible loads by road seems to be reflected in proposals by the Minister of Transport to exercise closer control over them. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry have both defended the carriage of such loads by, road, and pointed out that it is frequently the only practicable method. Nevertheless, ill-informed agitation continues, and the new proposals are presumably designed partially to counter it.
But heavy hauliers and other road users will welcome the Minister's intention to raise the speed limit on special-type vehicles from the completely unrealistic level. of 5 m.p.h. to 12 m.p.h. It would be a pity if this more liberal attitude were partially to he nullified by new restrictions that would make more difficult and costly the movement of the heavy capital plant on which the growth of national prosperity depends.