AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Decision rapped by Secretary of State

18th June 1971, Page 42
18th June 1971
Page 42
Page 42, 18th June 1971 — Decision rapped by Secretary of State
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Fare, Pricing, The Bus

• A decision by the South Wales Traffic Commissioners not to allow fares increases by the South Wales Transport Co Ltd has been criticized by the Secretary of State for the DoE following a successful appeal by the company against the decision. Appeals by the Area Joint Committee of Local Authorities, who were objectors to the applications, were dismissed.

The application was the result of increased costs amounting to £.344,300 in a full year of which the largest item was a national wage award of £260,000. It was proposed to increase fares, to withdraw return fares and vary some other concessions. Taking into account the extra revenue as a result of these measures the company stated that it would still be insufficient to compensate the loss of £365,000 in 1970.

The objectors suggested that improvement of the situation could be effected by cutting costs through increased economy and efficiency as well as increasing fares. The Traffic Commissioners allowed the withdrawal of return tickets and the varying of some concessions but rejected the increased fares application, justifying their decision by saying that this was the third proposed increase in 16 months and that it had already been clearly indicated that there was serious concern about the company's financial control and efficiency.

At the appeal the Commissioners acknowledged that the fares now authorized were reasonable and that the fares proposed were not calculated to yield an excessive return. They hoped, however, that their decision would bring home to the company the duty of the Commissioners to

ensure that fares were not unreasonable, having regard to the standard of service provided. In the event of a successful appeal they hoped that the delay in introducing any increased fares might have some salutary effect on the company's future administration and operation.

The company stated the criticisms of the Commissioners of the financial control and efficiency were unjustified and not supported by evidence and that in view of the difficulties under which the bus industry laboured it could not reasonably be argued that the situation of the company was of its own making.

In his decision on the appeal, the Secretary of State agreed with his Inspector, Mr D. H. Crofton, that it was necessary, given the difficulties of the bus industry, to have clear proof that the failures I complained of in the services of the company were more the result of bad management than of adverse circumstances before deciding that the company deserved to be taught a lesson.

The Secretary of State also noted the evidence of local authority and other witnesses that the increased fares would impose hardship on the travelling public and on old-age-pensioners in particular. Appropriate means of relieving hardship, he stated, lie in the powers enabling local authorities to subsidize rural bus services under Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968 and to arrange travel concessions for the

old, the blind and the disabled under Section 138 of the Act. He was unable to regard the general restriction of fares to a level prejudicial to the viability or statutory obligations of bus undertakings as an acceptable alternative. In considering the requirement that fares shall not be unreasonable the Secretary stated that, he was firmly of the opinion that undertakings should not be denied the revenue necessary to compensate unavoidable increases in costs.

In concluding, the Inspector suggested

• that as the Commissioners found that the fares applied for were not unreasonable it was not in any event a proper use of their powers to put the appellant to the delay and expense of appealing in order to achieve the result which the Commissioners themselves regarded as inevitable. The Secretary of State added that he was particularly concerned that all parties to fares increases should avoid any use ofi the appellate procedure liable to bring it into disrepute.

The appeals by the Area Joint Committee of Local Authorities were against the decision of the Commissioners to allow the withdrawal of ordinary adult and children's fares. The objectors pointed out that the decision was inconsistent with other recent decisions. The Secretary of State dismissed the appeal on the grounds that each case must be considered on its individual merits and that in this case the withdrawal of return fares was an expedient means .of raising the necessary revenue.


comments powered by Disqus