The Monster in the Labyrinth ) olitical Commentary By JAN US
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MOST of us are reluctant to appear more obtuse than our fellows. If we find difficulty in following an argument, but manage to grasp it in the nd, we like to pretend afterwards that we really undertood it all the time. This .pardonable human trait p.osibly explains why so many of the experts are now tying that the terms of the Transport Act clearly and xplicitly take from a haulier the right to an original termit if, for example, he has converted his business nto a limited company, or gone into partnership, or aken over from his father, since November 28, 1946. One person, at least, has the courage of his convicions. Mr. Douglas A. Foulis, president of Edinburgh Thamber of Commerce, writing in "The Times" on tehalf Of his members, protested against the unfairness tf depriving widows and children of valuable rights. ie declared that Sections 53 and 55 of the Act " do not ontain . such a specific condition, nd the interpretation, therefore, is tresnmably that of the R.H.E."
Whatever may be the precise neaning of this part of the Act, ts . implications are surprising.
Ve shall probably never know vhose mind, wandering in some legal rbyrinth, first came across the monster. It is doubtful /hether even the Civil Servants who drafted the Act ealized what they were doing. One hopes that they 'ere not consciously guilty of laying down a principle o manifestly unfair in language so exquisitely couched a deceive.
Parliamentary discussion of the Act, despite the guilloine, managed to cover a large number of points, but at to time during the debates was attention drawn to the njustice implicit in Section 53. It is well known that the toad Haulage Association was instrumental in suggestng many amendments, but not one was put forward on his particular point. The injustice was as rank then as it ; now, and if there had been any inkling of the Road Taulage Executive's interpretation of the Section, one nay be sure that the cry for fair play would have been and and resounding.
The First Warning The Act was passed, and the legal experts set up their tulpits in order to expound it. Even then for a time the nonster slumbered undisturbed. The first printed refernee to it appears to be contained in G. W. Quick :rnith's book, and it is approximately at the date of tublication of that book that warnings began to be ;sued to hauliers. to exercise care when making changes n their businesses. • .
Section 53 begins: "The provisions of this and the wo next succeeding sections shall have effect for the troteetion of persons" who were in business as hauliers tn November28, 1946. .The crux lies in the word persons." In legal jargon,'" person " includes any firm, ompany or corporation, and the use of the word in ;ection 53 recalls its use in the definition of Aand i-licence holders in the 1933 Act.
This was presumably in the mind of the Minister of ransport when, replying in the House of Commons ecently to questions about the loss of rights following he death of a haulier, he pointed out that "licences ave never been transfer'ible." The analogy is -inexact. An A or B licence, it is true, dies with the holder, but, like the Phcenix, a new licence may rise from the ashes of the old; whereas the original permit is in danger of becoming as extinct as the Dodo.
That subconsciously the Minister may have appreciated the vital distinction is shown by his quoting the willingness of the R.H.E., "without entering into any commitment," to look at cases of hardship and decide whether there is any way in which it "can properly be alleviated." The quality of mercy is perhaps a little strained, but there is at least a glimmer of hope for the
haulier in this undertaking by the R.H.E. •
Hope in Hardship Cases Full particulars of such cases should be submitted to the R.H.E. at the addresses to which applications for original permits had to be sent. One imagines, in addi
tion, that the liaison machinery now being set up may be used for the purpose of agreeing at least the general principles that will be followed in the praiseworthy attempt to mitigate hardship.
Unfortunately, whilst the Minister and the R.H.E. insist upon their interpretation of Section 53, the opportunities to do good by stealth may be somewhat limited. The original permit has two advantages closely bound up with one another. Where a haulier satisfies the conditions, it is more likely to be granted than an ordinary permit, because its refusal entitles the haulier to ask for compensation.
In a hardship case, the R.H.E. may undertake to give an ordinary permit on the same lined as the original permit that would have been granted had the operator been entitled to it. This may resolve the problem for the time being, but it will merely postpone the day when the permit can no longer be continued. At that date, themperator will lose his privilege without compensation, and ultimately this fate awaits other operators who change the structure of their businesses in the future.
Theoretically, it is open to an aggrieved haulier to dispute the interpretation in the courts. In practice, the expense involved means that legal action can be taken only by the R.H.A., and one suspects that, now the monster has been revealed, the Association has no wish to try conclusions with it in battle.
Once there has been time for a few hardship cases to be considered, it will be possible to see to what extent the R_H.E. is willing or able to muzzle the monster. If the R.H.E. finds it can do very little, and the possibility of successful legal action seems remote, the haulier may still appeal, perhaps not in vain, to the power of public opinion.
The matter has already been raised in the House of Commons, and it is signifiCant that the letter to "The Times " was sent on behalf of one of the leading Chambers of Commerce. It is heartening to find such a body lending its powerful support to the haulier. Public opinion has been voiced effectively on previous occasions to prevent manifest injustice being done, and other organizations, reinforced by the Press, may feel disposed to take up the cudgels on behalf of the haulier if it should happen that his hopes founder on a point of legal interpretation.