Mother Carey's Chickens
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LATTERLY, whenever there has been a dispute about transport, I have expected to see the members of the Transport Tribunal beating up against the wind like stormy petrels, or Mother Carey's chickens. At any rate, their appearance on the scene has often been the signal for the hoisting of cones.
The Transport Act did not give the Tribunal an easy task. Its functions are to deal with the Commission's charges; to determine appeals in connection with revocation or suspension of permits by Licensing Authorities; and to consider appeals in connection with licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. It took under its wing this last duty only a year ago, and has continued the work of the former Appeal Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the task that has earned the Transport Tribunal the most publicity has been the consideration of applications by the Commission to increase various charges. An ever fiercer limelight has fallen upon the Tribunal's activities, culminating in the prolonged wrangle over fares in London and on the railways.
Difficulties Increased No escape from the charges schemes is provided in the Transport Bill. The Tribunal has, if anything, a more difficult task. Amongst other things, it must take into account objections from hauliers against uneconomic rates charged by the Commission in order to eliminate competition. There will also be a good deal of work arising from the new licensing provisions. Appeals are certain on important points for some little time after the Bill becomes law.
So far as one can see, the storm likely to accompany and follow the passing of the Bill will have as its centre the levy on goods vehicles. In that storm Mother Carey's chickens will be much in evidence, for the Bill gives the Tribunal an unenviable task. The Transport Fund is intended to staunch losses sustained by the Commission from two main causes: the disposal of the assets of the R.H.E. and increased competition from the road goods transport industry.: Entirely different methods are proposed for assessing the two items, and for the second and more difficult the Tribunal is the operating body.
The Minister himself has the task of deciding how much the Commission loses on the sale of the road haulage undertaking. He is called upon to do a number of sums. He must add together the net value of the property as shown in the Commission's books at the time of sale; the cost of the sale; any amounts paid for benefits which the sale has subsequently denied to the Commission; the goodwill figure shown in the Commission's balance sheet, or as much of it as is not already included in the addition; and any loss in respect of contracts. The last item presumably covers the compensation to employees which the explanatory memorandum to the Bill makes quite clear is to be paid from the Transport Fund.
When the Minister has the total as. nearly correct as he can make it, he has to take away the element of goodwill and of unfulfilled contracts in respect of any property remaining within the Commission's control. He must also, of course, deduct the amount realized by the sale of the Road Haulage Executive's property. The calculations have to take place before the end of September in the year when the 25-mile limit is .c8 abolished, and the Minister must decide at the same time over how many years the payment is to be spread.
This need not be his last word on the subject. Afterwards he can revise the estimate, and the size and number of instalments. On various aspects of the estimate he is to consult the auditors of the Commission, the Commission itself and the Treasury, and Treasury sanction is required for fixing the period of payment. But on the whole the Minister seems to have matters very much under his control.
It is a much more difficult and controversial problem to assess the true financial loss to the railways resulting from the transfer of traffic to road. The Bill hands this assignment over to the Transport Tribunal, and the Minister need not intervene unless he chooses. It is a tough job even for Mother Carey's chickens.
At the end of 1954, and once every three years afterwards, the Tribunal must let the Minister have an estimate of the average annual loss to the Commission because users since January 1, 1953, have stopped or curtailed sending their goods by rail, and have entrusted them to road haulage undertakings including those controlled by the Commission) or carried them in their own vehicles. Before reaching a decision, the Tribunal has to hear any evidence that may be forthcoming. It must make allowances for variations in the general level of the country's production and trade, and disregard any loss of railway revenue "which the Commission could have avoided by economies which they could reasonably have effected in consequence of the discontinuance or curtailment."
Having watched the contortions of the Tribunal from the sidelines, the Minister has to lay the statement and an explanation of it before Parliament. He may also, if he considers the estimate excessive, put in a revised version of his own, after consultation with the Tribunal. It is apparently not envisaged that the Minister would ever consider that the Tribunal had set its sights too low.
Holding the Balance When it comes to fixing the amount of the levy, the Transport Bill sails into comparatively calm waters. The aim is commendably to keep the Transport Fund just at the level required to meet payments. Until the end of 1955 the levy will be 13s. 6d. for every quarter-ton of unladen weight on all goods vehicles with an unladen weight of 1 ton or more. After 1955, the Minister will be able to vary the figure once every three years, i.e., one year after each estimate by the Tribunal of the loss to the Commission through the transfer of traffic.
Despite reassurances in the White Paper and elsewhere, it is difficult to see how the levy can avoid growing in size as time goes on. The cost to the Commission of denationalization, once it has been established, will, of course, be repaid at the end of a certain period; but the compensation for transfer of traffic can only increase. The total at the end of each three years will be added to the previous total, and there is no provision for a rebate if by any chance the direction is reversed and traffic goes from road to rail.
One thing certain is that there will be a good deal of argument. So far as the levy is concerned, the barometer is permanently set to "Stormy," and Mother Carey's chickens will be in their element.