AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Is the Law Too Kind to Farmers?

27th June 1958, Page 78
27th June 1958
Page 78
Page 81
Page 78, 27th June 1958 — Is the Law Too Kind to Farmers?
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?

THERE was once a politician who made a famous remark—or infamous according to one's point of

view—about farmers being " feather-bedded." It would be idle to pretend that there are not many persons in the transport world who hold firmly to the belief that, as regards transport law at least, the farmers if not featherbedded," which is perhaps an inappropriate word for the rough and tumble, of transport generally, are, quite exceptionally favoured. _Moreover, -this favouritism, jt is • alleged, does not merely help the farmers themselves in their' own chosen calling but acts to`the 'positive detriment of those who have chosen the provision of transport facili ties as their task in life. . -What• is the true position? No one would deny that farmers are given many advantages by the law, but can it be said that the law favours them unduly? Perhaps a calm appraisal of the principal legal provisions involved and their interpretation may assist in deciding the argument or adding fuel to the flames.

In the first place, farmers are, as a class, singled out for exemp tion from the absolute prohibition contained in Section 2(4) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, against using a vehicle held on C licence for the carriage of goods for hire or reward. The exemption 1(5)(c) of the Act and says, in effect, that such a use is not to be " deemed " to be for hire or reward where the carriage is by a person engaged in agriculture and is of goods for or in connection with the business of agriculture carried on by someone else in the same "locality." Although there is no definition in the Act of " locality " and there has never been an authoritative decision on the point, it is doubtful if there ever could be, for by using a deliberately inexact word Parliament must have intended it to be given a wide and liberal meaning. Those who press for amending legislation should consider carefully how to frame the law to cover all possible circumstances: is contained in Section

Neighbourly Gesture

Farmers are obviously dependent on transport to or from their various markets and railheads, apart from their requirements in the day-to-day working of the farm itself, and as in• isolated or sparsely populated areas transport facilities provided by others may not be immediately available when required, it would seem only common sense and a neighbourly gesture for farmers to help each other out and not to have to duplicate their transport.. It is suggested that whilst Parliament wished " locality " to be generously interpreted, the obvious "good neighbourly" intention behind the provision is sufficient indication that the practice of one farmer carrying for hire or reward for another was intended to go no farther in distance than in common sense would be covered by the expression "neighbours," although probably their lands need not march together.

However, although the size of the locality involved is left to common sense for interpretation, it is somewhat surprising that if the exemption is widely abused by farmers, as is often alleged by hauliers, some serious efforts at prosecution are not made. Clearly it is important to have both definite and effective evidence, but it is the writer's experience that in country districts everyone knows everyone else's business. it should not be impossible to get D34 • proof of payment for the carriage of goods to or from a farm which could not by any stretch of the imagination be termed within the same locality. If the case were fought on the meaning of "locality," perhaps we should at last get at least an indication, if not a hard and fast definition, ofwhat it meant.

.However, on other aspects of the exemption, the courts• have given some guidance in a restrictive and negative sense 'so that it is wrong to assume that farmers, 'or rather the farming community, have had matters "all their own way.. Thus the expressions " person engaged in agriculture "-the Act does not use the expression "farmer "—and "agricultural business " are not quite as wide as some people have thought in the past, to their cost. The primary meaning of " agriculture " in law is the cultivation of the soil, and it has been held that a person trading in fertilizers and agricultural goods is not engaged in the business of agriculture. Nor is a person engaged in the disposal wholesale of agricultural produce Who buys standing crops. So it can be seen that there is no inclination by the courts to give a generously wide meaning to these expressions and so widen the favoured class unnecessarily.

A second important concession for farmers is to be found in the joint effect of Section 1(7)(a) of the 1933 Act and Sections, 4 and 5' and certain provisions of the schedules to the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949. Section 1(7)(a) exempts altogether from the requirement that no goods vehicle may be used for the carriage of goods for or in connection with any trade or business without a licence, the use of any vehicle for "agricultural or other ancillary purposes" where the vehicle is within those provisions of the 1949 Act. Those provisions in Section 4 deal with the lower rate of licence duty chargeable in respect of locomotive ploughing engines and agricultural tractors which are not normally used on public roads except for certain permitted purposes. These excepted purposes are too numerous to list here in full but, broadly speaking, they comprise the hauling from one part of a farm to another, or within a radius of 15 miles of a farm, of farming implements, articles required on the farm and agricultural or woodland produce of a farm. The Act defines a farm as including amarket garden. These vehicles are not "goods vehicles" for Excise purposes.

Ordinary Definition In addition to the tractors and suchlike vehicles to which we have just referred, those other vehicles which come within the ordinary definition of " goods vehicles" and which are chargeable for licence duty under Section 5 of the 1949 Act are chargeable at a much lower rate of duty if within the definition under Section 27 of "farmer's goods vehicle." This means " a goods vehicle registered in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used on public roads solely by him for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or of the articles required. for the purposes of the agricultural land which he occupies and for no other purpose."

It follows from these provisions that not only does a farmer or market gardener enjoy extremely favourable licence duty rates in respect of both his tractors and similar (Continued on nage 731) machines and his goods vehicles, but in addition the use of these vehicles for these purposes alone does not require the holding of a carrier's licence. Nevertheless, the emphatic wording of. that part of the definition of farmer's good& vehicle" which is italicized above has tripped many people up and the courts have, quite properly, not been slow to prevent the door being opened too wide to the detriment of other hauliers.

Thus we find a decision that a licensed farm goods vehicle used to carry furniture from a sale to a farmworker's cottage is not being used solely for the conveyance of articles required for the purpose of agricultural land; also that a tractor pulling a trailer-load of bricks and a fireplace for installation at a farm cottage is not hauling "articles required for the farm" under Section 4. On the other hand, moving agricultural implements and a load of fur niture from one farm to another has been held to be use • in the business of agriculture, and a Scottish decision held to be proper use where a farmer had contracted to• supply a load of fuel to his employee.

Unprocessed Hides It.has been held that where a market gardener carried a load of vegetables in his car to sell to retail, customers he was using the vehicle in the business of agriculture, but that a wholesale greengrocer who bought a standing crop of broccoli in a field and then sent a goods vehicle to -take it away was not using the lorry in the business of agriculture. It is perhaps not difficult to see the clear dis tinction between these two sets of facts, but whilst one can certainly agree both in principle and common sense with the decision that taking a pony to a horse show is not a use for hauling agricultural produce, one is forced to look somewhat askance at the Divisional Court's decision that unprocessed hides imported from abroad are "agricultural produce." However, the general pattern of decisions affecting these aspects of Parliament's favour towards farmers is certainly a restrictive rather than a liberal one in interpretation.

As a somewhat .important corollary to their different position as regards C licences under the 1933 Act, farmers

generally enjoy a complete dispensation from the requirements of the regulations requiring the keeping of records, far whilst under Section 16 of the Act a Licensing Authority

May grant dispensations in respect of any or all of those requirements, he is bound to do so in the case of vehicles used in the business of agriculture except in-so-far as he is satisfied that for special reasons any particular requirement should be observed either in respect of any particular vehicle or for any particular use By regulation 9(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations, 1935, where an Authority refuses such a dispensation be must state his reasons in writing. This leaves his refusal Open to challenge by the Divisional Court if he has exer.cised this discretion upon wrong grounds. Many of the decisions quoted in this article have been upon thenecessity or otherwise of records being kept in respect of Some journey which it was alleged by the prosecution was not in the business of agriculture.".

The last major form of concession to farmers generally—although there are many minor ones directly or indirectly connected with transport which cannot be discussed here—is to be found in the innumerable exemptions their tractors, trailers and "land implements enjoy from the

otherwise stringent provisions of the Construction and Use Regulations, 1955. The definitions of .!` land tractors" and "agricultural trailer" follow very closely the requirements of and the references in the legislation already discussed about "persons engaged in agriculture" arid "agricultural produce or articles required forthe purposes of agriculaut." "Land implement" is defined as." any implement or machinery used with a land' locomotive or tractor in connection with agriculture, grass cutting, forestry, land levelling, dredging or similar operations," and one of the more enterprising attempts in this respect which failed was that by the farmer who tried to argue that a Mobile chicken hut was a land implement! Others could be mentioned but would occupy too much space.

Of the many requirements as to construction in these Regulations, the following may be noticed: regulation 9, which requires every vehicle and trailer to be equipped with springs, does not apply to any of these vehicles;.regulation 12, which requires every motor vehicle to carry a speedometer, does not apply to tractors; regulation 13, providing for a minimum size of wheel, does not apply to land implements; regulation 16, which requires motor vehicles to be fitted with a mirror, does not apply to tractors; regulations 53, 54 and 55, which provide respectively • for the length and width of trailers and for the provision of brakes, do not apply to land implements; regulation 56, which requires trailers to be provided with pneumatic tyres, does not apply to land implements or agricultural trailers. It would seem hard to criticize these regulations as being unjustified in any way.

Loose Produce.

Of those regulations concerned with the use of vehicles on roads it is sufficient to notice that the restriction contained in regulation 102 as to the maximum width of loads does not apply to the carriage of loose agricultural produce. . It certainly appears that'Parliament has always had the fariner's needs very much at heart both in making sure that his specialized vehicles and implements are not made subject to rules of construction which might hamper -him., and by placing as little restriction. as possible in his way. when considering his transport and haulage needs. ..What is quite clear, however, is that on the whole the courts have set their face firmly against extending these benefits either to too wide a class of persons or in respect of forms of use not within the spirit or common-sense view of what Parliament must have intended. TO that extent at least the question posed by this article should certainly be. answered, in the negative.. As regards possible changes in the law to. stamp out abuses the difficulty must always be in framing precise obligations, restrictions and definitions,

• so as not to cause as many anomalies by the changes as there now exist Possible abuses: The one is as bad as the other.


comments powered by Disqus