Rates and the Guillotine
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
USE of the guillotine on some clauses of the Transport Bill during the committee stage was not as serious as the Opposition pretended. Repetition of already familiar arguments for and against certain points of which the meaning is obvious usually means a waste of precious time, and any device, however ruthless, which prevents this is deserving of support. Other parts of the Bill deserved a much longer discussion than they had and many aspects of the Government's' policy are still obscure.
To no part of the Bill does this apply more than to clause 8, which contains a number of important amendments to the licensing system. For some time it has been plain that the Government intends to allow greater freedom for newcomers to enter the road haulage industry. From what the Minister of Transport had to say at the committee stage, it would also appear to be the Government's view that the original Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, has been misinterpreted and has been used to restrict the growth of road haulage far more severely than had been the real desire of the Government of the day. Layer upon layer of case law has almost blocked the entry, and what is principally needed is a restatement in less equivocal language of the genuine principles of the 1933 Act.
If the Government reasons thus, its attempt to put things right did not have a particularly happy start. The very first of the new licensing provisions has become the cause of a controversy capable of providing in itself another volume of case law. Clause 8 (1) has as its object a change of emphasis in the attitude of a Licensing Authority towards the various sections of the public whose interests he must keep in mind. In future he will "have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport."
Order of Preference
The wording appears to establish an order of preference for three classes of people. The difficulty lies in deciding what order is intended, and the politicians in committee argued on this point as if they were judges deciding the places of three horses involved in a photofinish. Some Members thought the result should be like this: 1, users; 2, providers; 3, public. On the other side it was argued that the meaning of the clause was to put the placings in this order: 1, public; 2, users; 3, providers.
What the difference between the variations would be in practice it is hard to see. So much time was taken in labouring the point that the committee scarcely touched upon the rest of the clause. This is a pity, as the obscurity is not confined to the first sub-section. The decision embodied in sub-section (3)(a) to transfer the onus of proof to the objector is clear, but a discussion on its practical application would have been helpful. Even more serious was the muzzling of the debate on the items to which the Licensing Authority must have regard in considering whether existing transport facilities are suitable. It is not unreasonable that he should be told to give due weight to the relative efficiency, reliability and adequacy of the existing facilities and of those which the applicant would provide, and to all other
relevant considerations. It is less easy to understand why, among these other considerations, there should have been singled out for particular mention "the charges made and to be made"
Although the Minister took the opportunity during the committee stage to make one or two observations on this point, he left the main questions unanswered. It was highly desirable, he said, that the question of charges should be "in the mind of the Licensing Authority." As Licensing Authorities have certainly given the impression that they preferred not to become involved in discussions on rates, the Minister's phrase could be taken to imply the need to remedy some fancied psychological deficiency but it is obvious that his chief purpose is to enable the Licensing Authority to have access to all the information needed to reach correct decisions in the cases under consideration.
Assumption by Both Sides In the limited discussion that was possible on the charges provision, both sides of the committee assumed that the object was to curb excessively high rates. There would be no point in introducing the provision unless it were needed. One must assume that, in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, haulie:s under free enterprise have been able to make charges far above the true economic level.
There is no evidence that the assumption is correct. Scarcely anywhere has there been so firm a closed shop that the customer who thinks he is paying too much has not been able to find another haulier or to use the threat of putting his own vehicles on the road. The Road Haulage Executive has complained frequently that far too little was charged by many, perhaps the
majority, of the firms taken over. Whatever the Minister and his advisers may think, no spokesman of the Government has at any time suggested that the rates of hauliers are too high. The view of many Members of the Opposition is that the rates are Insufficient to enable adequate working conditions and vehicle efficiency to be maintained. The Socialists were prepared to oppose the new provision.
Fall into Contempt
No legislation is more derided than the otiose. Towards the end of the committee stage, Mr. Gurney Braithwaite condemned the Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) Orders on the grounds that they had so seldom been used. The new charges provision may be equally neglected and fall into a like contempt. Alternatively, the Licensing Authorities will be compelled to devise complicated formulae to help them decide whether rates are reasonable.
It may be that 1 have not correctly interpreted the Government's intention in putting forward the new provision. It is almost certain that the intention is not to protect hauliers against under-cutting. On the other hand, the purpose could be to limit the power of objection by the railways now that they have greater licence to reduce their charges to meet competition. The extra day for the report stage of the Bill may give the Minister time to say precisely what advantage the reference to charges will give that is not already available.