AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ancillary User Allowed " Subsidy "

10th January 1936
Page 33
Page 33, 10th January 1936 — Ancillary User Allowed " Subsidy "
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?

Hfar may a business concern subsidize its own transport department by carrying for hire and reward? This question canie before the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Sir William Hart, at Liverpool, on Tuesday, when' .R. Banks and Sons, Ltd.," shipping butcher, of Liverpool, applied for the renewal of its B licence. Mr. F. S. Stockdele, governing director, said that the company-sent meat by road to various ports in the United Kingdom, and carried for other people.

For the railways, Mr. G. H. P. Beames, submitted that the case came within the limits of the Barrett case (reported above). Subsidizing a private transport department by carrying for hire and reward was manifestly an unfair form of transport and, in view of recent comments by Licensing Authorities, it was likely that that type of business would come under review in the near future.

It was not the intention of the 1933 Act, he maintained, that a business should be subsidized in the way described, as it was inherently bad.

Sir William Hart pointed out that the applicant, on the outward jour-. neys, had loads which consisted' of about equal weights as between the company's own goods and those of other persons who were supplying ships at the ports to which the applicant's lorries were travelling. Mr. Beames contended that the Act was passed with a view to restricting that type of actilsvhiety.

licence was granted.


comments powered by Disqus