Operating Aspects of
Page 83
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
MINISTER UPHOLDS PRE-BOOKED-PARTY LICENCES
"Adequate Control can be Exercised by Suitable Conditions" THE Minister of Transport proposes not to make an Order revoking the licence granted to Elliott Bros. (Bournemouth), Ltd., for the conveyance of pre-booked parties. It wilt be recalled that the Southern Traffic Commissioners' action in granting this licence was the subject of a number of appeals by Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., and others, which constituted a test case. The hearing of the appeals was reported at length in The Commercial Motor.
The Minister has considered this question in the light of further repeesentations in connection with appeals against decisions of the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners, which include somewhat different conditions regarding pre-booked parties. , The pleadings at the appeal inquiry were directed largely to the establishment of three propositions: (a) That no adequate notice of the proposal had been given to potential objectors ; (b) that the applicant had failed to establish need for the services for which it
sought a licence; (c) that the terms of the licence granted did not enable the Commissioners to exercise adequate control over the services.
The Minister considers that the services under appeal do not properly fall within the terms of the second proviso of the Public Service Vehicles (Licences and Certificates) (No. 2) (Amendment) Provisional Regulations, 1931, and he has, therefore, considered the question in the light of the requirements of the first proviso, which are that the "notice" shall state: (I) The point from which the group . . . will originate; (2) description of route • (3) .period(s) . . during which each excursion or tour is to be operated; and (4) maximum number of vehicles to be employed . . . on any day. In tho Commissioners' gazette, a specific starting point and "picking-up point, 35-mile radius," were given, as well as some description of the route,
but periods and the maximum number of vehicles were not specified.
The Minister does not consider that any deficiency in that "notice" deprives the Commissioners of jurisdiction to entertain the application, or that potential objectors did not have sufficient notice. This ground of appeal fails, as does that concerning the need for the services. In the latter case, it is held that the Commissioners were justified in finding that there is a substantial demand for this kind of facility.
Furthermore, it does not appear to the Minister that an adequate measure of control cannot be exercised by the Commissioners over this type of service, if suitable conditions be imposed. He proposes to reserve for further consideration tip question whether he should make an Order varying certain conditions of the licence until he has considered representations made at the other appeals referred to, but makes no Order revoking the licence under appeal.