"Same Law for Roth Large and Small"
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE could not be one law for the I small operator and another for the large concern, said Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, when he objected on behalf of Messrs. A. Hay-ton and Sons, Dumfries, to an application by Road Services (Caledonian), Ltd., at Glasgow last week.
The application was to convert special-A to public A licences in respect of the company's Glasgow fleet. Mr. Wardlaw told Mr. W. F. Quin, Scottish Licensing Authority, that Road Services (Caledonian) had previously opposed an application by Hayton in Dumfries on the ground of available capacity. If they had capacity available then, Road Services (Caledonian) should not now be seeking such wide powers, he argued.
Mr. Alex Callander, traffic manager of Road Services (Caledonian), said that the fleet was fully employed. The sole change involved the adoption of modern tractive units in place of less efficient ones. The work and carrying capacity would be the same. The application was for seven vehicles of 16+ tons, nine tractors of 28+ tons and nine semi-trailers of 25+ tons.
Mr. J. Law, for the applicants, questioned the opposition by a Dumfries haulier as the licence was wanted for a Glasgow-based fleet. He gave an assurance that the company would not carry bulk liquids, and Messrs. Hemphill, other objectors, withdrew opposition.
The normal user sought was all classes of goods as required by customers in Scotland, England and Wales, but this was attacked by Mr. Wardlaw and Mr.
J. J. Clyde, for British Railways, as being too comprehensive.
The fact that some of the vehicles concerned were vans to be used on smalls traffic was also questioned by Mr. Wardlaw. They were unsuitable for the coverage sought, he claimed, but Mr. Quin ruled that in their case the normal user should be "radius 40 miles of base on general goods."
Mr. Callander, who stated that -about half of the company's traffic was in small consignments, drew attention to the fact that the accounts were for the year ended January, 1959. They provided no information on the work done over the past 16 months, he claimed, and Mr. Quin expressed his disappointment that a company of such status should omit to produce certified accounts.
Giving qualified approval to the application, Mr. Quin said that it was relatively easy for a small bperator to give detailed figures of operations, but more difficult in the case of a large operator with a number of bases and interchangeable vehicles.
Subject to the certification of accounts, he granted an amended normal Uses which allowed two vehicles of 21 tans to operate over 40 miles. The remaining vehicles would have as normal user "metal and metal products, foodstuffs, building materials, whisky, paper, agricultural produce and requisites and smalls, in the ratio of 20 per cent. in Scotland and 80 per cent. in northern England, Midlands, Home Counties, Bristol and Plymouth."