Transport "Experts" in Parliament I WOULD like to comment on
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
two items in your issue I dated November 24. Mr. R. Reader 1-Tarris, M.P., in referring to the capabilities of certain Members of Parliament, kindly and tactfully describes some of them as transport "experts," on the assumption, apparently, that some employment in connection with transport thereby makes the individual into an expert.
Under this heading comes Mr. .1. Harrison (Nottingham East), who is described as a railway expert on the grounds that he was an engine driver and a member of the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen.
It was at a meeting in Great Yarmouth during the anti-nationalization campaign when the local Members of Parliament v,cre invited to address a meeting to explain the benefits which were likely to accrue to the public under nationalization. These Members admitted that they knew nothing about transport, but called on Mr. Harrison, who was alleged to be an espert on the matter.
Just about that time there had been a strike of Co-operative S'ocieties' milL workers and the free haulier: had stepped into the breach in order that the milk should not be wasted. One member of the audience asked Mi. Harrison what would have been the position had there been no free hauliers to handle this milk. Mr. Harrison replied, whether seriously or not. I do not know—that i would not have been wasted as it would have been left in the cow!
The other item arises out of'Col. Glyn Jones's letter on Service technical training. I remember once discussing this matter with an N.C.O. in the R.A.F.. who had been trained as an armourer and was, I believe, a first-class man in his job. All that he could foresee as an opening in civilian life when his time had expired was a position in a similar capacity to a gang of gunmen, as he felt that other openings for armourers in civil life were somewhat limited.
Cambridge.
G. W. bzwiN
(Secretary. Eastern Area, Road Haulage Association).
MR. EGGINTON ON GOODWILL COMPENSATION THE report headed "Goodwill Only May be Acquired." in the November 17 issue of "The Commercial Motor." has created wrong impressions in the minds of some of those who read it and who were not at the meeting of the Institute of Traffic Administration, at which the question of acquisition by the Road Haulage Executive arose.
In dealing with a question asked after I had read a paper on the Transport Act, I expressed the hypothetical possibility that in certain circumstances, and according to the construction which may ultimately be placed on Sections 54 and 55 of the Act, it might be possible to obtain some compensation for loss of business without offering a vehicle to the R.H.E. I had in mind the case of an owneidriver, the greater part of whose traffic was within 25 miles and whose original permit to carry certain traffic beyond that radius was revoked. The point is whether, in the circumstances, he could ask to be served with a notice of acquisition to be limited to the contract or contracts under which he carried goods for hire or reward beyond a radius of 25 miles only.
Section 55 clearly contemplated a severance of the business and of the fleet of vehicles. If a man has only one vehicle. it cannot be divided.
The point is hypothetical and was not, I think, misunderstood by those who were present at the meeting at which I read nty paper. I FOLEY FCC" [(N. Sutton Colclfield.
LEGAL AID FOR HAULIERS ON COMPENSATION I CONSIDER that it would be a good idea if all hauliers. large and small, those who arc acquired already and those who may be deprived of their livelihood by this time next year, were to join together now and by some sort of subscription—per vehicle, for example—were to obtain the best brains in the country to stand up to the ICH,E. and see that we get the compensation to which we are entitled.
Colchester. S. G. VAUCIIIAN.
LAW PENALIZES THE OWNER-DRIVER AS a result of the Road Haulage Executive's decision to revoke many of the permits granted to hauliers. some operators are looking to the C-licence hiring Margin as a legitimate means for continuing business. This necessarily invblves the employment of the drivers by the hirer of vehicle. It therefore appears that the ownerdriver haulier is debarred from adopting this expedient. The owner-driver, as the proprietor of the vehicle and the contractor, could not, in my view, be taken on the payroll of the hirer as the driver. It is true that the trader could hire the vehicle without the driver, but in that event the value of the owner-driver's services—for which many users have a particularly high regard—would be lost, and the whole object of the association would be destroyed. London, E.C.2. ALAN BEZZANT.