Fares "Manipulated" to Raise Revenue
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
13EFORE the Transport Tribunal, on Monday, objectors to the application of the British Transport Commission to increase fares, including those of London Transport, submitted that the draft charges scheme put forward was a series of alterations and could not be considered until 12 months had elapsed since the last scheme came into -effect. Only a new scheme could be
• put forward at any time.
For London.County Council, one of • the 12 objectors, if was held that the 'proposed changes could not be considered as a charges scheme at all. It was merely a manipulation of schedules to increase charges, which made the proposal an alteration and not a scheme.
Representing the London Trades Council, Mr.. D. Turner-Samuels asked whether, if the present application was approved, the B.T.C. could not apply next day to increase the 2d. fare to 3d., and succeed in that manifest evasion of the Act merely because the matter was put forward as a revocation of an existing scheme and the substitution of a new one.
Mr. H. I. Willis, Q.C., for the B.T.C., submitted that the Commission had complete discretion as to whether it submitted a charges scheme or alterations to an -existing scheme. In this case, the Commission had submitted a charges scheme and the Tribunal had a statutory duty to entertain it.
Sitting briefly on Tuesday, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the objectors to restrain the Tribunal from considering the B.T.C. proposals. The Tribunal disagreed with the suggestion that the proposals constituted an alteration of an existing charges scheme and not a new scheme, and held that it had jurisdiction over the matter. The inquiry will accordingly take place, as originally intended, from March 9.
Counsel for the L.C.C. asked if necessary, for permission to appeal to the High Court.