AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

England—Ulster negotiations

20th May 1966, Page 37
20th May 1966
Page 37
Page 37, 20th May 1966 — England—Ulster negotiations
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?

THIS week, the Ulster Development

Department informed COMMERCIAL MOTOR that negotiations between the Ulster Parliament and the Ministry of Transport were taking place concerning reciprocal licensing arrangements for British hauliers travelling to Ulster and vice versa.

The Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, will introduce for the first time a system of carriers' licensing in Ulster. This part of the act becomes operative on July 1.

Road-freight operators' licences will remain in force for three years at a cost of LI per year. The operator will also be required to obtain a licence for each authorized vehicle, which will cost £10 per year.

The Rt. Hon. Wm. Craig, MP, Ulster's Minister of Development, has already indicated that the Ulster Parliament is not willing to consider British firms establishing agencies in Ulster.

A prize for bad behaviour

AN A licence for three vehicles with a

wide extension of normal user was a prize for bad behaviour awarded to Gills Transport (York) Ltd. by the Yorkshire deputy LA. said Mr. R. A. Yorke on Wednesday. Mr. Yorke represented the Transport Holding Co. (Pickfords Ltd.) and he told the Transport Tribunal that other objectors had failed to lodge an appeal in time though supporting it in spirit. Mr. D. J. McDonnell appeared for Gills Transport.

Mr. Yorke said Gill's new normal user allowed carriage of new and second hand furniture and other specified commodities in England, excluding Devon and Cornwall: previously Yorkshire and Lancashire were specified for the original two vehicles. His clients took exception to the authority paying any regard to 23 supporting letters sent in earlier as copies had not been shown to the objectors.

The president, giving judgment, said the Tribunal felt the deputy LA was right to allow an extended radius on the normal user but the evidence for the additional vehicle applied for was weak, and the appeal would succeed as regards this vehicle.


comments powered by Disqus