" Abolish the Appeal Tribunal )) T HE Association should press
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
for the disbandment of the Appeal Tribunal and for the appointment, in its stead, of the Minister of Transport as the appellate authority. This suggestion was made by Mr. Frederick Smith, council member of the Industrial Transport Association and head of the transport executive of Unilever, Ltd., at an A.R.O. Metropolitan Area meeting, on Monday evening.
Mr. Smith declared that the industry was being crushed out of existence and that the railways were abstracting road traffic by means of agreed charges. Many appeal decisions, he continued, were contrary to law and to the spirit of the 1933 Act, and he was surprised that no protest had been made in Parliament.
He regretted that the Enston decision had never been challenged. Mr. Smith held that the distinction between newcomers and established hauliers was not justified by the Act; Established hauliers were adopting a short-sighted policy in condoning the Enston ruling, because the Act did not discriminate between established hauliers applying for the renewal of their licences and newcomers.
Mr. Smith quoted a recent remark of a Licensing Authority, who said that the purpose of the 1933 measure was to limit road transport. The speaker, however, declared that the preamble of the Act did not refer to the limitation of any form of transport.
lie maintained that the Appeal Tribunal was neither legal nor administrative and was, therefore, not a suitable authority for the task in hand.
If operators were assured, Mr. Smith continued, that transport would be regulated in the public interest, and not in the interest of any particular group, the private carrier might submit to some form of control. ' The C-licensee would, however, strongly resist any
attempt to put traffic into the hands of the railways or a railway-inspired monopoly.
Col. J. Sandeman-Allen, M.P., chair-: man of the Road Group in the House of Commons, explained that body's work, The Road Group comprises some 120 members and is divided into live sub-committees.
Sub-committee A, which has 36 members, deals with road regulations, etc., Sub-committee B looks after the interests of private motorists and motorcyclists, Sub-committee C, having 33 members, watches the interests of goods-vehicle operators, whilst public-service-vehicle owners are served by Sub-committee D. which has 24 members. Sub-committee E is the largest, having 46 members, and deals with road construction and maintenance Although the members of the Road Group are the key men in Pa.rliarent, they must, Col. Sandeman-Allen emphasized, have the assistance of the industry. He called for the formation of a central highways board.
Mr. Norman Letts, referring to the steps that are now being taken further to shackle the ancillary user, quoted the Barratt appeal case. The Metropolitan Licensing Authority and the chairman of the Tribunal had, he said, both expressed the view that there was really no reason why the Barratt concern should be allowed to carry its on n goods to the north of England.
Mr. Letts also quoted from a railway objection which he had just received. The railway company sought to restrict to 30 miles transport by the applicant of his own goods, which he had sold in the course of his business!
In answer to a question, Mr. J. F. E. Pye, chairman, stated that the Road Group was to be asked to raise in Parliament the issue of the security of the established A-licence holder.