1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
The Revocation That Wasn't
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE is likely to be an interesting public sitting to be held soon before the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners concerning, once more, the sore question of supporting evidence from the War Office in respect of "assisted travel" express services for their personnel travelling between Reading and the Royal Army Ordnance Depot at Bromley. Brought out in public will be the astonishing fact that certain road service licences, granted in February, 1961, to Smith's Luxury Coaches (Reading), Ltd., by the Commissioners (whose decis:on was reversed by the Minister on an appeal by British Railways) and which were ordered to be revoked as long ago as November last, are still in existence, with no fewer than four coaches operating daily under their uncertain authority.
More astonishing is the fact that, although the War Office have indicated that they will not give a contract to an operator until he holds the appropriate licence, only recently they awarded a contract to another local operator in respect of the Read;ng-Bramley services—an Operator who holds no licence under which he can operate them.
Smith's, apparently, successfully tendered for a contract to operate the services under an assisted travel scheme, Towards the end of 1960 they applied for the appropriate licences but were unable to produce any witnesses from the R.A.O. Depot because of a long-standing War Office ruling which forbade the attendance of witnesses before the Commissioners.
Reluctant Grant British Railways who, together with their unnationalized predecessors, had been operating a special train service to the depot since 1917, strongly opposed the application. Their advocate, Mr. A. J. F. Wrottesley, criticizing the non-attendance of witnesses, told the Commissioners that he had "many questions" to ask the War Office. (The railways, it appeared, had simply received a letter stating that the service would not be required after a. certain date, but there had previously been no complaints about the facilities.) The chairman of the Commissioners, Mr. H. .1. Thom, adjourned the application and asked Smith's to try to obtain a War Office witness. He allowed them, in the meantime, to operate under shortterm licences.
Later, with no witness forthcoming, Mr. Thom reluctantly granted the application in a strongly worded decision. He said: "the Commissioners had refused similar applications in the past, only to be upset on appeal.
"We would very much like to refuse this application. If the railways choose to appeal we wish them the very best of luck because, if they succeed, they will be establishing a point which we have failed to establish ourselves over a
number of years . ."
The point he referred to being that the
Commissioners disagreed with the Minister's ruling that where a service, the need for which was established, was to be provided under contract and the whole question at issue was in the choice of an operator to provide the service, the award of the contract should be regarded as a material factor in deciding between competing applicants for the licence. Any claims put forward on that count should be given substantial weight as against other claims based on other considerations.
Smith's. then, had the contract and the Commissioners unwillingly granted the licences at the same time inviting British Railways to appeal and wishing them luck if they did to.
The hint was taken by British Railways. Making the appeal before the Minister's inspector, M r. R. C. Oswald said that since Smith's had been operating the service British Railways had been losing 80 passengers a day. Putting the whole matter into a nutshell. Mr. Oswald said this: "If the Commissioners are expected to accept the rules and regulations laid down by the War Office they should adhere to their own rules," adding that if the application had been made before the contract was awarded, the Commissioners' decision might have been very different.
Contract was not Proof • Making his report to the Minister, the inspector recommended that the position regarding assisted travel contracts should be " clarified " to make clear that the award of a contract was not to be regarded necessarily as a factor overriding all other considerations which might. in certain circumstances, carry more weight.
Giving the Minister's judgment, Mr. Denis O'Neill (an Under Secretary of the Ministry of Transport) said that the Minister accepted the spirit of his inspector's recommendation, pointing out that in previous opinions he (the Minister) had been at pains to show that the award of the contract was not an overriding factor, or the only factor, to be taken into account—remarks that must certainly have gladdened the hearts of the South Eastern Commissioners.
He went on to say that the contract, in the Smith case, could not by itself be considered proof that the services were necessary. He considered that such evidence as there was in support was outweighed by "other considerations " and there was clear proof of heavy and possibly harmful abstraction from a public service provided by another undertaking (i.e., British Railways) near the route. The licences, for these reasons, were .ordered to be revoked "from an appropriate date."
The Minister's appeal judgment was dated November 3, 1961, but surprisingly enough no steps have yet been taken by the South Eastern Commissioners to implement the Minister's order. The " services are still being operated by Smith's.
Ruling is Relaxed
In the meantime, however, there has been a development which, I understand, is causing British Railways great concern. Further tenders, it seems, have been put out by the War Office to cater for their employees travelling between Reading and Bramley. Operators in the area, including Smith's, have submitted tenders and a contract has been awarded to A. G. and K. M. Spier, Ltd., of Henley—who hold no licence under which they can operate the services.
Spier's have recently applied for a short-period licence, but this has been refused. I understand that their application is to he published in Notices and Proceedings in the very near future.
The big question to be answered is: "Will the War Office send a witness this time?" The answer is likely to be "Yes." They have given a little ground, I understand, and although they will not say that witnesses will be produced, they have now relaxed their ruling that witnesses will not be produced. But We are likely to hear more about this at the public sitting which is certain to be held as a result of Spier's application.
One thing is certain, British Railways opposition is going to be heavy. They have improved their services between the two points and can cope, they say, with most of the personnel requiring transport.
They are, furthermore, bound to draw attention to the fact that although they won their appeal, the abstraction of traffc is still going on. If a grant is made to the new operator (Spier's) they will no doubt seek every means within their power to have the decision reversed.