Salvation for

8th November 1935, Page 134

8th November 1935

Page 134

Page 134, 8th November 1935 — Salvation for

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

The B-Licence Holder

T• HE troubles of Hill and Long, Ltd., West Bromwich, would

• appear to have been finally settled by the judgment of the House of Lords, reported in last week's issue. This noble court has generously endorsed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

It is now firmly established that a Licensing Authority has jurisdiction to grant to an applicant for a B licence, a licence for the carriage of goods for "any. distance," when only a particular district has been indicated in the application and specified in the notice published. Lord Blanesburgh, however, went even further in saying that the word " normal" was the emphatic word, and from it alone he drew the conclusion that, whilst only exceptional use of the licence outside the normal area of operation was expected, the licence, when granted, would be unrestricted as to radius.

Not only B-licence operators, but road transport interests of every kind, owe a debt of gratitude to this comparatively small, but indomitable, concern. Our thanks are also due, to the Great Western Railway Co., which has just put the matter beyond question.

Unrestricted Licences Sought.

The Lords' judgment lays it down that, although in its application it specified certain districts in which the vehicles would normally be used, Hill and Long, Ltd., was impliedly asking for a licence unrestricted in area— in just the same way that thousands of other operators, trying to be reasonable and helpful, made applications which were subsequently • illegally used to curtail their busi ness. .

How often have we heard an applicant, fighting against a restrictive radius, use the word" occasionally" to describe some longer journey which he wished to continue, only to have the word, which should have been his justification for an unrestricted radius, used as a weapon against him.

One can think only that it must be the iniluence of public-servicevehicle licensing which has been responsible for the creation of those extraordinary B licences, which so E12 often look like a cross between a gazetteer and a trade catalogue. We are forced sadly to reflect: how different conditions might have been had all these small haulage contractors belonged, at the beginning, to some association strong enough to have fought their battles.

So far as furniture removers are concerned, this case shbuld finally assure them the dispensation which any thinking person knows should have been accorded to them at the outset, Big Possibilities.

The conclusive nature of the decision in this case opens up a vast field of counter-attack to the muchharassed B-licence holder. The railways are pressing for additional restrictions upon renewal, and congesting the traffic courts with unnecessary and ill-conceived objections.

Let every, B-licence holder, who has received a restricted licence based on the information supplied in application form G.V.1, but with a radius or area less than that shown on his Claimed Tonnage Schedule G.V.2Xor, in the case of those not operating in the basic year, a radius less than that which he occasionally covered previous to the date of the award— now, and at once, apply for a variation of his licence to enable him to undertake this work. Let the associations at once advise all their members to this effect and assist those to whom this ruling applies in the preparation of their forms.

If the argument be used: "You accepted this award," the answer is simple " It was not intended by the Act that my answer on G.V.1, section 5(h), should be used to limit ray area of operation to that radius alone. I, like yourself, was ignorant of the intention and interpretation of the Act on this point, and mistakenly accepted the grant which you wrongly made." If this opportunity be missed, road transport is incapable of looking after itself.

Another point now emerges. There are many B-licence holders who, without a hearing or without evidence being called, have been granted, and have accepted without protest, a radius limiting them to the carriage of goods between the places or in the district shown on form G.P.1 as that in which it was desired ' normally " to operate. If, in these cases, the grant does not cover places to which they have oc casionally been called, either previous • to the award or during the basic year, to what extent is the licence holder bound by the schedule at tached to hiS licence? "

Is he not by implication entitled to assume that his licence does not prohibit his continuing, as in the past, to do work which may arm ge abnormally? Sooner or later this point will arise as a test caSe. It will be interesting to learn the legal 'ruling.

The trouble With the 1933 Act, as with so much of the modern legislation, is that it is only a vehicle for bureaucratic by-laws, known as " regulations," often administered by those without any legal training. Those who frame the laws are either too timid or too artful to doMOre than prepare a framework, on to the pegs of which departmental meddlers are empowered to hang regulationS.

"Fatherly Benedictions."

The reason is questionable ; either it enables highly controversial measures to be presented to the opposition and the public as fatherly benedictions, or, those who frame them are so ill-acquainted with the matters which they seek to govern, that anything in the nature of polished, precise and permanent legislation is out of the question.

Those who are responsible for many of these Acts appear to be in much the same boat as the amateur decorator. In the first place, he has too muchk spare time on his hands. Be then proceeds to slap on some distemper, saying, at the same time, "If we don't like it we can easily alter it." By the wasteful process of trial and error, he achieves something not artistic or professional.

It is the duty of the road-transport interests, in future, to show a little interest in the colour of the distemper before it is applied to the wall. We must not imagine that those responsible for this Act would experience any diffidence about removing such a small word as "normally," should they deem it ex pedient! • A.].-J.

Salvation for

Page 134

Tags