NAP slates 'absurd'
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
3ppeal procedure
am our Parliamentary correspondent.
ABSURD procedures" had suited in costs of £3,000 to small coach company which anted to operate holiday urs to eight resorts, Mr Ian ow (Tory, Eastbourne) told e Commons.
After listening to Mr Gow's mplaints Mr Kenneth Marks ider-Secretary, DoE, said the Tartment was doing all it uld to reduce the interval tween the lodging of appeals ainst Traffic Commissioners' :isions and the holding of luiries.
rhe practice of awaiting the nments of Traffic Commisners on the grounds of )eal before going ahead with uiry arrangements had been Led, said Mr Marks.
rleanwhile, the firm—WaterIse Coaches Ltd, PolegateIrred to by Mr Gow has in (see David v Goliath ) applied for permission to rate the eight coach tours. Er Gow said that on aber 15, 1974 Waterhouse ches applied to the Traffic unissioners for permission operate the tours.
he application was conred at Eastbourne on Jan, 7 and March 7, 1975, and March 27 the Commisers refused permission. erhouse appealed and eight ths later a public inquiry held at the Town Hall, bourne.
e inspector wrote a 25 report, recommending the appeal should be disad, which was received by Vlinister on February 13, ,elve weeks later the Minsupported the decision of 'raffle Commissioners and nspector, and dismissed ppeal. A "protracted and exercise in nonsense, ding over 19 months," ented Mr Gow.
the Minister had dislated against free enter prise and in favour of a giant State-owned quasi-monopoly.
Replying, Mr Marks said he noted that the inspector had said there was no difference between the characteristics of the NBC's existing range of based tours and those for which Waterhouse was applying, save for a few minor amenities.