BEEKEEPER’S PROTEST

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24052, 14 September 1943, Page 7

BEEKEEPER’S PROTEST

“DEFENCE CLOSED TO

DEFENDANT”

RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION ALLEGED 1 A contention that after prosecutions against beekeepers had been instituted, retrospective legislation had been brought into force closing the door to any defence the defendants might have had was made by Mr W. B. Bray before the No. 3 Transport . Licensing Authority (Mr T. H. Langford) yesterday. The authority was considering an application by Barrett and Bray, Leeston, for an ancillary user continuous goods service licence, and Mr Bray asked what guarantee there was that further legislation would not make the licence worthless.

Mr Langford pointed out that he was not responsible for the transport licensing legislation, although he personally thought it was necessary as a protection to transport users. “Do you or do you not want to continue with your application for a licence?” asked Mr Langford.

“I’ll leave it to you,” replied Mr Bray. He said the honey producers had already been double-crossed by the Government. The very fact of licensing implied the power to revoke, and It might be used as a means to put the producers out of business. They could not do without a truck.

Mr Langford: It does not put you out of business. It is nonsense to suggest what your are suggesting. He added that the licensing regulations gave priority to essential and semi-essential industry, and it was for the protection of the people in those industries. “I am sure the suggestion you are making is improper. There is no such intention by the Government to interfere with you or anyone else.” “We’ve got the petrol licence. Nothing you can do Is going to affect that one way or the other.” said Mr Bray. “All I do is give you a licence to operate where you think necessary in the prosecution of your business,” replied Mr Langford. He explained again that this was for the protection of the industry. If other persons in the industry wanted to infringe the licencee’s rights he could go to the authority and give evidence that his vehicles could do the work in the area concerned, and the licensee’s rights would be protected. Mr Bray: It puts our head in a noose, and you can pull it tight at any time you want to. Mr Langford suggested that Mr Bray was making his protest in the wrong place. “You are entitled to express your views and you have done so. You have a good go in the newspapers and at the various conferences.” “Well I’ve made my protest,” said Mr Bray, as he walked away from Mr Langford’s table. Mr Langford: And I’ve let you , get away with it. The licence was granted.