Who wins, and what?
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ar long last it's over: the written decision by Mr. D. I. R. Muir on the M. and S. Shipping Ltd. application (CM, January 12) has I imagine closed the book on this case. Following the seven-day public inquiry the LA has ploughed his way through 363 pages of transcript and granted half of what was applied for, with a modified condition. I said in an earlier Licensing Casebook that, whatever the decision, it would be absolutely the correct one on the evidence presented, and now that the result is known I am confirmed in that opinion.
There are, however, questions which are still unanswered, questions which puzzled the LA and others involved in the case. Look at the application and the condition finally applied for: Eight vehicles and eight trailers on B licence, "Goods for export and import between Great Britain and Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslavakia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, Rumania, Russia, Switzerland and Turkey for regular through services to the ultimate destination of the goods with their tractors as entire units on TIR bulk /tilt trailers owned or hired by the licensee or Hungarocamion carrying only goods for customers of the licensee or Hungarocamion via Dover, Felixstowe, Newhaven, Southampton and Tilbury roll-on/roll-off ferries. (No goods collected in Great Britain to be delivered in Great Britain.)" This was undoubtedly a well-worded condition, the most important portion being that in parenthesis. British home haulier s were given an immediate assurance that their livelihoods were not in jeopardy. British international hauliers were given plenty of information on which to frame an objection.
The stay-at-home hauliers were satisfied and so apparently were the intercontinental men; they raised no objection. There were, however, two objectors and they in the LA's opinion substantially damaged the applicant's case. They were the middle of the road men. They carry import and export goods but only to and from British ports.
They were not offering a similar service, they were not suitable to the customer, they were unable to meet the demand in the manner prescribed but they were in law able to object and damage the applicant's case. The unanswered question here is "why?" The objectors argued on the method of operation. They stated that their method was in some cases cheaper and in all cases as reliable and fast as the applicant (shades of Mrs. Castle).
The objection was based partly on the fact that one objector had been engaged on through traffic and found it more economic to revert to British port-only traffic. But, you may ask, can the efficiency of one be the yardstick for measuring all others? Another plank on the objectors' platform was that they had agents across the channel who attended to their interests. So has M. and S. Shipping, but it prefers to have someone in attendance all the way.
The objectors latched on to points in evidence which did a great deal to stretch proceedings and little to assist their objection. When Mr. Sharpe, of M. and S., told the LA that his drivers, with a former employer, smoothed their passage through Customs on occasions with a packet of cigarettes, this was blown up into an international crisis. It was described as bribery and at one point it took on UNO implications. What emerged was that drivers who arrived at a mountain post around closing time could often get the officer to clear a load in his own time, for which service the driver thanked him with a packet of cigarettes.
In another instance Mr. Sharpe said that when unaccompanied trailers were collected at the Continental port late in the afternoon the Dutch, Belgian or French driver often elected to spend that night at his own home. This was understandable but it caused delays. The British driver had no such inducement and he made directly for his delivery point when he left the ferry. Another point made by the objectors was that because of its substantial resources M. and S. might be able to run at cut-throat rates for a time and so disrupt established arrangements. I have heard the same criticism levelled at British Railways, but it has not substantially altered a grant.
Nor did it in this case. The LA states that the objectors failed to convince him that the application should be refused outright. He also states that the carriage of goods by road and ferry is still in the experimental stage and he felt the applicant should be given the opportunity to experiment with four tractive units and trailers.
I would have thought that door-to-door operation was through the experimental stage, with 32 services offering from Felixstowe to Southampton. However, no doubt M. and S. will use the grant to prove further requirement or alternatively be grateful that it did not rush blindly in to a doubtful market.
The big question in any legal battle is who won. The objectors may feel they did: the grant was only half that applied for. But what did it profit them? Next year's balance sheet will show: "To cost of objection in M. and S. (Shipping) Ltd. case". There will be no compensating entry on the credit side.
Did M. and S. win? Well it is now an established haulier with the opportunity to expand if it can prove need.
What is really disturbing is that, while we in Britain are granting short-term licences to foreign hauliers to come in herefor goods, our legislation is such that the entry of new or established hauliers into Europe can be delayed.
The real question yet to be answered, however, is: This was an application for a licence to carry British goods to Europe, by far the greatest part of the operation being on Continental roads, yet it was contested by British law now recognized by all as in need of overhaul. Why?
And worse is yet to come; the Transport Bill does nothing to ease the position. Should the Minister not be encouraging increased trade through the medium of reliable road haulage? Surely it is of little moment to Britain whether the haulier goes through or only to the Channel port, provided we encourage a fast service for our exporters?
The Minister appears to have been so intent on bolstering up British Railways at home that she has forgotten that her Cabinet colleagues are intent on getting us into Europe—and despite BR's close association with French Railways, traffic to Turkey, Bulgaria, Russia and the rest will for many years go by road.