AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Challenge to Authority

24th January 1958
Page 29
Page 29, 24th January 1958 — A Challenge to Authority
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Is Licensing Authority Competent to Consider Haulage Services Run on Continent?

WITH the coming of the European free trade area. it is vital that British manufacturers should be provided with the most efficient and economical transport services to the Continent. Under the fierce competitive conditions which a free trade area will create, they will have to be able to sell in Europe as cheaply as Continental manufacturers and to provide the highest possible standard of service to customers. If it is allowed to do so, road transport can make an important contribution to the success of British trade in Europe.

Two of its great attractions are the reduced need foi packing and greater safety, both of which have a profound effect on selling prices. The low rates that road operators are able to quote must also have a significant bearing on the final cost of commodities.

For these reasons, great importance attaches to the decision of Mr. W. P. James, West Midland Licensing Authority, on an application by Challenge Transport. Ltd., Birmingham, for an A licence for two tractor units and five semi-trailers to carry goods—mainly machinery, machine tools and metals--to and from the Continent. The principles raised in the case are perhaps of greater importance than the facts. One of them was whether the Licensing Authority was competent to decide the application.

No Control Outside Britain The objectors argued that the Authority's jurisdiction under the 1933 Act and related statutes was limited to the use of vehicles within the United Kingdom. If that were so, the Authority could consider the merits of the case only insofar as it concerned transport from the customer's works to the port ,of embarkation. .In any event, it was argued. the Licensing Authority had no control over the traffic once it had left Britain's shores.

Mr. James' opinion that he was entitled to take into consideration that part of the service to be operated outside Great Britain requires to be tested before the Transport Tribunal. Its implications are extremely important.

His view was based on his interpretation of Section 5 of the 1933 Act and Section 9 of the 1953 Act. These require that a Licensing Authority must have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport, and secondarily those of providers of transport. He admitted that a licence was required only to operate in Great Britain, but he thought that a Licensing Authority was perfectly entitled to consider what was the facility being offered, although part of it was to be provided outside the kingdom and would there need no licence.

He fortified this thought by the belief that if an operator carried goods only to the port, after having announced his intention of providing a through service, his licence could be suspended or revoked under Section 9 (4). of the 1953 Act. Whether or not this argument is true depends upon a Licensing Authority's competence to take into account Continental operations.

Importance of Charges The case is of great interest for another reason. It is one of few instances in which the question of charges has been strongly pressed. Four supporting witnesses were attracted by the favourable rates quoted by Challenge Transport, Ltd., and Mr. James was asked to use his power under Section 9 (3) (b) of the 1953 Act to give weight to the evidence on that point.

This is a matter of the utmost importance in international trade. Mr. James, however, thought that the evidence on charges was not sufficiently strong to outweigh the rebutting evidence of the objectors that reasonable alternative facilities were available.

So far, the Transport Tribunal have assiduously avoided commenting on the implications of Section 9 (3) (b) of the 1953 Act and the Licensing Authorities are without guidance as to the importance to be attached to it. If the Challenge case is taken to appeal, it is to be hoped that the Tribunal will clarify this question.

Mr. James was clearly influenced by the facilities provided by British Road Services, who have been operating a trailer service to the Continent since last March. In addition, British Railways have since 1924 offered facilities for transport to Europe without transhipment. They also provide a Container service.

It is obvious that both B.R.S. and the railways are determined to consolidate their position, and if the Challenge case is a criterion, free-enterprise hauliers will have to produce the most convincing evidence if they are to obtain licences for new services to Europe.


comments powered by Disqus