Convenience of Public Comes First
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LTHOUGH it is the Licensing Authority's duty to I-1 avoid wasteful competition, the convenience of the public must come first. The Minister of Transport made this remark in dismissing an appeal by Bee-Line Roadways (Tees-side), Ltd., against the grant of a licence to Messrs. Richardson Bros., to operate a group of excursions and tours from Hartlepool. The appeal was dismissed against the recommendation of the Ministry of Transport inspector, Sir Maurice Holmes, who conducted the hearing at Newcastle upon Tyne in September.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Bee-Line Roadways, said that in their application to the Northern Licensing Authority, the respondents had claimed that because they had been granted a licence in 1935—which, incidentally, had been allowed to lapse—it was equitable that they should have a similar licence in 1953.
The Authority had begun his hearing with an examination of the principles which should govern applications, and had then jettisoned those principles on the ground that the respondents were not newcomers.
Evidence given at the hearing did not reveal any complaint of inadequacy or unsuitability of Bee-Line's services. It was established doctrine that if a licence was to be granted to a newcomer, there must be strong evidence of need. This grant must lead to direct competition.
Only One Vehicle Although the licence under appeal allowed only one vehicle a day, it represented, against Bee-Line's two vehicles, 50 per cent, of the existing services. Apart from that, the respondents' fares on 16 tours undercut those of Bee-Line Roadways.
Mr. R. Nevin, for Messrs. Richardson Bros., submitted that the Authority had rightly drawn a distinction between his clients and newcomers, and had treated them as "old customers."
The Authority was bound to consider the public interest and the adequacy and efficiency of existing services, and these conditions were not satisfied so long as the appellants' service went no nearer to the West View Estate than 11 miles from West Hartlepool.
There had been complaints about the appellants' services, and in the light of these facts it was desirable in the public interest that Messrs. Richardson Bros. should be allowed to enter the field.
In arriving at his decision, the Minister concurred with Sir Maurice's doubts about the validity of the respondents' claim to be existing operators. In his opinion, the inspector stated: "A voluntary lapse of 15 years or so must surely nullify any distinction between the respondents and a newcomer,"