Reciprocity : British hauliers have right to feel aggrieved
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ON the day when Harold Wilson and George Brown were in Italy sounding out EEC attitudes to Great Britain's entry, two French hauliers were in Southampton sounding out our attitude to their entry into this country as hauliers (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, January 20).
To say that the Continental operators were a little confused by our procedure is perhaps putting it too mildly. I know that they failed to fully comprehend the objectors' viewpoint and—dare I say it—their attitude to competitive haulage was refreshing.
G. M. Tailleur is a furniture remover whose application to carry household effects from France to Great Britain was opposed by established operators in this country. Leon Giraud applied to carry liquid foods (excluding fats) between France and Great Britain. His application drew objections from Bulwark Transport and British Railways. Since these must be regarded as the forerunner of many applications a more detailed examination should prove beneficial.
The current position with reciprocal licensing under the proposed bilateral agreements is that arrangements are in hand but are as yet incomplete. On November 21 and 22, the Transport Ministers of the two countries met in London. The deliberations of the parties were made known by Leon Giraud in court.
The system, which it is hoped will become operative early in 1967, is as follows for French operators:—
• Applications should be addressed directly to the Licensing Authority in London.
• The present application form will be simplified.
• There will be no public inquiry.
• The LA will have power to grant or refuse the application in chambers.
• The licences will be issued for threemonth periods and will not be confined to specific trips.
In making their applications before the agreement was completed you may think that these operators were "jumping the gun". I do know that this is the opinion of many who sat through the court. Consider the case again: were these operators pulling a fast one on their fellow hauliers in France, were they abstracting traffic from our operators, or were they being extremely astute business men?
The household removal firm was preparing the ground for the carriage of household effects of US Servicemen and US nationals working with the US Servicemen in France, who were being redeployed throughout Europe and to the UK.
This was a traffic which it did not have because it had not yet become available. It was a traffic which individual customers could not yet support. It could not be considered abstraction of traffic nor uneconomic operation.
These facts having been established, you may think that there was no basis for objection. One observer, sitting close to me in court, suggested "the only objection could be that the Frenchmen thought of it first".
While I would not go this far, I think it fair to say that Tailleur took the initiative. The objectors, however, were not disputing the applicant's right to carry these goods in this direction but were protecting their interest in return traffic. There was no application for return traffic.
Leon Giraud was also looking to the future when he sought to carry wines, beers, whisky, cider and other liquid foodstuffs in bulk. This was described by applicant and objector alike as new traffic, and therefore again abstraction could not be part of the objector's argument.
The objection here was two-fold. The first part was unique. It was claimed and sub stantiated that it was cheaper to transport a tractive unit and semi-trailer by ferry than it was to transport a semi-trailer alone. The objectors therefore suggested that since they could not take tractive units to France they could be ' undercut by the French haulier if he were granted this lacility in Great Britain.
The LA invited Mr. John Probert, of Thoresen Car Ferries, to clarify the rates position. Mr. Probert explained that unaccompanied semi-trailers required stevedoring services at both sides of the Channel. These services involved the use of slave tractive units and storage space. The tractive unit and semi-trailer outfit did not require such a facility and, as Mr. Probert pointed out, the turn-round of the full outfit was much faster.
The entire objection revolved round the fact that at some time prior to the November meeting, the road objectors had found difficulty in obtaining French permits. The objector's representative agreed that his company had not applied for a permit since November.
Mr. A. Lowth, who represented both French operators, suggested that any grant would not mean any real loss to British operators. He contended that if the Tailleur traffic in France did not materialize the licence would not be used. One other question which occurs—is a reciprocity agreement necessary in these cases?
The base named was Southampton, because for all practical purposes the traffic originates there on the inward trip and terminates there on the outward trip. Technically the traffic does not require a British carrier's licence until it is cleared by Customs on the inward journey.
The LA obviously took the view that reciprocity was just around the corner. He asked Tailleur to obtain a letter of support from the US transportation officer. He told the applicant that on receipt of this document the matter would be considered in chambers. He made no promises but a grant looks more than probable.
The LA granted Leon Giraud one vehicle for one year. Again he took the view that something had to be done to start the traffic moving, there is undoubtedly a case for asking for a speed up of MoT negotiations.
French hauliers can come forward in increasing numbers seeking similar grants and it will be difficult for the South Eastern LA to refuse. While this continues, British hauliers have no guarantee of reciprocity and they are entitled to feel aggrieved.
Much too much has already been said and written about this licensing topic. Can we now have a happy conclusion please?