LAND AND C
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DISTANCE lends enchantment to the view. Some time ago the Road Haulage Association drew up a statement of policy proposing, or at least canvassing, a number of interesting changes in the law. There was a lot to be said for a review along these lines, and the time was well chosen. It was known that there would be a General Election within a few months. This meant that the Government would hardly have the time, and probably not the inclination, to bring in the kind of legislation that the hauliers were suggesting. The suggestions could be reasonably bold because there was no prospect that they would shortly be coming home to roost. There was always the chance, moreover, that one or more of the political parties would promise some of the things for which the hauliers were asking, and if successful at the polls would be -bound to have some regard for the promises.
With a Conservative Government back in power, one might have expected the hauliers once again to press their points of policy. They have not hesitated to do so on issues such as taxation, roads and the railway problem, that are clear and have the whole weight of road haulage opinion pulling in one direction. On other matters there has been silence, or rather there have been no public announcements, although the hauliers have been busy discussing the issues among themselves. This particularly applies to licensing questions, where the difference can plainly be seen between putting forward a proposal in general terms and asking the Government in so many words to take action on the proposal. .
Several items where the precise formulation of a demand might ultimately lead to embarrassment were dealt with in the licensing section of the statement of policy drawn up before the Election. They include the declaration of normal user and the apparent ease with which holders of contract-A licences and operators providing vehicles on a C-hiring allowance have been successful in their applications for A licences.
Even at that stage the hauliers were cautious. They noted that, until some fairly recent decisions by the Transport Tribunal, there was a generally held opinion, firmly established by custom, that an A licence was a general carrier's licence, without restrictions comparable to those imposed on B licences. Even so, the hauliers refrained from asking that the law should be changed so as to conform with this opinion. They merely wanted further clarification, mainly of the extent to which the Alicence holder might, with impunity, depart from his declaration.
Pardonable Reticence On the subject of contract-A licences and C-hiring margins the document hinted at rather than made direct proposals. The main conclusion was in support of the continuation of a licensing system designed to regulate, by requiring proof of need, the volume and type of road transport available. What may be thought surprising was the lack of any direct reference to the type of licence on which the opinions of hauliers are most near to being unanimous. On reflection, there is no need to be surprised. The document inevitably acquired a political flavour from the date when it was published, if for no other reason. The authors may be pardoned a certain reticence. They did not wish to attract the enmity of another section of the community, nor could they easily, while proclaiming free enterprise, simultaneously advocate. a curtailment of the freedom of others. These considerations are no longer so preponderant. When the views of hauliers on licensing are next made public, the chief proposal may well deal with the item that does not even find a place in the last statement of policy. There will be a clear demand that henceforth the farmer will have to apply for a C licence, if he wishes to operate vehicles for the carriage of his own goods, and will not be allowed to carry for other people unless he can obtain an A or B licence. The agricultural hauliers have for a long time held this opinion, and they become more forthright with the continued growth of what they regard as completely unfair competition. The disinterested urban haulier has invariably supported his country colleagues.
On any logical basis, the farmers will find it hard to justify their privilege. Even the wording of the law reads like an obscure paradox. If in certain circumstances the farmer carries goods for somebody else, and presumably is paid for the work, the goods all the same will not "be deemed to be carried for hire or reward." This is indeed a case of making words mean just what you want them to mean. A further piece of double talk exempts the farmer from holding any kind of licence when he merely wishes to carry his own goods. He is required to carry them "within the meaning of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, where the use is for the purpose for which the vehicle must be solely used if it is to remain a farmer's goods vehicle within the meaning of that Act."
At Least a Fanner Under this latter clause the farmer is at least described as a farmer. To carry under a C licence for hire or reward, and legally not for hire or reward, he has to be no more than "a person engaged in agriculture in any locality." His licence must authorize him to carry for, or in Connection : with, his agricultural business, and this would appear to exclude the farm worker from the privilege enjoyed by his employer. The traffic that may be carried without a haulier's licence must have some connection with "the business of agriculture carried on by another person " in the same locality.
The wording might almost have been designed to make things difficult for the agricultural haulier. Every other person in the rural areas, or so it seems, has some claim to be engaged in agriculture and can therefore assert the right to carry for other people on a C licence. His locality, except in one or two parts of the country where efforts have been made to define it, is a veritable terra incnenita. Without constant inspection and supervision, that could be pro/ided only by absurdly inflated licensing staffs, there is no way of finding out what traffic carried in a farmer's vehicle actually falls within the very wide range that the law allows. Hauliers allege, with some justification, that there is widespread disregard of the legal limitations.
There may have been reasons 30 years ago for the linking of a special type of C licence with the ownership and cultivation of land. Some of these reasons may have disappeared, and others may be satisfied in a way that does not cause difficulty and hardship to professional carriers. The isolation of the farmer is now less acute. It is only rarely that he is unable to obtain the services of a haulier and must rely upon another farmer, who in that case would have no difficulty in getting a B licence. If " persons engaged in agriculture" are in need of help, it should be made available to them otherwise than by the clumsy method of subsidizing the operation of their lorries.