THE NEW BILL By G. W. Irwin
Page 67
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
with old anomalies
THE Road Traffic Bill, hurriedly passed last week, consolidates the law dealing with road transport and traffic. This means that those who have been living with, and by, such legislation will have to learn a new nomenclature. When one referred to Section 19, or to Section 1(5)(c), or to Section 11(3)(b) most of us knew to what these sections referrede Now, however, we shall have to refer to Section 73, Section 164(5)(c) and Section 173 (1)(c) respectively, and so on. No doubt we shall learn in time!
The intention behind the consolidating Bill is to assemble, in a more convenient form, many enactments or parts of them. There has been considerable ment of the matter contained in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, quite apart from the elimination of much dead wood, such as references to claimed tonnage which arose in the early days of licensing. In many cases, too, sections and clauses have been re-worded, presumably with a view to making them more intelligible, and, in general, the drafters of the Bill have been successful.
In the past. there have been a number of provisions in Roads Traffic Acts which one would have liked to be altered; but it is generally agreed that it is better to maintain an Act that is well known and well established, than to try
to eliminate petty faults by legislation. .
The new Bill provided a golden opportunity of bringing the law of licensing up to date and of removing anomalies that have been irksome to hauliers. Unfortunately, it has not been taken. In some respects the new measure is no clearer than the Acts that it has consolidated. Let me explain some of the chances of improvement that have been missed.
Part IV of the new Road Traffic Bill is that which mainly concerns goods vehicle licensing and operation.
Potential Haulier Section 164 perpetuates the farmer's C-licence clause in sub-section 5(c). There can be no further justification for this special privilege to one section of the community at the expense of another. Not content with subsidies, guaranteed prices, duty-free oil fuel, special rates of Excise duty, freedom from having to keep drivers' records, freedom from planning restrictions, and so on, this clause makes every farmer, smallholder and market gardener a potential haulier. It completely nullifies the duty of Licensing Authorities to equate transport facilities with available traffic.
Section 167 deals with authorized vehicles. Following the wording of the 1933 and 1953 Acts, trailers and hired vehicles are still tobe authorized by number, and possibly type, but not, by unladen weight. In the case of these vehicles it is the number that is specified. This is confirmed several times in the course of the Bill, as in the 1933 Act, where clear references are made to the specified numbers of such vehicles. In other words, trailers and hired vehicles arc authorized, but not specified, vehicles and if the Bill means what it says, they can be operated,
regardless of unladen weight, up to the specified total number.
Incidentally, is there really any good reason why an articulated vehicle should be regarded as one vehicle for taxation purposes and two units for licensing? This is a matter that often causes confusion and it seems unreasonable that an articulated vehicle operator should have to pay double the licence fee of, say, the operator of an eight-wheeler.
Section 169(4) reverts to the original currency periods of carriers' licences, that is, two years for an A, one year for a B and three years for a C. Admittedly, in each case the such longer period as may be prescribed." But unless there is some intention to reduce the present currency periods, it seems retrograde to depart from those at present laid down. The additional wording, "or any such longer period . . ." could still have been retained.
Section 170 concerns shortterm licences, applications for which are .dealt with by different Licensing Authorities in different ways. In the Eastern Traffic Area, where the sugar-beet season requires vehicles for longer than the maximum of three months, it is customary for application to be made for consecutive periods. Each application consists of two forms GVI A or GV1B and two forms GV8, so that eight forms in all are required. The Licensing Authority then publishes two identical applications together, one for each period. All this seems a waste of time, paper, and space in Applications and Decisions.
re-arrangeBill adds, "or
Period Required In the interests of time and economy, where two such licences are required it should be sufficient if only one pair of forms GV1A or GV1B, plus one pair of forms GV8 were lodged, with the GV8 form modified to show the second period required. It should then be sufficient to publish the details only once in Applications and Decisions, with a final note, "Two periods." The dates of the periods would be included in the published application.
Section 172 deals with information to be supplied in an application. This section again refers to the number and type of hired vehieles and trailers and makes no reference to their unladen weight. Incidentally, it is only in the case of hired vehicles and trailers that information is sought on type. Yet we are asked to state the type of specified vehicle. As the Licensing Authority is bound to grant a variation of a specified vehicle for one of the same or lower unladen weight, even though it be sought to replace a tipper by a horsebox, what purpose is served in providing information that the appliCant was not required to give?
This clause also requires the applicant to describe his normal operations. Incidentally, this is a better term than "normal user," which is apt to be misunderstood by the uninitiated.
The principle embodied certainly had to remain. Imagine an application by a newcomer for a new A licence in which he gave no inkling of the traffic for which he wanted to use "33
the vehicles, or of the districts in which they were to be employed! The established operator could not know how the application would affect his own interests, whether he ought to object or how he could Prepare evidence of his own adequate services.
If, after the applicant had satisfied the Licensing Authority and witnesses that he wanted to cart only pea-sticks within a three-mile radius, would it be fair if the applicant used the vehicles on entirely different traffic?
If a licensee wants to sell his business a declaration of "normal operations" by the intending purchaser is all that is required. But, if the intention is to abandon the business that is supposed to have changed hands and to use the vehicles for something else, operators already handling that traffic ought to be given an opportunity to object It is reasonable that an applicant who uses vehicles for a purpose quite different from the one he specified should be penalized.
Section 174 (decisions of the Licensing Authority) once again refers to numbers and types of trailers and hired vehicles. Sub-section 2 deals with contract-A licences. It might have been more appropriate to introduce an extra class of carrier's licence, instead of pretending that contract-A is really an A licence with conditions— especially as an application for a contract-A licence has to be made on form. GV2, and not GV1A.
It is clear in Section 166(2) that an A-licensed vehicle may be used for the carriage of the owner's goods in connection with his transport business. What is not clear is whether a. vehicle authorized under a contract-A licence can be used similarly. Some operators who have employed such vehicles as breakdown wagons have been prosecuted on the grounds that they must be engaged exclusively for the purposes of the contract. If such use is not already permitted under Section 166(2), on the ground that a contract-A licence is an A licence, it certainly should be, and the position ought to be clarified.
Sub-section 4 includes the only reference to containers and the phrasing of the paragraph is• a little ambiguous. It refers to "a receptacle which is an additional body for a goods vehicle and is constructed or adapted for the purposes of being taken on to or off the vehicle with goods contained therein...."
Well Understood The term "container" has the sanction of long usage in the transport world, both road and rail, and, I believe, even in air transport, and it is well understood. It would, I think, save confusion if this term had been used in this clause instead of " additional body."
Section 176 (variation of licences) 'includes three references to trailers and hired vehicles being authorized by numbers only. Applications for 'variations of licences covering vehicles in these categories are required only where an increase in number is desired.
The Licensing Authority is, of course, bound to grant certain applications, including substitutions of vehicles where no increase in unladen weight is involved. Trailers and hired vehicles are, however, not specified vehicles. In their case it is the number authorized to be operated, and not the vehicles themselves, which is specified.
Although a Licensing Authority is not bound to grant a variation of a licence involving the replacement of a specified vehicle by another even 1 lb. heavier, the practice has grown up of authorizing slight increases on replace ment of vehicles. Some Authorities look carefully at increases, however small, while others will allow up to 4 ton on any vehicle exchange. The whole position is confusing and uniformity should have been assured by making appropriate provision in the Bill. It would have been sensible to have specified, say, 10 per cent. or ton, B4
whichever was greater, for -inclusion in the list of permissible increases, leaving it to the Authority's discretion where greater increases are involved.
Provision should also have been made for applicants in these eases to have the right to operate the replacement in advance of the formal grant. There are often appalling delays in the offices of Licensing Authorities in dealing with even trivial applications. Alternatively, provision should be made for adequate staff to deal with public business in a prompt and proper manner.
An additional sub-section to Section 176 could have stated that where, from weathering, age, repairs or modification, the unladen weight of a vehicle has increased by, 10 per cent, or more, the licence holder should apply to the Licensing Authority, for deletion of the vehicle at its old weight and its addition at its new weight. Previous Acts gave no guidance as to what should be done, if anything, where a specified vehicle was increased in weight.
Section 253 (Part VII of the Bill), which interprets expressions, defines different classes of motor vehicle, including "motor car" and "heavy motor car." Although, in the sub-section dealing with goods vehicles, 3 tons appears to be the upper limit for a "motor car," there is an additional sub-section which gives an upper limit of 21 tons to some unspecified category of vehicle. On the other hand, heavy motor car" is defined as a " mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor Car, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and the. weight of which unladen exceeds two tons and a half." This may all be clear to a lawyer, or a Member of Parliament, but it is a little obscure to me.
Caused Confusion Section 255 describes the method of calculating unladen weight "for purposes of the present Bill and any other
enactment relating to the use of motor vehicles on roads.
Although it refers to " the body and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) " it gives no guidance whether a container is a body, alterna tive body or part of one. This is a matter that has caused confusion at times, different Licensing Authorities interpret ing it in different ways, although the notes on the backs of application forms clearly say that unladen weight means the weight shown in the registration book.
In terms of the Finance Act, 1949, in certain clearly defined circumstances, the weights of containers are excluded from the unladen weight of the vehicle for motor taxation purposes and the weight shown in the registration book in these cases will be the weight of the vehicle itself, minus the container.
As confusion is bound to be caused if the term ' unladen weight" means different things to different Government departments and something different again to the user of the vehicle, a proviso should have been added to this section, reading: "Provided that, for purposes of Part IV of this Act, unladen weight' shall mean the unladen weight shown in the registration book of the vehicle."
Finally, before regulations are drafted and new forms of application are designed, may one hope that whoever is assigned to this duty will pay heed to the Act, and not ask for information which it does not require.
We have had examples where forms have been issued, inviting an applicant to give particulars of trailers to be added, when the Act in question said trailers could in no circumstances be added. May one suggest that drafts of the proposed forms be submitted to the Road Haulage Association area secretaries' conference for approval? No one, outside the office of a Licensing Authority, handles more than they do or is more competent to criticize and advise.