1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
topic
Page 136
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Where Ignorance is bliss
by janus
N0 conscious intention to deceive was in the mind of Parliament when in the Transport Act 1968 it appeared to be offering to established operators a number of privileges that would be denied to the newcomer. In practice, some of the operators are already coming to the conclusion that the privileges were largely illusory, while the newcomer is reaping a hitherto unsuspected benefit.
There was even a separate application form for the holder of a current carrier's licence. It was a different colour from the standard form, it had a different reference number (GV76 instead of GV79), and it posed more questions for the applicant to answer. It must have seemed that the Licensing Authorities meant business, and that the newcomer was not going to have an easy passage unless he had prepared an impeccable case.
Much the same impression is given at first glance by the relevant clauses in the Act. They provide for the established operator exemption from one whole section and a number of subsections. Perhaps he should have examined these more closely before giving rein to his optimism.
THE section he is empowered to ignore is concerned with objections to the grant of a licence. To have this threat removed, at least for his initial application, may have seemed a substantial gain to the operator. He would be able to attack the newcomer from a position of immunity. much in the same way as the railways had opposed him in the past.
It took some time to penetrate that the objection could be made only by one of the prescribed organizations. They showed no disposition to shower their objections on the scale that some of their members would have liked. It is difficult, among the flood of applications published by the Licensing Authorities, even to find the very rare objection.
Although the cases have been carefully chosen, success has been negligible. Operators have found no value in the first supposed bulwark against the newcomer. On the other hand, when their own licences fall due for renewal, he will have the same right as anybody else to enlist the interest of a statutory objector.
0 NLY then will the real test come. Not surprisingly, so far objections have had little chance. Except in the case of a few over-ambitious operators, they have been eligible only when an application comes from a newcomer. The aim must be to show that he is not a deserving case.
Admissible evidence has for the most part to be concerned with his non-existent operating past. This hardly makes a promising foundation for a solid objection. The newcomer who literally lives up to the description seems invulnerable. He has to make promises in the same way as the established operator, but any trouble this may cause him is merely in store. He has to break his promise before the Licensing Authority can do much about it.
There are some slightly more onerous provisions for the newcomer. He has to give rather more information about the facilities that will be available for vehicle inspections. So far this does not seem CO have caused much difficulty. An applicant who manifestly does not have the facilities is entitled to say that the inspections will be carried out by an agent or a garage. A written contract to this effect is normally sufficient evidence.
THE Licensing Authority has also the right to ask the newcomer about his financial resources. Omission from the application form of any reference to this point suggests that it will be taken up only sparingly. Even when they clearly have doubts, Licensing Authorities generally content themselves with a warning to the operator of the risks of starting a road haulage business on a shoestring. For the most part the warning has gone unheeded.
Objectors might conceivably find the chink in the armour here. They could argue. using the words obligingly put into their mouths by the Act, that the provision of proper maintenance facilities would "be prejudiced by reason of the applicant's having insufficient financial resources for the purpose". It is another matter whether enough proof could be obtained to satisfy the Licensing Authority that a grant ought not to be made.
Trial by bank balance may have been borrowed from the Dutch licensing system but nevertheless finds little encouragement there. According to reports from the Netherlands, there is seldom any difficulty in providing some assurance that there is money available. This may be one reason for the reluctance of the British Licensing Authorities to apply the financial squeeze too tightly. There are too many opportunities to escape.
Another object lesson from the Dutch can be traced in the Transport Act 1968. The proposal for a transport manager's licence had its beginning in the requirement that the applicant for a licence in the Netherlands must take an examination designed to test at least his basic knowledge.
WITH a completely meaningless generosity Parliament absolved the holder of a carrier's licence from giving details about his licensed transport manager on his application for an operator's licence. The newcomer arrives at the same happy situation by a different route. He also is not required to give details until the appointed day when the provisions for transport managers' licences take effect.
It can safely be said that the day is not imminent. By the time that it arrives, if ever, established operators are likely to be as involved as the newcomer. Their own licences will be coming up for renewal and will not bring with them the same privileges as the original operator's licence.
Broad hints have come from the new Minister of Transport, Mr John Peyton, that he has no wish to introduce a statutory . licence for transport managers. Operators may be left to continue working out their own plans for voluntary tests and qualifications. Some vestige of the original proposal might with advantage be retained.
IT must seem a grave waste of time that reputable and well-established operators should be expected either to apply for the manager's licence themselves or to put up one or more members of their staff to take the test where exemption is not allowed. On the other hand, there is considerable merit in a scheme for testing the newcomer.
He may require no great knowledge to pass; at least, he will be able to show that he has that indispensible minimum. It would be pitched at a level that would, so far as possible, eliminate the frivolous or irresponsible applicant who is prepared to give wide undertakings with no substantial plans for keeping them. It should also weed out, one may hope, the virtually penniless applicant who supposes that it is possible to make a good living in road transport from the first moment that his first vehicle turns a wheel.
THAT too many such applicants are slipping through the licensing net is the growing fear of many operators. It is not sound policy to cumber the road transport industry with such driftwood merely because the Geddes Committee raised the seductive banner of freedom. If the standard of the industry is to be raised, the best plan on every count is to concentrate on the newcomer rather than on the man already in the business. A simple test for the postulator makes commercial sense. It may provide all that is needed at far less trouble and expense than the elaborate and faintly Orwellian scheme for transport managers' licensing.