AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

FTA rejects own-account

5th September 1975
Page 4
Page 5
Page 4, 5th September 1975 — FTA rejects own-account
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

managers' licensing exams

rHE Freight Transport Association has flatly opposed a mggestion that own-account managers should be included .n a statutory examination 3cheme as part of transport managers' licensing.

Commenting this week on a xinsultative document circuated by the DoE as a prelude :o complying with the EEC fictive on access to the )rofession, the FTA said it had dways maintained that the oncept of access to the proession by statutory examinaion was misguided and wasteful. It saw no reason to thange its view in the light of :he DoE document. The FTA ;taternent continued: "But if we have to have it)ecause, after all, the British riovernment voluntarily agreed :o it—surely there can be no lerious suggestion that trans)ort managers of own-account ..:ornpanies should have to ?ass an examination heavily )iased towards haulage con;racting—not surprisingly, bemuse that was the purpose for which it was prepared.

"The fact is that this iystern was not designed for, and is quite unsuitable for, the industrial transport manager."

In several important respects the DoE document proposes— or hints at— considerable broadening and extension of the operator/manager vetting scheme envisaged by the EEC directive. Basically the directive (74/561) requires that admissions to the road haulage industry should be limited to people of good repute, adequate financial standing and professional competence. Member states are obliged to take action before January 1977 towards implementing a scheme before January 1, 1978.

In its document the DoE explains that this can be done by using the powers already existing, though unimplemented, •in Section 65 and Schedule 9 of the Transport Act, 1968. Among the problems are that the EEC directive is restricted to the hire and reward sector, whereas the Act makes no distinction between this and own-account; the directive would be satisfied by one man controlling a firm's transport operations, whereas the Act envisages a licensed manager at each operating centre.

On the 'matter of including the own-account sector within the scheme the DoE document says that the grounds for doing so "appear to be substantial." It is this which has brought the immediate reaction from the FTA.

The directive applies to vehicles of over 31/2 tonnes payload or 6 tonnes gvw; for road safety and administrative convenience, the DoE hints that the 0-licensing level of 31/2 tons gross plated weight might be used, though this would considerably enlarge the numbers affected, many of them in only a small way of business.

On the matter of competence, the directive says that if an operator is not himself professionally competent hi must nominate an individua who is, and who is also of goo( repute. In a company a similar organisation there mus be a competent and reputablo person who "continuously am effectively" manages its trans port operations. The Doi suggests that repute am financial standing could bi dealt with in a similar way t( that applied in 0-licensing.

To satisfy the " professiona competence" condition thi operator or his manager woul( have to attend courses cm specified subjects or acquiri his skills by practical experi ence, or both. The DoE believe that assessment of practrda experience would be difficult as would the acquisition ty appropriate experience afte January, 1978. "For these rea ;ons, and to ensure reasonably miform standards, it is con;idered that there should be a written test of professional :ompetence, conducted on a national basis, leading to a :ertificate," says the DoE. It :ould be conducted by a ;pecially constituted body, or me of the existing bodies, Slid night take the form of multi;hoi c e questions because 'actual knowledge rather than iterary ability was called for. Referring to the one-time CML Committee's suggestion hat such a test should be at a ower level for fleets of up to hree vehicles none of which .xceeded 9 tons gvw, the DoE .ecommends against a twoevel system and plumps for a ;ingle-level examination ;ystam. Linked to practical mperience, •the training could )e by day release, evening ;lass or correspondence course ind the DoE believes that the !40 hours' study suggested for transport manager's licence )37 the successor to the TML :ammittee is "rather high." Suitably qualified people ;hould be exempted from this ;tatutory test, says the docunent, and higher-level volunary tests might also be ntroduced.

While the TML proposals of he 1968 Act were concerned nainly with road safety, the 7..'EC directive is also concerned vith the organisation of the ransport market. The DoE sug;ests that this is one reason vhy the directive requires only ■ ne individual in an underaking to show professional :ompetence, whereas the Act's equirements would have been or a manager licensed at each )ase. The document's wording uggests that the DoE favours he latter multi-licence system, hough it admits that signifiantly more people would be nvolved than the EEC direcive calls for.

With "grandfather" rights, :xisting operators and manigers would generally be ,xempt from the scheme and you'd automatically receive a icence. But people becoming }perators or nominated mangers after December 31, 1974, aid before January 1, 1978, MI have to satisfy, before anuary 1, 1980, whatever test pf professional competence is letermined under the Contitions of Admission.

The DoE says that if only hire or reward managers were covered by the licensing scheme it would be arguable that only existing hire or reward managers should receive licences as of right. Since the present 0-licensing system makes no distinction, however, the document suggests that all existing managers might be granted licences, in which case the "grandfather" rights would extend to the own-account sector as well.

The DoE considers that, in general, only those acting as managers at December 31, 1974, and who continue in that capacity until the introduction of the scheme, should receive a licence as of right without having to satisfy the professional competence conditions. However, "sympathetic consideration" would be given to cover breaks in service during that period.

The EEC directive allows for continued management of a business if the approved operator or manager dies or is incapacitated; the directive limits this temporary "concession" to a year, extendable by six months, but the DoE document considers that a year plus three months' extension (1968 Act) may be preferable. On licence duration, the document points out that the 1968 Act would have put a limit of five years, but the TML Committee proposed that it should be granted for life, subject to revocation. Says the new document : "It is considered, on balance, that five-year renewal, on the same lines as 0-licences, is desirable."

On penalties for infringements of the licensing legislation, the DoE document hints at the use of similar criteria to those already provided by the 1968 Act.

The licensing of operators and managers must, says the DoE, •be self-financing and it suggests that a five-year licence would not cost more than £5.


comments powered by Disqus