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 
King Log
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE stimulus to new legislation that often follows a General Election may produce renewed demands for a variety of changes in the licensing system. The Road Traffic Bill, that failed to run its course in the last session of the last Parliament, is bound to have a successor. The fact that it contained no licensing provisions will not prevent the people who want changes from once more pressing their case.
One difficulty they have always found is the lack of agreement among themselves'. Hauliers are the most ' vitally affected by licensing, and naturally have the most decided opinions upon what should be done or undone. These opinions are not the same throughout the industry, however, and there are not many items that hauliers would advocate in unison.
• Their favourite word is "equity." Twenty years of licensing have conditioned them to the careful, and even jealous, preservation of their rights, and to a dislike of circumstances that give one operator a privilege as compared with, or at the expense of, another. They also cordially and understandably object to those sections of the law that make an operator liable for offences caused by other people and outside his control. , • Desire for equity prompts hauliers to .suggest • standardization of practice among Licensing Authorities. In some areas, the operator who applies for the renewal of his licence is asked for evidence to show that his business is continuing, whereas in other areas all he need do is produce his Excise licence. If he asks for a variation, and fails to appear in the traffic court, his application is deferred in some areas, and in others automatically refused. Standardization on such matters, however, would not require legislation. It could best be settled by the Licensing Authorities at one of their periodical meetings.
Abuse of Right Equity is also cited in justification of amending a part of the licensing system that has been particularly attacked by hauliers in agricultural districts. The farmer with vehicles operating under a C licence has the right to carry for other farmers in his locality. This right has been abused in many ways. An operator with a large garden may choose to describe himself as a farmer. A surprising variety of goods is carried for hire or reward under farmers' C licences. An extremely liberal construction is put upon the word "locality."
Licensing Authorities have done something to see that the use of the privilege is reasonable and restricted to the agricultural community. Hauliers have more than once set out to produce a formula that would keep the privilege within bounds. The efforts have not met with much success, and the general opinion is that the only way to curb the privilege is to abolish it. No Government is likely to take this step without consulting the organizations representing the farmers, and they certainly would not agree. The special status of the farmer's C licence will continue to annoy the haulier pure and simple, but he can do nothing about it.
Regrettable from many points of view is the liability of the haulier for offences committed by his servants, perhaps without his knowledge. Time and again, when prosecutions are taken for failure to keep correct drivers' records, the employer is able to show that he
has done everything possible to acquaint his staff with the terms of the appropriate regulations. In spite of this, the employer is fined, if the case is proved. His so-called misdeeds are made public, his integrity is damaged, and he is on the way to acquiring a dangerous contempt for the law. On this particular issue, there might be general agreement that something should be done to remove a genuine source of grievance to reputable operators.
. Of another matter where the haulier believes he can be unfairly penalized, there is little likelihood of a change in the law. The purpose is still obscure of Section 9(4) of the Transport Act, 1953, under which a licence may be !evoked if it has been granted as the result of statements subsequently proved to be false. But the wording of the Section is deliberate. Not much use his been made of it so far, and there is consequently no case for its revocation by Parliament on the grounds of hardship.
Vigorously Canvassed .0n the points I have so far mentioned, there is at least a. fair amount of agreement among hauliers, although they are not likely to meet with much success. Numerous other proposals, vigorously canvassed from time to time, would not have the advantage of a united industry to promote them. The holder of a B licence, particularly if he is solely a haulier, has often regretted the conditions as to mileage and traffic, and sighed for the infinite freedom enjoyed by his colleague with an A licence. The suggestion has therefore been made that the man who carries solely for hire or reward should always have an A licence. Other suggestions in the same category are that operators changing from horses to motor vehicles should be entitled to A licences, and that additional tonnage granted to A-licence holders should be on an A licence and not a B licence.
Apart from lack of unanimity or lack of confidence in the outcome, another c6nsideration is always at the back of the hauliers' minds. They realize that practically every suggestion they make would require new legislation. Once a Bill is promoted to amend some part of the licensing system, it will attract to itself a number of other amendments from both sides of the House of Commons. Many of them would be against what the average haulier regards as his interests, and there is a danger that some of them will get through, to his detriment. He has had in the past few years as much as he can stand of legislation, and is strongly disposed to lie low and say nothing.
There were gloomy prophecies about the effect of the licensing provisions in the Transport Act, 1953. In addition to the institution of a penalty for false witness, the onus of proof was transferred to the objector, the interests of the haulier were subordinated to those of the customer, and charges were specified as an item to which the Licensing Authority might have regard when considering an application. If these new provisions have had some effect in the traffic courts, it does not appear to have been to the detriment of the haulier. Even if they have not done him much good, he may be well advised to console himself with the reflection that, like King Log, they do not seem to have done him any harm.