Consultation promised on bulk list
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The load weight at which quantity licensing will start may be raised from 10 tons to 11.
A promise that the Government would be prepared to look into the possibility of making this change came from Mr. John Morris, who was making his last appearance as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport at a meeting of the Commons Committee studying the Transport Bill.
He said this after Tories had claimed that to conform with the 16-ton plated vehicle weight mentioned in the Bill the carrying capacity should be 11 and not 10 tons, as mentioned in the measure.
Mr. Morris said the figure of 10 tons had been chosen because the approximate full payload of a vehicle of 16-tons gross plated weight was between 10 and 11 tons.
"The last thing I want is to be dogmatic or doctrinaire. We wish to ensure that at the end of the day we have the most flexible system possible and that traffic which can go competitively by rail should do so", commented Mr. Morris.
A similar soft answer came from the Minister of State, Mr. Stephen Swingler, who said that the Government would be prepared to listen carefully to arguments why particular traffic should be excluded from quantity licensing.
But opponents of the Bill were not satisfied by all this—Tory transport leader Mr. Peter Walker warning that the transport industry would be crippled.
Answering criticisms of the list of bulk commodities which will need a quantity licence, Mr. Morris emphasized that the list was provisional, and did not prejudice the future. Some were goods for which the railways were already major carriers, but there would be the fullest possible consultation with the interests involved before the Minister prescribed the list of bulk goods by regulation.
Mr. Morris pointed out that the Bill as it now stood did not set any lower mileage limit for the operation of control. This was a matter that should be provided for by regulations. It was obviously sensible that there should be an exemption for very short journeys, but there were cases where there was clearly competition from rail, even over fairly short distances, down to about 10 miles.
Answering anxieties about back loads, Mr. Morris said that much tramping was done by smaller vehicles on journeys up to 100 miles,, and this happened in circumstances in which there were no connecting rail services.
The present empty-running figures showed how inflexible were the present licensing arrangements. The new system would not increase these figures but would decrease them—his case was that these authorizations would now be available to a category not able to carry back loads, and they would be granted unless somebody objected.
"We are seeking to ensure a far greater degree of flexibility than exists in the present situation. The large number of transport operators who at present are not able to carry back loads will for the first time be free to do so."
Mr. Walker retorted that he wished Mr. Morris would spend a day in one of the road haulage clearing houses to see how the system operated. By introducing a process of applying for special authorization, the Government would break down the whole system of road haulage clearing houses.
Mr. Morris said it was not necessary to apply every time for an authorization to pick up a back load. It was possible to get one in general terms in advance for five years, and if the railways did not object, this covered back loads.
Many people knew what they wished to carry by way of back loads and the kind of journeys they expected. Much of the random business arranged through clearing houses means circular journeys which would frequently be less than 100 miles and would not need authorization.
"To suggest that there will be any kind of limit on the kind of application they can make, that they are entirely devoid of intelligence or the power of estimating, is a great indictment of the people who operate in this industry."
Mr. Walker replied: "Having heard the Parliamentary Secretary, I can only say that when it is seen in the Press, particularly in the road haulage trades' Press, that he thinks that, in general, carriers will know what they will bring back over the next five years, there will be howls of mirth—or rather of sadness—that the people who are putting through this piece of legislation know nothing about back loads."
In a general discussion of quantity licensing Mr. Gordon Campbell (Tory, Moray and Nairn) accused the Government of attempting to introduce a giant industrial restrictive practice—at a time when the country was trying to remove restrictive practices within industry.
What was all the noise and senseless agitation about, asked Mr. Archie Manuel (Labour, Central Ayrshire).
Ministers anticipated only a 10 per cent change from road to rail as far as the heavy vehicles were concerned, and in addition there would be a recovery because of the expansion of road traffic in three years' time. We should be back with the same problem in three years' time.
A casualty of the "guillotine" was the clause dealing with transport managers—Mr. Morris had just started to explain the Minister's concept of this post when the discussion was brought to an end. He should be responsible for the fleet, said Mr. Morris, and once that had been accepted there could not be exemption for anyone. The same principle had to apply to a fleet whether it was large or small.
Mr. Daniel Awdry (Tory, Chippenham) said it was monstrous that the Committee should hav( to deal, in eight minutes, with the whole of th( concept of transport managers' licensing anc never get a chance to discuss all the provision! with regard to revocation of licences and appeals Nothing had annoyed him more in the five year! since he joined Parliament than to be treated ir this way. It was monstrous.
Members had received many representation: urging them that it was unnecessary to hayi transport managers for every single little fleet Many had suggested that it was unnecessary t( have managers for fleets of fewer than five.
Transport managers also came into the dis cussion about applications for operators licences. Mr. Awdry said that objectors shoulc not be allowed to go into details of the arrange ments in respect of these managers.
The Opposition felt it would be undesirabli if trade unions were allowed to become involve( in a discussion of personalities who were appoin ted as transport managers. It would not be righ for unions to become involved in detailed manage. ment decisions about applicants—this would lx an unjustified interference with the running ol businesses.
Mr. Morris said that Mr. Awdry had exagger. ated the dangers. The transport managers wen key figures in quality licensing, and the Bill woulc allow objections concerning them on the ground: that the proposals of an applicant for an opera tor's licence for meeting the requirements re lating to transport managers were not satisfactory