AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Lords throw out quantity

12th July 1968, Page 24
12th July 1968
Page 24
Page 38
Page 24, 12th July 1968 — The Lords throw out quantity
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?

licensing from our Pa rliamentary correspondent

• Quantity licensing will not start before the end of 1971. The Lords pushed back the date by amending the Transport Bill—building, said a Tory spokesman, a bridge over the Slough of Despond created by the Government.

This bridge, said Lord St. Oswald, would either be reinforced by a Tory Government—and Mr. Heath had said they would abolish quantity licensing—or be totally demolished by a future Labour Government.

The change received overwhelming support 110 votes for, 34 against.

Another important change in the Bill was made by the Government—the introduction of "grades" for transport managers' licences, which will be able to take account of the size of businesses.

Introducing his amendment with a condemnation of quantity licensing, Lord St. Oswald spoke of the "eternal Socialist nanny" persuading her sceptical victim to swallow a tablespoonful of syrup of figs.

If the system worked fairly, the end product, in terms of net gain of traffic to rail, would be very small. A vast number of companies would have been involved in expenditure of staff time, involved procedures and uncertainty, with the minimum result so far as the physical carriage of goods was concerned.

If, on the other hand, there was to be a significant benefit to rail, then it could not be as a result of working fairly. It was going to have to be biased in favour of rail.

The more vigorously the Government sought to defeat this amendment, the

more it would reveal its despair as to its electoral prospects, said Lord St. Oswald. It was not as if it was in any great hurry over this—Ministers had continually said there was no intention to bring in quantity licensing until the Freightliners had proved their worth. He doubted whether anyone would put this before 1971,

Replying for the Government, Lord Winterbottom suggested that one of the reasons why the transport industry was not very fond of this particular measure was that a substantial measure of competition would be introduced into the road haulage industry which did not exist at the moment.

He believed it would be much easier for a man who wished to start a new haulage business now to get into business than it was in the past, when any of his existing and established competitors were able to make opposition to his proposals and perhaps block his entry to the industry.

The Government would like to see approximately 10 per cent of the total road freight moved from roads to the railway system, went on Lord Winterbottom. This, for a growing road haulage industry, would not be an intolerable burden, but it did represent roughly 30 per cent increase in the total rail movement of general merchandise. This must have an important effect on the profitability of the railways—and was this wrong?

While in the long run the Government would accept the fact that if the new goods-handling system now adopted by the railways was more efficient it would anyway attract business, it could not afford to wait very long. Well over £100m a year was being lost on the railways, and anything that could be done to speed up the reduction of that loss had to be done.

"Although we admit quite clearly that this interferes with the freedom of individual choice, nevertheless, as a Government, we have to take into consideration the interests of the country as a whole; and the railways form an integral part of the interests of the nation."

Liberal Lord Beaumont of Whitley said there could be only three possible reasons for the Government's putting forward these arrangements. The first was that it thought transport firms were knaves: the second was that it thought transport users were fools; and the third was that it wanted to push from road over to rail some transport which should not go over.

The introduction of different classes of transport managers' licences follows the lines forecast by the Minister in the Commons.

Lord Hughes, proposing the change, said it would clearly be absurd to expect the manager in charge of a fleet of two or three vehicles, who might well have other quite different duties as well, to have the same qualifications as the man in charge of 500 vehicles, whose sole job was transport management.

The aim of the managers' licensing policy was to ensure that the manager had a qualification sufficient, but not over-sufficient, for the responsibility he had to undertake. Clearly this implied a range of qualifications from the very simplest, possibly acquired, for example, on the basis of knowledge of the law's re quirernents about goods vehicles and a basic Understanding of the maintenance needs of vehicles, to those requiring extended training and study.

The details had to be worked out in the closest consultation with the industry.

He emphasized that this system of licences would ultimately form an integral part of quality licensing, but licensed managers would not be required until after the introduction of operators licences in the latter part of 1969. This Would allow time for a satisfactory scheme to be worked out fully.

When qualifications were introduced they would not necessarily be technical. The important requirement, said Lord Hughes, would be that the manager knew how to organize and administer a programme of maintenance, rather than how to carry out the actual repairs himself.

A small operator might get a licence simply by showing, for example, that he knew how often his vehicle needed to be sent to the local garage and what he should require to be done to it.

The transport manager need not be fulltime on the job. lie did not necessarily have to be exclusively, or even mainly, engaged in managing vehicles. In a small fleet this might be only a subsidiary duty, taking up a small part of the time of someone engaged mainly in a quite different task—even perhaps that of being a driver.

Lord Hughes promised that he would ask the Transport Minister to look at an Opposition suggestion that small fleets might not need a transport manager at all. He said, too, that he fully sympathized with a Tory suggestion that managers' licences should last a lifetime.

Once the tests had been introduced as the criteria for obtaining the licence, there was no real reason for maintaining that the licence needed to be re-issued every five years or so. But it was not necessary to amend the Bill the Minister had full power to prescribe any period other than five years.

"I want to make it quite clear that once qualifications have been introduced it could be appropriate for licences to be current for more than five years. It could even be quite appropriate for licences to be current for the lifetime of the holder.

"This is a matter about which the views of the industry would be welcomed. I should not like. to say that the Minister will in due course make regulations saying that the licence will be held for the lifetime of the applicant, but there is at least a strong possibility that that could be so."

But Lord Hughes was not so accommodating when the Tories suggested that operators' licences might be granted for more than five years. This amendment went to a vote—and was accepted by 100 to 43.

Lord Hughes said it was necessary to ensure that an operator's standards were kept up, and to do this the Licensing Authority needed an opportunity to review his whole performance at regular intervals. The Minister was quite firmly of the opinion that five years was the maximum time that could be contemplated if such a review was to have any meaning at all.

Lord Hughes accepted a Tory amendment which allows a Licensing Authority to give a temporary variation while a permanent variation in an operator's licence is being considered.

In their turn the Tories agreed to two amendments put forward by Lord Hughes. The first allows applications for an operator's licence or a special authorization before a Licensing Authority, or an appeal before the Transport Tribunal to be heard in camera. But the Licensing Authority or Tribunal must agree that it is right to grant a request for a private hearing.

The second amendment says that all appeals connected with quality and quantity licensing will be heard by the Transport Tribunal.

Lord Hughes said the Government was quite willing to accept that the drafting of the Bill could be improved to make it clear that the effect it could have on proper maintenance was the sole reason for requiring particulars of future demand when an application was being made for an operator's licence.

He was willing to accept that the paragraph requiring an applicant to furnish particulars of expected demand could be deleted. But at the same time there would have to be an amendment to another paragraph which would then ask for "particulars of the financial resources which are or are likely to be available to the applicant".

This change would certainly get rid of any lingering impression that there was an element of quantity significance in quality licensing, said Lord Hughes.

The Tories were not altogether happy at his plan, but agreed to withdraw their amendment.

Where the delivery of perishable goods or livestock is going to be delayed through the new limits on drivers' hours there may be a second look at the regulations.

This assurance was given by Government spokesman Lord Stonham who warned that though he could not guarantee anything, where a case was made under the new transport conditions and the new regulations and with the revised schedules that the goods could not be delivered within the specified hours, then it would be a good case for consideration of the regulations.

He noted that automatic time recorders would be fitted as soon as they became available in quantity. This requirement, said Lord Stonham, would be an aid to enforcement and would help firms to achieve better operational control over the use of their vehicles. If it was not to result in extra costs on transport or on lowering wages for drivers there would have to be changes involving new running schedules' for vehicles and new attitudes on the part of employers and drivers towards working practices generally. Lord Stonham admitted there would be some hard cases. "It is one of the scandals of driving, whether it be commercial vehicles or others, that the wages are so disgracefully low that men have to work these inordinate hours to get the limit so as to keep their families. This is one of the basic rottennesses of this industry."

When the Lords were discussing quantity licensing Tory Peer Lord Somers asked whether there would be a regulation intro

duced into the Bill to make it possible for transport wholly within a single firm to be at the choice of that firm. He pointed out that it would add to expenses enormously if a firm had in some cases to use rail transport and in others possibly the roads. For the Government, Lord Winterbottom said this struck him as an entirely rational approach and he would see whether he could give Lord Somers an assurance during the later stages of the Bill.

Lord Winterbottom successfully moved an amendment which will permit anyone interested in an application for either an operator's licence or a special authorization to request a hearing in camera. Another change which he successfully asked for makes it an offence in certain circumstances to disclose information provided by a firm during hearings in camera, notably if the firm has not given its express permission for this.

Another change introduced by Lord Winterbottom gives the Minister power to add to the factors of speed, reliability and cost considered in quantity licensing cases other matters relevant to the consignor. The intention, he said, would be to ensure that all relevant costs, both direct and indirect were considered by the Licensing Authority. For example regulations might provide that not only the costs of vehicle operation and drivers wages' would be considered but also packaging costs, costs of loading and unloading, and the costs that would arise if the use of rail rather than road resulted in different stock levels, storage and handling arrangements for the goods concerned. There should be no misunderstanding about the purpose of the amendment, he said. It was not some lastminute attempt to alter the policy on quantity licensing. In fact it was quite the opposite. The Government had made plain its intentions that the expression "speed, reliability and cost" should be interpreted very broadly and so as to include not only such specific matters as packaging and insurance costs, risk of damage to goods or the need for larger inventories, but also factors such as flexibility and convenience.

When the House discussed jack-knifing Lord Stonham announced that arrangements had been made for fitting 77 B RS vehicles for trial purposes with one type of device for preventing wheel-locking. These arrangements were well advanced and other antijack-knifing devices would be subjected to trials as soon as the equipment and vehicles were available.

The development proving and production o devices suitable for the wide variety of type of articulated vehicle in use had a good wa to go before there could be any question o compulsory use, said Lord Stonham. Whe there was a possibility of having compulsion powers were there to impose it by regulation

• Yesterday, a TRTA delegation visited the Mo to discuss h.g.v. driving licences. Mr. G. T. Pollard chairman of the Association's highways and traffi committee. Mr. F. H. Woodward and Mr. A. L Lambert were the delegates. Their main points wer that there should be better safeguards for existin drivers—notably those who already drive a wid range of vehicles, and occasional drivers such a examiners, foremen and mechanics. The Associatio is also concerned at the lack of training facilitie available for the h.g.v. driving test.


comments powered by Disqus