Operators in a minefield
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LAST some excitement is be aroused over the proposed inges on operators' licensing. n delighted that Mr Reg Daw1 (CM, July 23) has offered rther viewpoint. On all sides, lorry is the subject of major )lic debate; lorry operators facing much opposition and Aility, especially on environntal grounds.
'he recent Wood Inquiry on ries in London is a pertinent imple; the GLC councillors isidered it was a good elec • gambit if they could estab arguments to attack lorries this would assist them to gain )port from their electorate.
Ve in the transport industry 3reciate that our commercial ,ides cause many problems other sections of the commuy. So the industry has to try ntinually to explain how iential the lorry is, both for lustry itself and for every item consumption by household
)ne could have thought that
Dawson, from the exalted sition he previously held in 1 Department of Transport, ,uld have been more apprecia3 of the value of these seres and the need for the indus
to be supported against the mour of so much popular )testation.
-le contends that envi ronmenissues ought to be an issue in lation to application for erators' licences. I doubt if S point is basically sound, or leed fair on equity grounds. Nhat differentiates premises • commercial vehicles from her commercial premises? th are under the control of the 21 planning authorities, who :e fully into account other land as in the area, the views of ler occupiers of land in the :inity, and all possible effect the use of those premises. 4fter all, there are many amises which will never be erating centres (under either finition) but yet require the e of large number of visiting Ties.
So where is the logic or equity thinking that operating ntres for transport firms re quire additional environmental controls over those applicable to the non-operating centres?
Even so, conceding to Mr Dawson the need to bring environmental consideration under the purview of the Licensing Authorities, it would be easy to add this as an additional item upon which the LA is required to be satisfied before granting the licence.
One difficulty is to find a definition of "environmental", which will not be easy.
If such a definition were to be included in the proposed regulations, this is bound to become a major battlefield between contending lawyers.
Without such a definition, the battles could well be even greater. There is certain to be the controversy of investigation and debate on nearly every application, in the teeth of the scheme of objections and representations now proposed. One cannot avoid an increase in court time and many more staff in the Department of Transport; the costs and anxieties to transport operators are too horrible to think about.
It is surely correct to expect the Minister of Transport to be willing to give public expressions of support for the lorry, even though such statements might be less than popular. He is in a position to know the value of the lorry's services as compared with the uninformed opinions of the populace.
So it is pertinent to recall the remarks of a former Minister of Transport when commenting on the Foster Report in 1980. His statement concluded with an undertaking to "keep the whole licensing system under review to ensure it continues to meet its objectives in a fair and costeffective way without imposing unreasonable burdens on the industry".
Very commendable. I wonder if Mr Dawson was still holding his high position in the Department at that time? He might even have been the architect of this wording.
The current tragedy is that the new licensing proposals are neither fair, nor cost-effective, and do not avoid imposing unreasonable burdens. Indeed, they ach;eve just the opposite and, sad to relate, it would appear that the Minister just intended that should be the case.
The new regulations will lay most heavily on the transport industry, particularly the haulage sector and the smaller operator.
Mr Dawson challenges me to state how the smaller operator in particular is disadvantaged.
There are many ways and I would be glad of the space of several articles to be able to give full details. Let me start on the question of advertising. There is a precise form of wording laid down in the regulations for the advertisements which are in future to be inserted in local newspapers. Can one imagine the small operator knowing of this wording? It will take a long time before he becomes aware of these requirements as an essential preliminary point.
What newspaper to choose is his next problem? So it will take further hesitation before the small operator will get down to getting the advertisement inserted and paid for. An operator seeking renewal could even find that he becomes out of time for the renewal.
The smaller operator will be shattered by the irksomeness of all the new objections which must be anticipated. The word objection here includes the new scheme to permit representations, which are little different from objections except in name.
Perhaps in the kind of remote abstract theory that Mr Dawson may have been accustomed to, it may seem fair that this public notification should be provided. In the circumstances of today, it is just an open stimulation for these so-called representations.
It will take very little organising for an organisation like Transport 2000 to ensure a representation to every application in every copy of Applications and Decisions. On each application it only requires one individual in the vicinity to do this. All he needs to do this is to lodge some simple letter; not even the special form of wording such as the applicant has to have for his advertisement.
The reading for the representation can be the slightest pretext imaginable. Then all these cases (every one published in A and Ds) can only be dealt with by the LAs by calling them all to public inquiry. What an enormous waste of time and public funds.
Even here, I submit, the small operator is much more seriously disadvantaged. The large operator can release a director or some senior member of staff to attend; for the small operator, it is very likely to entail the laying up of a vehicle and so the loss of a day's earnings.
Schedule 4 of the Act and the draft regulations are so long and complicated that many legal points are inevitable. Words will become the subject of long wrangling between lawyers, particularly when the local authorities, as the planning objectors, are represented by solicitors and barristers.
I do not say that this will not be seriously inconvenient to the large operator, but to me it is transparent that the small operator will find the pressure intolerable and will not be able to find the finances to fight. The outlook for them is indeed bleak.
• By Ralph Cropper