AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Should operators' files be accessible to outsiders ?

15th August 1975, Page 61
15th August 1975
Page 61
Page 62
Page 61, 15th August 1975 — Should operators' files be accessible to outsiders ?
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?

OLDER road transport operators will recall their frequent visits to Road Rail Negotiating Committees either as applicants for a new licence or an extension to an existing licence or, it may be, as a witness for a road haulier seeking to expand.

Before the passage of the 1968 Transport Act carriers licensing involved much bureaucratic red tape particularly in regard to the publication in As and Ds of the detailed terms of a new application. The system was made to work more smoothly by the setting up of the informal RRNCs, which sifted the claims of newcomers to the industry and, indeed, the claims of existing operators, for additional vehicles. Some Licensing Authorities disparaged the existence of the RRNCs but others conceded their usefulness in sifting applications and putting many of them on a workman-like footing.

The RRNCs were constituted as representative of British Rail, British Road Services and the 'Road Haulage Association with additional specialist representation in a small number of instances. The road haulage members were happy to accept the self-imposed burden assumed by British Rail to maintain pretty comprehensive records of all road haulage firms.

British Rail

While it might seem incredible to the young men now entering road haulage that British Rail, as part of its commercial function, should deem it appropriate to maintain records of haulage undertakings operating even a single lorry, this was certainly done for many years. The RRNC committees could often go back in the British Rail file of an oldestablished road haulier to the foundation of the business between the wars.

British Rail was running into heavy annual deficits in the early 1960s before the then Government brought in Dr Beeching to undertake his drastic pruning operation. As a result — and the process was speeded up when Dr Beaching learned of its existence — the carriers' licensing section in the various railway divisions was scaled down. RRNC members were compelled to cross-examine applicants for new or extended licences without the benefit of the railways' invaluable history files.

Although there is no reason why LAs should not have kept the old files of road transport operators after the 1968 Act I imagine that most areas will have disposed of the bulk of their historic records to provide more space for the files of operators' licences. No doubt the information in these files was treated as confidential by the LAs and their staffs.

How embarrassing would it be if the public, especially inquisitive rival operators, or the trade press, could obtain access to public files on demand ?

I pose this question because recent American legislation (The Freedom of Information Act) radically changes the policy of the Bureau of Motor Cannier Safety which, since its inception, has been to decline to release information in its motor carrier files to persons other than officials of the motor carrier or to attorneys or consultants duly authorised by the carrier.

The close correspondence of legislation enacted in America and in Britain in recent years is worth remarking upon. The United States suffered the traumas of Watergate; Britain is currently involved with the legal basis of publication of the Grossman Diaries. Britain's new Health and Safety at Work Act is paralleled by America's Safety Transportation Act of 1974.

In December, 1974, President Ford signed the Freedom of Information Act into law and this became effective in February, 1975. Or Robert Kaye, director of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, told a recent meeting of truck safety supervisors, just what this legal change meant to the Bureau.

Access to files

"Since the effective date of the Act," said Dr Kaye, "the great bulk of Government records are public, and copies of those records must be provided to individuals upon request and payment of a prescribed fee. While there are some exceptions, what this Act means to you is that most of the information which we have about your company, such as safety surveys, vehicle inspection reports, accident investigations, and even correspondence must be released to anybody who asks for that record, regardless of whom they may be, and without any questioning of their motives. We may no longer arbitrarily establish the policy that our files concerning your company are nobody's business but yours and ours."

There are some limitations to the release of information. Dr K.aye said the Bureau was not required to release matter relating to the security of the United States, information the release of which would constitute an undue invasion of the privacy of an individual, information given in confidence, information likely to be used in an enforcement action —if the release might jeopardise that action — nor intraeigency memoranda.

Another protection was that the individual requesting a record must give a reasonable description of the record he wants. A blanket request for "everything you have on John Doe Trucking" would not be sufficiently specific, but if the inquirer asks for copies of all of the Safety Compliance Surveys on John Doe Trucking within the past five years, this would be a different matter.

The Act, said Dr Kaye, contains severe penalties for the Government official improperly refusing to release information. Hence, road transport operators must not criticise the Bureau in a licence application or a suit following an accident "y find that your opposition 1 copies of Government do4 merits."

It appears that the Bureau 1, been asked for copies of repo of investigations of accidents a though the investigator's rep must be given, with the extx tion of certain portions of it which Dr Kaye did not define he Stressed that reports cot not be used in a lawsuit relati to the accident by virtue of provision in the Interstate Co: merce Act..

Drastic legislation

Another drool:lc piece of leg lation passed by Congress with a recent parallel in Britt' — was known as the Invase■ of Privacy Act, limiting the rig of the Government agencies gather and retain informati, about individuals without a pt pose that can be justified 1 statute. It restricts the mks of information which Gover ment agencies may have perbai in to individuals, and, at tl same time, gives the individu the right to review informant that the Government may ha' about him.

Dr Kaye stressed that th Act extends only to the priva life of the individual, not h business life. The Act would M restrict the ability of inquire to obtain information about tt operations of proprietors businesses.

Legislation with similar effe to the foregoing may not be fa troduced into this country, bt it cannot be ruled out. It watt clearly represent a major chan in the attitudes taken by officio dom to the public and the pubt to civil servants.

Employee references

One of the most difficult prol lems of British employers t transport personnel is how ft to take the search for employt references. Is it enough to tel4 phone the previous employer ft a verbal [account of the employees' capacity? Should it be standard policy to try to obtain written evidence of a new applicant's past career since leaving school or, say, for the past five years ?

In a number of state enterprises the practice for many years was for new driver applications to be vetted by claims investigating officers, or other officials, who would use contacts in the police, locally or at Scotland Yard, to check on the character of 'individuals. Anyone with a police record would be revealed very quickly and such characters would be refused employment, or dismissed forthwith if already employed.

The justification for this type of investigation may appear questionable to some and I understand that it has been stated in Parliament to be quite illegal. But parcels carriers, particularly, carry goods in trust for the public. Can it be doubted that such carriers, whether State-owned or private, are justified in investigating whether or not a particular driver is a "wrong 'un " ?

Character inquiries do not only relate to drivers or platform staff — to anyone with access to goods, easily pilferable and readily disposable. Clerical staff who may be responsible for 'handling cash should also 'have their past career checked.

After time

But we are now entering an era when it may be dangerous for the full truth about a prospective employee to be divulged by a previous employer. There is the argument that a man or woman who has "done time" or been heavily fined — and probably d:sgraced in his family and local c:rcle — should not be permanently saddled vrilth the aftereffects of his misdeeds.

The changing attitudes of public opinion are not always 1111mecEately reflected in the law, but there are many people now living who, as children, received a rough blow on the head from a village policeman for scrumping apples, or whatever. In very recent years, a schoolboy caught stealing lead from a derelict building — to mention one case known to me — was compelled to provide 'finger prints for police records.

Security

No doubt the latest changes in British law pertaining to the giving of information about an individual's past misdeeds will soon be the subject of corutributions at conferences of road 'hauliers, and others. While the individual's rights [are important the 'security of goods is also a vital commercial interest of hauliers and their customers.


comments powered by Disqus