Janus comments
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Folly to be wise
NO end seems to be in sight to the flood of amendments large and small which the Government and the Opposition are proposing should be made to the Transport Bill. In the course of nature it should already have died the death of a thousand cuts.
What may at first sight seem a trivial or innocuous amendment will often provide a revealing glimpse into what can happen after the Bill becomes law. Many of its provisions are little more than a series of pegs on which to hang subsequent regulations. These may in the end prove more important to the road transport industry than the Act from which they sprang.
Some of the proposed changes affecting the transport manager and his licence are of particular significance at the present time. Two lines of thought have been developing within the industry. There are obvious advantages in discussing with the Ministry of Transport in advance the terms on which the licence will be granted. On the other hand there is a dawning suspicion that the problem of the properly qualified transport manager is one that ought not to be resolved by legislation.
Formation of the Transport Manager's Licence Committee, on which the organizations concerned, including the Ministry, will be represented, should have caused no surprise. In the White Paper on the transport of freight published last November the Minister said that the ultimate aim was to establish an examination system and that "discussions as to how progress might be made towards this objective will be started with all interested organizations."
Logical consequence The joint plan put forward by the Road Haulage Association and the Traders Road Transport Association is the logical consequence of this clearly expressed intention. The main suggestions are that, whatever the number of grades of licence for which the manager can qualify, only the lowest grade should be obligatory by law; and that "the whole administration of the system should be handed over to the industry."
The latter point also is in accordance with the White Paper which expresses the Government's hope that there would be a separate professional body "organized and supported by the industry itself."
The other organizations on the committee have accepted the joint proposals and there is no reason to suppose that they will n6t also find favour with the Ministry. Except on details there seems no need for further argument until it is remembered that the Minister would merely be handing over jurisdiction on the system of examinations and not on the granting, withholding and revocation of the licences.
On this issue it is gradually becoming clear that the manager may find himself taking on with the licence more onerous obligations than he had been led to expect from the White Paper—which merely says that in serious cases of mismanagement "his own licence would be at risk unless he could show that he was not responsible." Even this risk is one that prospective licence holders may hesitate to take. Some evidence of the need for reassurance is to be found in one of the latest Government amendments which will be introduced on the report stage of the Bill in the House of Lords in October. The Licensing Authority, it is suggested, should not suspend or revoke a transport manager's licence "unless he is satisfied that, owing to the frequency with which the holder of the licence has been guilty of offences, acts or omissions which are grounds for the giving of such a direction or to the facts of the particular case being for any other reason sufficiently serious, such a direction should be given."
References to "offences, acts or omissions," so far from setting the manager's mind at rest, remind him that the licence can be taken away if he -has been convicted of an offence specified in regulations." What will constitute such an offence is not at all clear.
Convictions and prohibitions which could lead to the loss of an operator's licence are set out in detail in the Bill and in the main follow the present pattern. There is no similar list for the manager's licence. Subjects specifically mentioned for regulations by the Minister cover mainly the requirements for a test of knowledge and experience and safeguards against bogus licence holders.
Another Government amendment to Schedule 9 of the Bill, which is concerned with transport managers' licences, proposes that "the Minister may by regulations modify the foregoing provisions of this Schedule in any respect, or substitute for any of them such other provisions relating to transport managers' licences as may be specified in the regulations." This appears to leave the problem in the melting pot.
Scapegoats?
Concern at what could happen was expressed at the recent lunchtime symposium arranged by Commercial Motor and reported in the issue of August 2. The guests were leading representatives of many of the organizations on the Transport Manager's Licence Committee. It was natural that they should be chiefly concerned with the practical and educational qualifications of the manager. But there was a groundswell of uneasiness that after all the Government's chief concern might really be not so much the training of managers as the appointment in each transport business or department of a scapegoat on whom the full burden of punishment could be concentrated.
It is possible to read this interpretation into the Bill. On the other hand it is possible to read the Bill in a contrary sense. So much will depend on the regulations which the Minister is to issue in due course. If the new amendments are to be taken at their face value he is deliberately helping himself to wider powers to make just what regulations he likes.
That transport managers are showing concern at the possibilities is self-evident. Operators must also feel alarmed. They want the best people as transport managers. As a consequence they are bound to approve plans for training up to a limited standard to qualify for the general licence and above that standard for the more responsible positions.
The danger is that the men of promise, especially young people who have recently come into road transport or are thinking of doing so, are likely to hesitate at the last moment at the risk not merely of losing their licence but of becoming involved in offences for which the penalties may be substantial.
Many pitfalls Ideally the good manager should so conduct himself that he avoids both types of risk. In practice, as every motorist knows, the law of the road is immensely complicated and has many pitfalls into which even the most careful citizen may fall. If the transport manager is really destined to be the whipping boy he will think twice before he accepts the responsibility.
The suspicious operator may look even further ahead. In a sense the appointment of his transport manager will rest with the Licensing Authority, that is to say the Ministry of Transport—although it is some consolation that appeals concerning transport managers' licences are to be heard by the Transport Tribunal and not by the Minister as originally proposed.
The manager will have a dual allegiance. He will be paid to look after the interests of his employer but for his right to continue in the job he is dependent on the Licensing Authority. That this should be so is the deliberate intention in the Bill but perhaps not sufficient account has been taken of the ancient problem of serving two masters.
If the Bill becomes law it will start to take effect within a few months largely through the many sets of regulations which are to be drawn up. That there should be a proper balance between the responsibility of the transport manager to his employer and to the Ministry is as important as the agreement of satisfactory plans for his training.
There is no good reason why the work of the new committee should not be expanded to cover both points. At the very least this would help to prevent transport managers from reading a new meaning into the proverb that a little learning is a dangerous thing.