Janus comments
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Yes, but will it work?
WHAT made the report of the Geddes Committee on road haulage licensing so memorable was the way in which at the end of the day it sat licking its chops after completely devouring its subject The then Minister of Transport, Mr. Ernest Marpies, did not envisage this conclusion when he appointed the committee and the organizations who submitted their evidence worked on the assumption that there would continue to be a licensing system of some kind.
Nobody knows whether the precedent offered any temptation to the Transport Managers' Licence committee whose recommendations were made public last week. Rather precariously the Transport Act 1968 itself offered some support for considering whether the new type of licence was even desirable. Schedule 9 outlines the terms on which the licence is to be held. Paragraph 7(1) of the schedulegives the Minister power by regulations to "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".
TM L provisions It was conceivable that the committee would come to the early conclusion that in the best interests of all concerned the Minister should use this power to eliminate Schedule 9 and should decide to postpone indefinitely the appointed day for bringing the provisions on transport managers into effect. As it is, the proposal that the licence should be issued for life cuts across the limit of five years laid down in the Act and further changes might have to be made to meet other suggestions.
Clearly the committee would have been wrong to take an entirely negative attitude. The Minister wanted ideas on how the system could be made to work and not reasons why the Act should not have been passed in the first place. He would have rejected the reasons out of hand and passed the constructive task to somebody else. He cannot completely ignore what has been put forward by such a large number of organizations. He may not be convinced of the impression they have tried to convey of unanimity and even enthusiasm. But he must respect the effort, remembering that compromise is the essence of politics.
However, a hint or two by the committee that some of the members found the whole exercise absurd might not have been out of place. That the proposed machinery is reminiscent of a cartoon by Emett or Heath Robinson is no reflection on the committee. It does provide grounds for saying that the no doubt well-intentioned plan for shaping transport managers to a common pattern cannot be successfully worked out in practice.
The very first proposal by the committee shows what difficulties can arise. At this week's annual conference of the Road Haulage Association Mr. J. B. Wild, a member of the committee, estimated that there were 200,000 transport managers already in the industry who would have to be granted a licence as soon as it became obligatory. There tiny be as many others with sufficient experience and knowledge who are not at the moment holding positions carrying direct responsibility for the operation and maintenance of vehicles.
Licensing authorities would not be able to sift half a million applications in a short period. Much of the time would be wasted in any event. If it were found—as seems unlikely—that most transport managers do not know their job the Licensing Authorities could hardly bring road transport to a standstill by sending them packing. A few unsatisfactory cases would be difficult to detect in the general rush of applications.
From the committee the suggestion is that a Licensing Authority should accept as conclusive a statement by an employer that the applicant's experience and knowledge are adequate. This solution to the problem is as fair as any other—which means that it is not fair at all.
Most operators will take the responsibility conscientiously. They will examine the claims of likely employees and advise the Licensing Authority accordingly, probably including their own names on the list. There will still be wide variations in judgment. Each operator will have his own criteria for making a decision. He may often have prejudices which he does not recognize but which work unjustly against a particular candidate.
There will have to be some right of appeal by an employee who thinks he should have been chosen. On what is very much a matter of opinion the Licensing Authority would find a decision difficult and time-consuming. There might even be further appeals to the Transport Tribunal.
The easy way . . .
Inevitably some operators, perhaps only a few, will be selfish or unscrupulous. If they are reluctant to lose a good man they will refuse to put his name forward in the knowledge that without a licence he would (bid it almost impossible to get a managerial job elsewhere in the industry.
There will be other cases where an operator temporarily takes on staff, including a relation or two, merely to be able to obtain licences for them. Such practices may not be widespread but the general effect of making the licence widely available will be an excess of licence holders over positions where a licence is necessary. For an operator who wants a transport manager the easy way will be to take on somebody who already holds a licence.
Young people who would like to enter road transport would face more than one discouragement. They would see the need to take an examination at some time to become eligible for a position of any consequence. They would realize also that the position carries with it the risk of prosecution for a variety of offences and the subsequent risk of losing the hard-won transport manager's licence and the job. On top of this they would for a long time face competition from established licence holders.
Mr. Wild was rightly concerned with the desirability of bringing new blood into the industry. The transport manager's licence could provide a barrier rather than a bridge. In spite of this it is hard to see how the industry as it stands could be smoothly absorbed into the new system without an arrangement on the lines suggested• by the committee.
Skilful attempt Much the same may be said of the idea of a licence for a small fleet at a lower level than the general licence. The small fleet would have no more than three vehicles and none of them would weigh more than 9 tons gross. A skilful attempt is made by the committee in the draft syllabus to differentiate between the minimum that the large and the small operator ought to know.
Not everyone would agree with the line where the distinction is drawn. For example the little man is expected to know that his driving licence can be -taken away or endorsed but no knowledge is required from him of the offences which will lead to punishment. What may also be doubted is whether a man who is well fitted to run two or three vehicles will always be able to pass a written examination even on a simplified syllabus.
On the other hand the little man cannot be left out. There is no lack of operators who complain that if he did not exist half the restrictions in the Transport Act—including transport managers' licens ing itself—would not have been there. His omission from licensing would leave a large gap through which ingenious operators would rapidly find ways and means of driving. What must have been a compromise produced by the committee sets out the most sensible line of action to follow..
Operators ought to applaud the bold and even audacious plans for a certification board although or perhaps because it is not going to be easy to get the plans past the Minister. With the help of a Government grant supplemented later by examination fees the board made up of representatives of the associations and the institutes would decide who was to have the two grades of statutory licence and also the two, three or more higher grades which would not be required by law.
This might seem like one law for the rich and another for the poor. The man in the top class might well appoint somebody lower down as the official transport manager who has to hold the statutory licence. The committee's scheme would look even better if it were wholly academic with no shades of the prison house.