OPERATORS ARE CAUG THE E
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Brian H. Fish, managing director of Joseph Fish & Sons Ltd. Bristol.
TO THOSE who supported the principle of the Transport Act, 1968, its weaknesses and failures in practice have proved both disappointing and costly.
Those who supported the Act and its associated legislation, despite serious misgivings, on the assumptions, first, that it would be adequately and equitably enforced and, secondly, that it would be brought into effect under market conditions which would enable operators to recover the massively increased costs which were inherent in it, have been disappointed. For both assumptions have proved almost totally groundless.
The nonsense of quantity licensing was removed, and this new legislation was concerned with environmental and safety problems — and no one would argue against such principles. What in practice we have, however, is a highly repressive measure enforced unevenly and often in ways which offend against the equitable principles of British law.
The first and obviously desirable purpose of the legislation was to secure much needed improvements in the standards of maintenance. Few would deny that average performances in this field were poor and that a general tightening was right.
Is it not, however, entirely possible that the principle has been carried to extremes of detailed harassment that go far beyond the true needs of safety?
Is it really true that a lorry whose screen washers do not work is thereby rendered less safe than the one which never had them? Is it, in the broader context, not in fact safe unless it is kept permanently in near mint condition? Certainly, the standards required of a heavy lorry must be more stringent than those required of private cars, but there is unquestionably a case for arguing that the difference has now reached ludicrous proportions.
That this aspect of the legislation is one of the few that can be fully and overtly enforced may account for the fact that, partly as a gesture to the environmentalists and partly to compensate for their lack of success in other fields, the Licensing Authorities are tending to wield their powers in ways which must, as a matter of urgency, be carefully examined.
In this respect, one must again be emphatic that there have been and still are serious deficiencies and that, in the best interests of all operators, standards must be kept high. But could the legislature really have intended to give Licensing Authorities the power to close businesses unless they employ approved persons or even take them on their boards?
Restrict LAs Surely there is a case for suggesting that the LA should be restricted to regulatory functions and that punitive processes should be restored to the established judicial procedures, embracing the principle of "fines" rather than that of demolishing, at a bureaucratic stroke, the very structure of a haulage business and probably damaging it beyond recovery.
A fine is a determinable and certain punishment; suspensions or revocations, on the other hand, will vary greatly in punitive effect. In fact they can seriously undermine the cost structures of businesses by destroying their costs to earning capacity balances to varying degrees and for varying periods, all beyond the competence of any LA to quantify.
It is now established that the Act, having been largely constructed around the tachograph, the control of drivers' hours, that other highly important factor in safety and properly conducted competition, is virtually unenforceable. This is no doubt one reason, with which one must sympathize, why the LAs have been obliged to assert themselves so strongly on the more obvious and readily provable sins relating to maintenance. The facts remains, however, that breaches of the hours regulations are today more rife and blatant than at any time in the 'history of licensing, and the LAs are, by their own admission, almost totally powerless to expose them. It must be considered ironic that breaches of this aspect of the law can be, and are, used as the means of meeting some of the huge costs of complying with the others!
It is significant and disturbing that this vital factor of "good operating" is almost entirely ignored by Licensing Authorities as well as by commentators on the trans scene. In a recent article in the techi press by a Mr Leslie Huckfield MP (wl claims to haulage experience are r interesting), he did not mention hi enforcement once, nor did Mr Peyton ii interview with the editor of Comma Motor. In another article, Mr Huck deals with hours problems in the cot of entry into the EEC, but displays a si lar lack of urgency about the probler the UK today. There is little doubt weaknesses in this sector of road trans constitute a major failure of the 1968 Ac The other major problem is the rela ship between the huge costs imposed operators and their ability to recover tl There can be but few cases in comme history to compare with the position of transport in recent • years. Faced not with the inflation of all costs, particu wages, as generally experienced by industries, road transport has also ha absorb a flow of new laws and regulat which have by definition added hu to costs while tending to reduce the ear, capacity of assets employed.
Such a situation would have been ficult for the legitimate operator to / in times of healthy demand: under re conditions — and cases of depressed r are too well documented to need repeti here — the pincer effect has had, continues to exert, extremely serious p sure on margins.
To sum up (and provide ammuni for those who disagree):— (1) Enforcement of the 1968 Act n be more equitably spread to cover clris hours as fully as vehicle standards.
(2) The powers of Licensing Author must be reduced to regulatory functions.
(3) Breaches of the Act should be d with firstly by significant and accu lating fines.
(4) Only when a pattern of fines has t established should the regulatory func embrace curtailment or revocation, wl processes must be subjeCt to expert assessments.
(5) The Government must recogi the cost effects of the Act and correspc ingly modify its attitude to the industry