Janus comments
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The word for the deed
ALMOST before the legislative concrete has hardened the Transport Act is beginning to show some flaws that the builders missed. They may be the result of careless drafting or of the speed with which certain sections were propelled through Parliament. In some cases the consequences were obviously not foreseen. It is too late to guard against them. The interpretation of the Act is for the courts and it cannot now be easily amended if the construction put upon the wording by the legal experts does not happen to suit the Government.
Confusion has already arisen from the two separate definitions of vehicles to be excluded from the new licensing system. There seemed no initial doubt in the Ministry's mind. An announcement on the same day as the Act became law began with simple confidence: "All goods vehicles not exceeding 30cwt unladen weight are now released from any form of carriers' licensing (i.e. A, B or C licences).
'A goods vehicle' This was clear until operators asked themselves what was meant by a goods vehicle. According to section 92 of the Act a goods vehicle is -a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or a trailer so constructed or adapted". On the strength of this an operator might be excused for supposing that he no longer required a licence for a tractor weighing 30cwt pulling a trailer of the same weight. The politicians may not have intended this but it is what they appear to say.
There is always the chance that an obscure passage elsewhere in the Bill or even in another piece of legislation would rule out this interpretation. In any case an operator would be ill advised to act upon it. Within a year he will be expected to apply for an operator's licence for the whole of his fleet excluding what arc described as "small goods vehicles".
Far more care has gone into the definition of this category. To be exempt the vehicle must have a "relevant plated weight" not exceeding 34tons. Where the relevant plated weight is not available the dividing line is (once again) an unladen weight of 30cwt. But if the vehicle forms part of a combination a formula will be applied which will in effect keep the combination as a whole within the 3+ tons and 30cwt limits. The one exception is for a small trailer with an unladen weight of not more than a ton.
When he seeks an operator's licence the operator has a considerable advantage in respect of the fleet he now runs under an A. B or C licence. He will not need to give the Licensing Authority as much information as a new operator and there will be no right of objection to his application.
These privileges may not necessarily apply to vehicles he may wish to add back to his licensed fleet because they appeared to be exempt when the Act first became law hut will certainly not be exempt under quality licensing. Much will then depend on the LA's tolerance and on his precise interpretation of the Act. If he believes there has been a contravention of the law he may insist on publishing the application and thus inviting objections.
The contradictory definitions raise other difficulties. There is bound to be doubt about the advisability of acting on the assumption that a tractor and a trailer can be treated separately but clearly any vehicle or combination of vehicles with an aggregate unladen weight which is not more than 30cwt does not at the moment require a licence. It is possible in some cases that the "relevant plated weight" when it is known will be more than 34tons. In that event the vehicle which has been taken out of licensing at one stage will have to be reinstated at the next.
It is also possible that a vehicle weighing just over 30cwt unladen and therefore still requiring a carrier's licence will be given a relevant plated weight of no more than 34 tons and will not need an operator's licence.
Not only operators are confused. Sales representatives of vehicle manufacturers have not necessarily studied every word in the Act but have appreciated that the important and abiding statistics are 30cwt unladen and 34 tons plated weight. Their inclination is to offer vehicles not exceeding one or other of these limits with the assurance that licences are not required.
Probably they would in many cases be right. The operator who has a doubt would be well advised to put the point to the local secretary of his trade association or to the LA.
Another possibly unexpected consequence of the Act may be a considerable increase in the already large number of owner-drivers. It was thought at one time that the obligations introduced by quality licensing would tend to discourage the small operator and encourage the formation of larger companies or groups. The situation may develop somewhat differently.
Already familiar, particularly in the tipper field, is the large organization which does not necessarily have vehicles of its own but makes use of the services of several hundred owner-drivers. The work done by the operators may be little different from what they would do if they were employed. The organization using them may be helping them to buy their vehicles, providing maintenance and parking facilities and even supplying fuel.
There are limits to what can be done in this way and there are also difficulties. Most of the operators have contract or limited licences which tie them in effect to the one customer. Doubts have been cast on the legality of the system. LAs have asked to examine the terms of contracts and have been reluctant to make a grant without evidence that the operator will be receiving enough to make a decent living and look after his vehicles properly.
Quality licensing Quality licensing may relieve the customer of the need for a formal contract and the operator will be free in theory to carry what traffic he likes. The owner-driver will presumably be allowed to double as his own transport manager and will rely on his employer-customer for proof of adequate maintenance and other facilities and for financial backing if required.
Another advantage to the customer is that he will need to hold neither an operator's licence nor a transPort manager's licence. With few exceptions he will be free from the risk of prosecutions under the Act. The operators he employs will have to shoulder that responsibility.
There is no reason to assume that a large and reputable company would behave irresponsibly merely because the law does not prevent it. Problems will arise when less scrupulous persons see the opportunity to make money quickly at no risk to themselves. In a word the small unsatisfactory element in the road transport industry which the Act is designed to eliminate may merely go underground and emerge in a slightly different guise.
Where the scheme is properly organized the owner-drivers who would be paid by results would have the ideal Incentive to increase productivity in a way which ought to commend itself to the Prices and Incomes Board, On the other hand there would be no foothold for the trade unions who have more than once shown an aversion to the owner-driver.
Immunity from union pressure may not mean immunity from strikes as the Ready Mixed Concrete group has found.
Whether or not the LAs can continue to , help by insisting on the proper terms before granting a licence, the operators will have a new weapon in their right to leave the job and take on other work. The more enterprising among them should find more scope to expand from a single vehicle to a fleet so that the expected tendency towards larger units may ultimately come from a different direction than was anticipated.