1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
That 100-mile limit is road distance not radius
Page 74
Page 77
Page 78
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"WHAT A basis for a transport policy!" That was the revealing comment with which Mr. H. R. Featherstone, national secretary, TRTA, concluded his excellent paper entitled "The new licensing system for goods vehicles—how it will work".
Taking the bare bones of the proposed legislation, he revealed to delegates for the first time much of the thinking that lay behind the proposals and the manner in which they would be worked out.
He deliberately avoided a critical appraisal or the proposals and the temptation to elaborate on why they would not work. His aim was to set out in depth how the proposals were likely to work and their practical effect on transport.
Listing the main proposals of the new licensing system as already publicized, he warned that they were likely to be amended by the time they reached the statute book— probably in the latter part of 1968—and this must be borne in mind by anyone taking commercial decisions—for example, in relation to fleet replacement.
The freeing of goods vehicles not
exceeding 30 cwt unladen from carriers' licensing simply meant that it would no longer be necessary to apply for a C licence every five years or pay the 30s licence fee. But this proposal was much less significant to the average operator than the TRTA proposal they had urged for many years to dispense with drivers' records for this class of vehicle.
For most legal purposes the light van would become just another private car with no limitations on its use—but still subject to the Construction and Use Regulations. It seemed probable, Mr. Featherstone forecast, that liberation from licensing would be balanced by tighter control of maintenance and vehicle standards.
Keep work records now
Regarding the three criteria for quality licensing, Mr. Featherstone contended that the term "maintenance arrangements" was a misnomer because the Licensing Authority must be satisfied that the applicant "intends and is able to provide adequate maintenance facilities for his vehicles, to keep proper control over their loading and to arrange satisfactory checks on the hours worked by his drivers".
Common sense suggested that the LA would put considerable emphasis on past performance—so vehicle operators . would do well, advised Mr. Featherstone, to retain maintenance records, whether concerning their own workshop or outside garages.
Quality licences would have to be related to fleet size. This was reasonable so long as it was sensibly applied and a new quality licence wa$ not necessary simply because of a mirginal increase in the number of vehicles operating.
One way of achieving flexibility would be to issue quality licences on the basis of a range of vehicles, say 25 to 50, rather than a specific number. Another would be to permit application for more than the number of vehicles currently operated, so long as facilities were adequate. The quality licence, like the quantity licence when applicable, would be issued by traffic areas. For national companies this could mean separate quality licences for each traffic area in which they operated. Though this would mean more paperwork it had the advantage that the whole fleet would not be put at risk because of a deficiency at one depot.
The quality and quantity licences would probably be combined in one piece of paper, Mr. Featherstone disclosed, with the registration numbers of the authorized vehicles listed on the licence.
This produced a further complication because it seemed that an area licence would need amendment every time a vehicle changed its base for however short a period.
The TRTA had proposed specifically that transfer for up to 28 days should require no licence notification and that transfer formalities should be reduced to a minimum.
Elaborating on the implication of the transport manager's licence Mr. Featherstone said that the Ministry of Transport wanted the licence-holder not to be a remote official but one at the base from which the fleet was operating. This meant that the depots and branches of national companies would each have to employ someone holding a transport manager's licence.
Divided responsibility If responsibilities were divided—for example, between a transport manager and engineer—provision would have to be made for the legal responsibility to be correspondingly divided. Small fleets would either have to be exempt or meet modified 'requirements.
As to the legal responsibility attached to a transport manager's licence, Mr. Featherstone insisted that it was beyond dispute that the responsibility was far too onerous. A manager could be deprived of his livelihood for an indefinite period because of a relatively trivial defect, perhaps a cracked mudguard.
The contention that no LA would dream of taking such drastic action in such trivial circumstances did not satisfy Mr. Featherstone. It was patently unreasonable for the power to be there in the first place unless the offence was of a very serious character.
Moreover, it could happen that a transport manager, when brought before an LA, would have to implicate his own board of directors to prove his innocence. Which would be invidious, to say the least.
Because Parliament jealously guarded the right of the individual to earn his living, said Mr. Featherstone, he doubted whether this unsatisfactory clause was acceptable by Parliament as it raised the whole principle of whether it was right to envisage a system of individual, as opposed to corporate, responsibility.
If the manager's licence were to have meaning it must be related to minimum standards based on some form of professional qualifi cations, and so raise the status of transport.
Heavy legal onus?
But it would be totally unacceptable to him if the result were. merely to saddle the transport manager with a heavy legal responsibility.
Mr. Featherstone next dealt with quantity licence procedure, The emphasis was on traffic rather than vehicles and therefore it was more appropriate to label it "commodity licensing" or "traffic flow licensing".
The steps in securing a quantity licence would be:
• The vehicle operator makes application to the LA.
• This is published and British Railways, or the National Freight Organization (representing the Freightliner element of BR), is entitled to object.
• If no objection is made, the licence is automatically granted; if an objection is entered, BR or NFO must show they can handle the traffic equally efficiently, having regard to speed, cost and reliability with the initial onus of proof on BR.
• The case be heard by the LA and the applicant for the licence will have to show that the traffic can be more efficiently handled by road.
• The LA then decides to grant or refuse the application; right of appeal against his decision lies to an independent tribunal.
• It is open to the applicant at any time to re-apply for a licence that has been refused if he can show that the railways have not performed satisfactorily in practice.
These quantity proposals—which apply to hauliers and C-licence operators— were estimated to affect some 70,000 vehicles, Mr. Featherstone disclosed.
The limitation of 100 miles would be determined on the shortest practicable road distance between the points of loading and unloading. It did not mean an operating radius of 100 miles.
The load that counts However, this did not prevent a lorry going well over 100 miles from base. It could carry a load from, say, London to Coventry (94 miles) and then re-load for Nottingham. It was the load Of consignment that mattered—not the vehicle.
If it were the intention to quote registration numbers on quantity licences, Mr. Featherstone made a strong claim for these licences to be interchangeable in the interests of flexibility.
He then posed the question of what happened if a manufacturer wanted to substitute larger vehicles. Did he have to go through the whole licensing procedure again to add a few tons of extra carrying capacity? He considered that numbers and weights of vehicles had nothing whatsoever to do with the system of "traffic-flow licensing".
When considering a licence application the LA was concerned with the simple issue of whether it concerned a flow of traffic which the railways wanted and could carry efficiently. If he decided that the road licence should be granted he was, in effect, licensing that flow of traffic. So there seemed no reason, Mr. Featherstone claimed, why vehicles should be individually specified on a quantity licence. The quality licence would list all the vehicles operating from a particular base and the quantity licence endorsement would simply authorize vehicles over 16 tons gross to be used for certain traffic beyond 100 miles.
On the crucial issue as to how the LA would decide between road and rail, Mr. Featherstone disclosed that TRTA understood that a more comprehensive formula than the criteria of speed, reliability and cost would be used in the forthcoming Bill. "Overall detriment to the consignor" had been mentioned. This Bill would create powers to interfere in company policy over an alarmingly wide field and should be the concern of directors throughout the country.
Dangerous interference Another disturbing element to be introduced into the LA's already highly complicated equation was that of "national or public interest". If it were exploited to the full, purely commercial judgments would then go out of the window, with carte blanche to transfer virtually anything to the railways.
Another serious defect of the proposed new system was loss of flexibility. A trader would not be able to cater for a new traffic flow simply by calling upon a haulier or putting his own vehicles on the road. He would first have to go through lengthy traffic court procedure—with no certainty that a licence would be granted. Meanwhile much consequential planning of terminal handling and packing arrangements would be put into cold storage.
It was symptomatic of the one-sidedness of the proposals, Mr. Featherstone complained, that while the claimed intention was to make the best use of investment, i.e. Freightliners, there was no mention of the waste of investment which would be involved in road vehicles, ancillary plant and loading bays.
Certainly there was no provision for compensation for vehicles which had to be prematurely sold at deflated values, or for obsolescent ancillary plant.
Gravel by rail?
No other word than "ludicrous" adequately described the bulk traffic proposal, Mr. Featherstone declared. It was abundantly clear that, except on sidingto-siding traffic, BR could not hope to compete with road transport over distances of the specified 25 miles. Likewise, the selection of commodities listed was incomprehensible, some of which BR have frequently admitted their inability to carry. (They include such Iraffie as petroleum and chemicals, coal and coke, iron and steel, excavated materials.) In the face of the "virtually unanswerable" arguments put forward by the TRTA, he was hopeful that this bulk traffic proposal had been exposed to such ridicule that it would be substantially altered by the time the White Paper was published.
The abolition of A, B and C licences would permit traders with spare vehicle capacity to carry for hire, and transport managers would want to examine whether this would be a profitable exercise. But evidence reaching Mr. Featherstone suggested that for most companies the need to satisfy a third party's requirements and so sacrifice complete control over vehicles and drivers would so disrupt company business as to be a poor return for the additional earning capacity.
Any system must provide for hiring vehicles with or without driver to meet the commercial and economic needs which had justified C hire and Contract A operation. Mr. Featherstone understood that this was envisaged, although the details had not been worked out.
He then gave an assessment of when he thought these new provisions would be applied. His timetable read: October 1967, publication of White Paper; November 1967, publication of Bill; August 1968, Royal Assent—with immediate exemption of light vehicles from licensing; April 1969, new applicants for licences requiring to have a quality licence; 1970 or later, quantity licensing would apply.
For Mr. Featherstone's address, Mr. Swingler accepted an invitation to be on the platform and take part in the subsequent discussion. Reminding delegates that the Ministry of Transport had to authorize expenditure of many millions of pounds on roads, rail, docks, etc. he insisted that the railway managers would have to do their homework so as to make their case. It was up to everyone to do their sums on which was the best way to send their traffic in their own interest. This should not just be left to the LA.
Replying to Mr. C. A. Wild, (Bibby and Baron) who asked if the haulier or the trader would hold the proposed licence for goods going by road, bearing in mind additional hiring at peak periods, Mr. Featherstone said it was clear the road licence would be held by the actual operator. But the provision of spare capacity was a worrying feature of the proposals.
It was unlikely there would be any conditions reading: "General goods—Gt. Britain." It seemed that hauliers would be working under much more restrictive conditions.
Whilst still insisting that the power of the LA should be restrained as to the proposed managers' licences, Mr. Featherstone thought a suggested system of "totting up" of offences was excellent. When replying to Mr. F. M. FieldhOuse (British Ropes) he agreed that an extension of the present road /rail negotiating committees would have to come about, with the TRTA providing a licensing service.