ARE S LICENCES SAFE?
Page 53
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Asks Ralph Cropper,
M.Se.(Econ.), B.A., A.M.Inst.T.
WHAT is going to happen when the 'special A (5) licence , expires?' Is there going to be any continuation after the end of the five-year period for which these licences are granted? The first such licences' were issued at the end of 1953 and thus their life expires at the end of 1958,. Which is alt'eady approaching closely enough.
• Some hauliers are wondering whether, to be on the safe side, they should, as a matter of policy, try to change their S licences into A licences. This is a question of intense concern to all holders of S licences. If there is to be no continuity after the five-year period, not only will the operators be deprived of their haulage businesses, but they will also lose the benefit (or most of the benefit) of the capital -which they had invested in' the purchase of transport units.
In view of the prohibition of any increase in unladen weight on S licences, many operators have had to convert them into A licences, which, in the normal way, will be renewed without difficulty.
Renewal Assured
The main _advantages of the A licence, I would suggest, lie in the almost certainty of renewal, and the greater scope which is enjoyed for securing small Variations in unladen weight when making vehicle substitutions. Further, the replacement of a rigid vehicle by an equivalent articulated vehicle, or vice versa, can usually be effected on an A licence, subject to going through the usual procedure, but is quite impossible on an S licence.
On the other hand, the S licence is assignable; it can legally be bought and sold. If a Tempting offer is made, it can be accepted immediately: MOreover, the licence can be isolated to individual vehicles, which can he dealt with separately, and not as an integral part of the fleet, as is the case with A-licence vehicles.
There is no taint of " normal operations" ,with . an S licence. Steadily and surely, A-licence vehicles are being brought under some degree of control, and restriction by The necessity of stating the work on which they will normally be engaged.. Not so with the S licence, which is free to be used for any sort of work. Nor does it run any risk of being cancelled, in contrast to the A licence, if the vehicle is not used at all. These would seem to be substantial advantages. It is a pity not to enjoy them for as long as possible unless there are compelling reasons for changing to A licences.
The most cOmpelling reason imaginable is this question of "renewal" If there is not every likelihood of renewal, one aught to give up these advantages and change to A licences -straight away.'
What is the likelihood of renewal? The inauguration of the S licence arises from the Transport•Act, 053_ The first mention in it of these licences reads as follows (unessential words omitted):— ' The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of giving to the purchaser of a transport unit the rights of obtaining free of charge, for the five-year period, authorizations under A licences to use the vehicles comprised in the
Rights of A Licences The licensing rights here given are to be A licences, and the Act draws not a shadow of distinction from the A licences with which we have long been familiar under the 1933 Act. This view would seem to be confirmed by the opening words of the First Schedule, which reads (unessential words omitted):—
lithe purchaser of a transport
unit makes an application with respect to any of those vehicles in that unit for an A licence authorizing the user of those vehicles;
• Once again it is a reference to an A licence, without new trappings or distinctions. It is only a little later in the First Schedule that it is stated that a licence granted under this Act is to be known as "a special A licence."
This leads me to believe that, at hew, there are no S licences, notwithstanding the windscreen discs. They
are all A licences. In that case, one would expect that 'the n'oernal rules about the renewal of A licences Would apply. We would seenn to be safe in presuming, therefore, ,that at the end of the five-year period an S licence will be followed; fairly automatically; by an A licence. '
This question is so fundamentally important that 1 think we should try to explore it even further. Thereis a justifiable fear in' some operators' minds that this is a new Act and some new legal arguments might be found. After all, they may argue, the 'railways have always been out to clamp down on road haulage, and they may try to have a fresh "go " by attacking the renewal of the S licenee. So let us see What happened in 1935-36, when the first Alieences came up for renewal. —
,
Principles of Renewal The most famous caSe was that of Bouts-Tillotson (1936), This established the principles to govern the granting of licences in continuation of expiring licences, commonly called renewal." For renewal, the Appeal Tribunal said, the licence holder had to 'satisfythe Licensing Authority:— (a) That during the currency of his expiring licence the authorized vehicles have been regularly and fully employed; (13) as to his gross receipts and tonnage;
(c) that there has been no material change in the circumstances relating to his business.
The Appeal Tribunal (as it was in those days) then went on to say that if the Licensing Authority was satisfied as to these matters he should grant the application unless there were overriding circumstances to the contrary. Such overriding circumstances would exist if the evidence established .beyond reasonable doubt that suitable transport facilities were, or would be, in excess of requirements.
In all these cases, the main cleav• age has been that of road versus rail. The objectars to Bouts-Tillotson were the railways. So the Tribunal proCeeded to give the railways a clear idea of what they must do to try to knock down a renewal application. The railways had to prove that their, facilities were suitable, which was explained to mean:
suitable for carrying the goods required to be carried; (b) suitable to the person requiring ul them to be carried on the occasions when he required transport; (c) suitable to current industrial and commercial conditions.
This task is so difficult that I do not know of a case since in which the railways have undertaken it. This is reassuring. These conditions seem clearly appropriate to apply when S licences, which at law are really A. licences, come up for renewal. But before drawing a firm conclusion, we must ask whether there has been any change since 1936 which might make these decisions inapplicable.
No Marked Effect In the 1953 Act Parliament. made some changes in the law governing A and B licences, but in general they have not brought about any marked effect on the administration of carriers' licences. There are two phrases in the 195.3 Act which mainly
, . i concern us n this discussion.
These are: (i) the instruction to Licensing Authorities to have regard primarily to persons requiring facilities for transport (custon-iers), and (ii) the laying °fa rtimli heavier onus
of proof on the objectors. .. • , Thus/the rulings laid down in the Bouts-Tillotson case are reinforced . „
and it is made yet rnore. difficult for the railways to hope to stamp out S licences when they come up for renewal as A licences.
There is one final argument of plain 'common sense. Whatever lawyers may argue, law can never be permitted to override the plain common-sense requirements of a great industry such as transport.
Legal Argument
If there should be failure to renew S licences, it would be a major principle involving some 20,000 vehicles. These might be put off the road on the score of some legal argument that there was no public need for them. Broadly speaking, these 20,000 vehicles were previously working for British Road Services and earlier for private enterprise.
The public need for these vehicles has been proved by their use over many years, in many cases for a quarter of a century since the passing of the 1933 Act.
My conclusion, for the reasons I have set out, is that S licences must be succeeded by A licences. There is no good ground in law for not doing so; equally, there is compelling public need, in the shape of the stability of the national industrial and commercial economy, why it must be so.
n20