TML -A THREAT CIR A PROMISE?
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Cattee: The proposals for transport managers' licences in the Transport Bill are so vague that their acceptance by the transport industry has been described as an act of faith by the director of the TRTA. And now some people are beginning to wonder whether the Lords amendment providing for graded licences shoes that the Government intends to go ahead with its own plans, despite assurances that the form which TMLs take will be open to the industry to propose. How far do you think this acceptance is an act of faith, and to what extent, if at all, do you think these licences should be graded? Mr. Joyce, perhaps you'd like to start the ball rolling?
Joyce: The first thing I would like to question is precisely what is meant by the -industry" whose views the Ministry wishes to receive. It is taken to mean. I think, in other concepts as comprehensively covering the operators of freight road transport, and they are very broadly represented in the two trade associations, the Road Haulage Association and the Traders Road Transport Association which between them cover a very substantial percentage of the operators of road transport. But there is a second point which must be clearly established. We are concerned here with individuals rather than companies, because transport managers are individuals who may well transfer from one company to another: and it is important, therefore, to try and establish basically a professional standard which applies to the individual.
It is because of this that the joint committee which has been established under the title Transport Managers' Licence Committee covers both the institutions concerned (whose membership is entirely composed of individuals) and the RHA and TRTA. So you do have a representative view of (a} what is desirable in the fortunes of the individual and (b) what is commercially sensible in the eyes of the people who operate the vehicles— basically, the employers of the transport managers concerned. And I think that correlating what is desirable professionally with what is sensible commercially may in itself be a problem. I would like to hear soMe views on this sort of question before proceeding further as to how the problem should be dealt with.
Wild: Well, I agree with Mr. Joyce that one must define the industry. I can't find any simpler way of defining it other than the membership of TRTA and RHA; with great respect, of course, to our professional colleagues here. But you did make a point. Brian, about views on graded licences. This seems to me a fundamental issue. When I started thinking about the TM Ls in the very first place I thought that they would have to be graded by fleet size. After consultation with various colleagues I have changed my view completely now, and I think that the licence should be a basic one, universally applied and merely calling for qualification by an awareness, if you like, of current legislation such as C and U and Wages Council regulations etc and lasting for five years or for all time, whichever case may apply. And then one should have supplementary iicences calling for higher qualifications—and this is really where the professional institutes come into this—at the dictate of the industry, and not a Ministry. The criticism this would attract, of course, is that it isn't sufficiently statutory. I don't accept that it need be statutory, because some credit must be given to management selecfivity. No competent manager would invite an applicant for a job unless he were sufficiently qualified. (I am now thinking of the situation four or five years ahead.) If you don't have a situation where companies can be selective and if the country cannot rely on the selective abilities of management in the industry, then the whole thing will fall down.
Sherriff: My feelings are that there should be graded licences, but I don't believe that this was the original intention. I feel that the Minister was merely looking for a whipping boy. I say this having sat through almost 200 Section 178 cases in which transport managers and operators were called before the LA to answer for operational failings and kept trying to pass the buck to some obscure person in their organization. The Minister, I feel, wants to be able to pin the blame for these failings on someone and this was, I believe, the first idea in introducing a transport manager's licence, and a licence at the lowest level would suffice for this purpose.
I suggest licences should be graded first of all in two general ways: for engineers and operators. Next they should be graded by type of fleet, then thirdly by size of fleet. I am not an engineer and I have had to administer a fleet of up to 300 vehicles and have had engineers working for roe. This is surely wrong. The engineers should have the same responsibility as the operators in a fleet of that size. Secondly, look at the varying types of operation represented here. I would shudder to think that anyone here could jump into Barry Wild's position at Harold Wood and Sons and operate a fleet of tankers or Derek Joyce's ShellMex fleet or, in fact, Mr. Higginson's GLC fleet because he held a TM L. All of these operations are different but all demand the same standard of safety. And what of fleet size? A man operating a vehicle fleet of, say, four 5-tonners should not be allowed to move into, say, the massive Schweppes fleet as a transport manager as he could well do if licences are not to be graded.
Wentworth: I think I would like to take the opposing view to Mr. Sherriff and say that I think there may be some confusion of objectives here. On the one hand you have the fact that the basic raison d'etre of the requirement of a transport manager's licence is to promote safety. That being so. you have drawn lines above which and below which you, can't go. You can't go below a knowledge of the law as it affects safety. This is already quite a big requirement, if you look at all the Acts and regulations that affect the safe operation of vehicles, and I include things like drivers' hours, it really amounts to quite a lot.
I think we have to remember that it has been stated quite categorically that this transport manager's licence is going to be required for operators of any size of fleet right down to one vehicle, and the example that is often quoted is the greengrocer with one vehicle. The one-vehicle operation is really entirely incidental to his main business.
You can't expect him to devote an undue amount of time and effort to qualify himself very highly in transport safety matters, so you can't pitch this basic requirement too high: at the same time we have said we can't pitch it any lower than the minimum required for a knowledge of what the law stipulates in regard to safety. Some people are becoming confused between this and a general desire to raise the status of transport managers. (Perhaps this has a bearing on the question of calling it a -transport manager's licence-.) If you are talking about one-vehicle operations you are not raising the status of anybody by calling everyone who runs one vehicle a transport manager. On the contrary, you are lowering it.
Now, really this question of status, and professional standard is a thing that the institutes are, understandably. most interested in. Viewed in the context of the institutes, there is a very strong case for several grades—saythree grades: but that doesn't mean that those three grades ought to be statutory. Certainly we have got to have the statutory basic grade, and I think that what arises then is exactly how the other two grades ought to be formulated. The argument against the other two grades being statutory is that, in the context of safety, you can't really expect a great deal of additional material in the syllabus compared with this basic grade. There are things like costing systems and a knowledge of labour relations and other administrative and managerial procedures which are essential for a good transport manager of a large undertaking, but which really the Act would be going beyond its scope to try and lay down. It seems to me to be in the best interests of the institutes to keep these as voluntary qualifications and by persuasion to try to get trade and industry to accept the desirability of people having these higher qualifications when it comes to the more responsible appointments. If they keep this within their own hands, then the institutes will have a free hard to put whatever they like into the syllabus and in this way achieve their objectives of a higher status and higher professional qualification than if it were circumscribed within the scope of something laid down by statute.
Higginson: May I just give my own views, as an individual, on the basic conception of a transport manager's licence? This is that all goods vehicles shall be operated and maintained in a roadworthy condition at all times and thereby contribute to a greater degree of safety on our overcrowded roads. This requires a high operational and mechanical standard both of the driver and vehicle as well as the expertise of the transport management in control. It is here that I find difficulties in applying a transport manager's licence to cover all the intricate aspects of operation and mechanical efficiency to ensure that the primary requirements of the licence are met. In fact a principal feature of the system so far proposed is the individual licensing of the person responsible for the day-to-day management and maintenance of the vehicle fleet.
This is easier to apply with small firms but when larger undertakings are considered, with complex ramifications, difficulties of assessment or evaluation are encountered. This is further accentuated when a split in function occurs between operations and maintenance divisions. The operation of large or specialized fleets demands the services and expertise of several personnel with varying degrees of management control or engineering skill. To apply a licence to cover all these functions is well-nigh impossible, and the indecent haste with which the Transport Bill is being pushed through Parliament may result in a thoroughly unsatisfactory development in transport operation, particularly in recruitment and training of personnel.
We may find that a licence may be devised to cover various types of grading but comparisons of skill, experience and knowledge cannot be so easily defined by paper notations. It would be wrong if a transport manager's licence was conferred on a person with limited responsibilities, while it was denied to another capable person in a large undertaking, with expert knowledge, either of operations, or mechanical engineering of large and specialized fleets, who was acting in a subordinate position but carried, pro rata, greater responsibilities. I think that we must continue to press that the award of a transport manager's licence to a person does not confer a title unless we are absolutely sure that the recipient is a worthy person capable of providing the conditions which lead to quality goods operation.
Wilmot: I am very much like lain Sherriff here, in favour of grades, for two reasons. We have got to remember that this industry is of enormous size and .enormous diversity. Secondly, I see this transport manager's licence as a great chance to begin some form of ''professionalization" in the management of the industry. I think it would be a great tragedy if we let this chance slip. Now, the argument against grades says that there should be only one grade laid down by legislation, a sort of minimum grade. I think this is going to be difficult, even if you look at it from a basic point of view of safety. There is a great difference from a safety maintenance point of view between a one-vehicle operator and those operating even 30 or more vehicles.
Obviously, those who are operating a number of vehicles have got to know rather more about maintenance and so on, and must know about workshop organization. We have talked this over very thoroughly in the Institute of Road Transport Engineers and it is obvious that from the purely basic point of view of safety, some form of grading is necessary between the person who has got one to five vehicles and someone who is in charge of a sizeable number of vehicles.
From the professionalization aspect. I think this is a rare opportunity to increase the status and position of the manager in road transport: his status has been pretty lowly for a very long time. I think here is a great chance to establish a system of grades and I am in favour of three, four or five grades, going up the various formations to the senior transport manager. It has been argued that fleet size isn't the main criterion. Again, I have had arguments about this and it seems that fleet size is the only way in the end.
I cannot accept the view of Mr. Wentworth, who wants one entry grade and would let the rest be voluntary, based on the good sense of the industry. I have had 10 to 15 years' experience of the good sense of the industry in management training and I am afraid that we won't get very much further than we are now if we allow it to be entirely voluntary. I think that very little will happen: a few firms may well take up management training with enthusiasm but, in the main, one will find that the position will be much as before. I agree that it would be a mistake to legislate, in the strict sense of the word, for definite grades and lay them down 1,2,3,4,5: but I think it would be a very good thing if, in the regulations to the Act, there were grades to be decided by a body representative of the industry and the education and training bodies concerned. Indeed, we have the very prototype of this body in the committee convened by the Institute of Transport which represents all the various interests and the trade associations. This could be the start, and their recommendations regarding grades—which can vary, and this gives a degree of flexibility—should be generally approved by the Ministry and the Licensing Authorities. But I think it should be in the legislation that there should be grades. And I think we should try' to make a separation between the engineering side and what I might call the traffic operations side, in suggesting grades.
Cottee: It seems to me, having studied one of the IRTE's draft proposals for grading, that it is easier to define the engineering requirements, because this is a rather more exact discipline, than the operational management. Could we look at the engineering side, Mr. Mills? Mills: I am in complete agreement with what Mr. Wilmot has said. We in the IRTE have given a lot of consideration to this and we have now suggested four grades. These start with the small man, with one to five vehicles, where one can't expect very much more than a basic knowledge of the Construction and Use Regulations which are applicable at that level, also of course the Road Traffic Act, the Road Safety Act, licensing procedures and limitations and preventive maintenance procedures. In the case of the small fleets we could envisage that an applicant for the transport manager's licence, if this title is suitable, would have a verbal examination by a Ministry inspector to establish his competence in these items.
We then go on to the next grade covering six to 30 vehicles where we consider that there should be an engineering apprenticeship or a City and Guilds course certificate, or the lowest grade of corporate membership of an incroporated institute, or experience and responsibility in operating a fleet of up to the number of vehicles concerned. We go on then to the larger fleets, the 31 to 100. Again we call for an apprenticeship in road transport engineering and a City and Guilds course No. 170, or middle class corporate membership of an incorporated institute. Or again, experience and responsibility of operating a fleet of the size indicated satisfactorily over a period. Coming to the highest grade. over 100 vehicles, we would call for the highest grade of corporate membership of an incorporated institute, or experience and responsibility of satisfactory operation of a fleet of over 50 vehicles, together with comprehensive knowledge of workshop and maintenance procedures.
Cottee: And you would require these to be statutory standards?
Mills: No. Only the necessity for standards and these should not be the lowest.
Simkins: I would like to go back to the remit, because I think everybody who has dealt with this subject has been absolutely bemused by the absurd title of transport manager—we are not talking about transport managers at all. We are talking about people who control goods vehicles. And the interpretation of these two titles is very different. We have already had reference to the man who has to manage because he has to get traffic. I don't think this has anything to do with the problem at all. This is not what the Minister is after. While we have got the Transport Bill in front of us with all its various amendments. I don't think we should lose sight of the elementary principle which was laid down in the White Paper Transport Of Freight, section 48. I think this is essential.
Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am going to forget this TM L title altogether when we discuss this. Mr. Cottee referred earlier to the industry's act of faith in going ahead. Nothing was ever achieved without an act of faith and I think we must follow this theme through.
I would hope sincerely that in the long term, the industry would accept the need for some form of grading of certificates. This would be to the advantage of the industry and would fulfil what the Minister has in mind. I am not saying that this should be brought about by legislation: the present legislation merely makes provision for grading. and I think that this has been accepted and we should be able to build on it.
Reference has been made to indecent haste and examinations. Although section 48 refers to examinations, I don't think any of us should expect people who have been in these jobs for years and years, and are very capable, to have to sit down and take written examinations. I go along with Mr. Wilmot who made it quite clear that this must be a test. Quite honestly, with all respect to industry—and our Institute consists of people from industry1 fail to see how any person who is doing a job well, could object to having an acceptable test on that particular job, particularly if he is proficient enough for his employers to continue to keep him in that job.
Reference has also been made by the IRTE to people being accepted for a certificate because they hold corporate membership of professional organizations. Everybody round this table knows that there are corporate members of institutions who have not achieved this by examinations: or if they have achieved this by examination or election, they are not necessarily men qualified in road transport. I think we must establish this at the very beginning.
I am convinced in my own mind that when the Minister thought of this idea of a licence or certificate, it was going to be one certificate to qualify a man who was in control of both the operations and engineering. Admittedly, there is a clause there which I think says that, where necessary, people can hold different certificates because of the set up of the orga nization_ There are large organizations in the C-licence field where it is one person who is responsible for both the operations and the maintenance for the simple reason that the person who does the maintenance is responsible to that person. I think that we must not lose sight of a certificate or licence for one person who is capable of doing the two jobs. and is authorized by his company to do so.
Joyce: I think what seerns to have been missed is that the Government have declared quite firmly that they are waiting for the industry to make some proposals to them. Mr. Wilmot has mentioned the formation of the TM L committee and the Government are now expecting to have some recommendations of an agreed nature from the committee: and they are merely concerned at this moment with ensuring that the Bill, as it is worded, can cover any proposals that may be made by the committee. So the Government's introduction of proposals for graded licences is purely permissive legislation to make it possible for these to be introduced (a) if the committee recommends it and lb) if the Government accepts the committee's recommendations. We have had it directly from Mr. Marsh himself that he is completely open-minded about this and is merely making it possible for the Bill to follow what the transport operators themselves require.
I think this is very important because it does not imply any assumption on the part of the Government or any thoughts on their part which have got to be broken down. And I believe this to be a golden opportunity for those engaged in the industry to get their position right. Hearing the views around the table on graded licences (on which I personally have rather an open mind) it seems that everybody thinks graded licences are right: the only difference of opinion is whether they should be introduced statutorily or whether they should be formulated voluntarily over and above a statutory declared minimum standard. My view is that in the same way as one leaves the accounting or medical or legal professions to work out their own standards, it is perfectly correct to leave the transport profession— and I hope to see it more and more clearly declared to be a profession—to work out its own standards.
I am in entire agreement with those of my colleagues who want to see it arrived at in this way. But I am not entirely in agreement with my colleagues in thinking that the Government will accept this. I think the Government, in the interests of their paramount objective of road safety, will require to see that there is a differentiation between the control of very small fleets, the medium fleets and the major fleets in terms of qualifications necessary. And I think we have an almost technical debate before us as to whether it is in fact possible to arrive at minimum standards and expect them to be applied with the assurance to the Government that road safety will be covered to the very large fleets.
Cottee: It seems that everyone agrees with some sort of grading and the real question is whether it should be statutory or voluntary. But surely an important aspect is going to be in the wording of the regulations to which the Licensing Authorities will work. Everyone would agree that there will have to be a minimum requirement from purely a safety point of view, but won't the Licensing Authority perhaps be enabled to use his discretion in deciding whether a particular man is fit to hold a particular licence for a particular fleet. Surely, this is a form of flexibility and discretion which the Licensing Authority might be left to operate? So that although the TML might be granted for life statutorily, the holder may not have the right to use that licence in any position for life: he may be restricted until he gets the approval of the Licensing Authority for a particular grade of operation, whether on the basis of proven experience or acceptable qualifications.
Sherriff: I think we have got to get back to the Bill. The first requirement is a transport manager's licence. Before a person can have an operator's licence he must name his transport manager; I contend that the transport manager should be qualified to operate or maintain that type of fleet. The operation of vans and flats is entirely different from the operation of articulated tankers, arid the same applies to maintenance.
Wild: We really must ask ourselves what the Bill seeks to do. We have talked about safety and I think this is something we are reading into the Bill. Now, I wouldn't say anything. to detract from the desirability of safety but I don't think this was the only motivation of the people writing this particular Bill. I think lain mentioned earlier on that what the Bill seeks
to do is to find a "fall guy" somebody named on the operator's licence who will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of those vehicles.' Of course safety comes into this, but it's more than that. It's legality, as well as safety.
If we put the emphasis purely on safety, desirable as it obviously is, then I think this may be wholly wrong. It does say in the Bill: "responsible for the operation and maintenance of goods vehicles". In the case of larger fleets I. think a split between engineer and operator is almost an elementary' require
ment. This is very, very desirable. ,
As to grading based on fleet size, I am in very grave doubt about this. I now subscribe to the view that the licence or licences, if such division is permitted should require a fairly basic level of qualification for a greengrocer or the large operator. Don't let us forget that the RHA is comprised of -17,600 members and the average fleet size is about four or five vehicles. What real difference is there between the awareness of a man Who runs four vehicles and a man who runs 400 vehicles in so far as the law is concerned? None. I submit, because the same regulations apply to four vehicles as to 400. So there is a level, I think on which a basic licence can be laid down: voluntary qualifications, such as have been suggested, should be permitted.
Cottee: It is implicit in the transport manager's licence plans, from a Government point of view, that there should be someone responsible at each operating centre, so surely it would very rarely arise that one man would have several hundred vehicles personally to deal with. But the man who is on the spot will be personally responsible for how many he has got.
Wilmot: So far as I can see, and I have read this very carefully, there is nothing to prevent one man having the licence for several centres.
Joyce: I think it is terribly important to get this absolutely right. I have been talking here about the transport manager as purely and simply the man in charge in a particular area, at a particular depot. And in my own company we are talking in terms of fleets of hundreds of vehicles at one place. So if you are going to control a fleet of 100 or more vehicles at one place, the question is whether you have the same qualifications as if you are going to control 10 vehicles or less at the same place. I think this is really the fundamental question here.
Wentworth: What I think needs to be remembered is that in any large fleet very often its not the man at the operating base who determines things like systems and maintenance or the organization of maintenance. He merely carries out the instructions of someone at the centre. I think this has a bearing on two things; first of all that you can't reasonably require organization and systems and so on as part of a transport manager's licence, since very often it won't depend on this man's organization, but will depend on what is laid down from head office And secondly, in relation to qualifications or professionalism as Mr. Wilmot referred to it. it's the professionalism of the man at the centre that we are really talking about, or that the institutes are interested in, and within the context of this Bill he is left out altogether. This is why I think it is even more important to lay stress on an optional scheme which would be open to everyone, including these all-important men at the centre.
And I am quite certain that once a scheme of graded modifications is in operation, trade and industry will have the common sense to respond to it. Mr. Wilmot rather scoffed at the common sense of trade and industry but I think this is merely because no proper qualification has existed so far. Once something really does exist, I am quite certain that firms will want to engage properly qualified people at the various levels. I think it is allimportant that we shouldn't attempt to shackle this in any way in advance by making it statutory.
Simpkins: Are you saying that grading, as such, would assist industry in management selection ?
Wentworth: I am sure it would.
Cottee: But it's not only management selection is it? There about 45,000 hauliers and 85 per cent have one to five vehicles. In many cases, the man with the manager's certificate is going to be the operator himself. He may only run one or two vehicles. Surely nobody is suggesting that he should have to pass more than very basic tests of safety and legality in order to get a manager's licence, because he simply won't have the time.
Joyce: I still think that in spite of what Mr. Wild said about overall legality, it is the Government's main objective to secure road safety. This is the objective, and when we talk about legality it is legality in so far as it ensures safety. It is the legality of loading the vehicles within their proper limits, the legality of operating the vehicles to ensure the drivers' hours are not exceeded.
In so far as we have in due course to satisfy the Government. we have to satisfy them on the grounds of road safety, and in my view on no other grounds at all.
Wild: Of course the Government and the operators are concerned with safety. But the Bill requires accountability for other factors not necessarily concerned with safety. If we think of the licence only in terms of safety I think we are being over-restrictive. Wentworth: But in fact if you draw up a list of all the statutes and regulations that have even an indirect bearing on safety it is a very formidable list, and it really is quite enough in itself to form the syllabus for a basic transport certificate.
Simpkins: The thing we are overlooking here is that one of the requirements of an operator is that he shall have in his employ a man who is qualified or otherwise acceptable for a certificate. When we talk about a whipping boy and we talk about safety, let us remember that the Minister's main aim is to make sure that the employer must have someone in his employ who is capable of carrying out this control of vehicles.
Wild: This is possibly true; all I'm trying to say is that the qualifications necessary to bring this about, this fundamental responsibility for control, is far more widespread than merely safety itself.
Wentworth: Can I just come back to something that was said earlier about the split between operational and engineering requirements. I don't believe this is valid. It may be as to the exact carrying out of maintenance. Obviously you need a skilled engineer to supervise directly the actual maintenance of vehicles, but within the terms of the sort of transport manager's licence or certificate we are talking about, I see no difference at all: and in fact Government spokesmen have emphasized that he doesn't have to know how to do the repairs himself. He has to know how to supervise them, organize them, make sure they are done, and essentially to know what the law requires.
Higginson: In spite of what Mr. Wentworth says, I think there is a distinct split in functions here between transport operations and maintenance of vehicles. And if you issue a licence to the person who is primarily concerned with operations, you are denying a person who is equally competent, but has a greater engineering skill, the opportunity of holding a transport manager's licence.
Simpkins: But this manager's certificate is not an award. rt is to ensure that he is up to the standards demanded.
Higginson: Well it is a qualification. I still think you are denying the person with the engineering skills the same opportunities.
Wentworth: We are surely getting confused between whether this is a question of status or not, and you are speaking of this transport manager's licence as though it were an accolade bestowed on somebody. In fact, everyone's saying it's going to be something to be lumbered with, quite honestly. We have agreed that at the basic level this licence is not going to give anyone status, because it will be required even by the one-vehicle operator.
Cottee: Let's be frank and say that, whether or not the Government is looking for whipping boys, that is what it really comes to, because the whole purpose of this legislation is for the Licensing Authority to have someone, one person, to pull before him and say: "Those vehicles have got 10 GV9s; I want to know why; you're the man with the licence." Now, isn't this going to mean that there is, perhaps, not going to be a rush to become licensed transport managers or certificate holders? There is going to be a wariness once it is realized what the responsibility is—especially by people such as those mentioned in debate by Lord Hughes, who talked of the holder being possibly even a driver in a part-time capacity.
Higginson: Yes. I've already said I think this might have an effect on recruitment of personnel.
Sherriff: Until now, it was the organization that was punished for faulty vehicles, and lost a number of vehicles for a specific period. Now it will be the transport manager who will be punished.
Taking up Mr. Wentworth's point: it would appear that an administrator would be sufficient to run this fleet, but the Licensing Authorities throughout the country have said times without number: "Yes, you had a system, a perfect system, but how did you ensure the system would work?" Now, if we are talking for the moment on safety (and I think this whole massive Bill is being convoyed through on a smokescreen of safety), as an operator I could make out a system, but that in itself would not ensure safety. The operator, the chap who sends them out to do their daily job, cannot be responsible for the engineer failing to put grease where grease should go.
Wentworth: But surely when a vehicle is found to be unroadworthy and the transport manager's licence is brought into question by the Licensing Authority, the transport manager won't be held guilty straight off. He'll be in a position to defend himself, and if he can show that he has done everything that can reasonably be expected of someone in his position. that will exonerate him. After all, the maintenance might in fact be carried out by an outside garage, as has frequently been said in the debates in Parliament.
Provided the transport manager takes all reasonable steps to ensure that vehicles go in at the appropriate intervals, that various spot checks are made, that to outward appearances everything is all right, then he won't lose his licence. Similarly, if he can show that he has prodded his head office and said: "Look, I must have more money to buy such and such equipment", or "I must be permitted to step up the rate of inspections or maintenance", and head office says "no", this again would be a complete answer.
Sherriff: A fortnight ago I was talking to a transport manager and a Licensing Authority on this very subject, and I put forward Mr Wentworth's point that surely if the transport
manager says to the management: "This must be done and I haven't had the finances; I have told the engineer and he hasn't done it", he can't be held responsible for failings. The transport manager said: "I've been doing just this for years". and the LA commented: -Well laddie, for the next few months get it in writing!"
Wild: I still think there should be a split between the operator and the engineer.
It seems to me that if you are only going to licence the operator, the engineer is going to end up for all time in a subordinate capacity. This will not encourage him to further qualify himself. In my own company, for instance, we have an engineering division and an operations division and ne'er the two shall meet, except at fairly senior levels. The chief engineer is responsible for the maintenance of the fleet; the operations manager is responsible for the operation of the fleet, and I could hardly impose on the operations manager a responsibility for a maintenance shortcoming when we have a chief engineer of equal status.
Wentworth: Surely this is provided for in the Bill itself where it says that at the discretion of the Licensing Authority the licence can be split between two people. It can be split: the point is that it doesn't have to be split. You quoted your own organization, but in fact in our organization even where we have 100 vehicles we have only got one man in charge. He has some fitters who work at night and he is backed up by the services of vehicle inspectors who come round and make sure that the fitters do their job and if they don't then the fitters are sacked, and there is no question of their being held legally responsible; we engage new fitters and so on.
Joyce: Surely the very different circumstances of individual applicants must be taken into account. Some people will work on the Schweppes system, some will work on the Harold Wood system. Once this is clearly established, this permits the Licensing Authority not only to split the functions at any one place but if necessary to make provision for a dual function at three places for one man. I think in the latest House of Lords amendment it is the wording: "taking into account the individual circumstances of the applicant" that makes the difference.
Wentworth: Is this going to be limited within his own area? Joyce: Not necessarily: basically it is only one licensed transport manager for one depot—and then the exceptions start. You can have two if necessary in one place or you can have one in two places—but this is still strictly within the Licensing Authority's own area. You have to remember the geographical implications here. If an operating base happens to be just over the border, then there is provision for this, but it must not be too far away.
What I think we should try to resolve today is this distinct line drawn between what we have got to do to satisfy the Government On one hand, and what we want as transport operators.
Cottee: This thing is once again conftised by the words "transport manager"
Wild: I get the impression round this table that none of us agree with the title -transport manager"
Joyce; We have given an indication to the Minister that one of our recommendations is likely to be that the title ought to be changed from transport manager.
Wilmot: Can we come back to this pint of whether the grades should be volun ary or not? Mr. Wentworth is on record as sayi g that I scoffed at the common sense of the industry: this is rather less than fair. What I was saying was that the industry, if left to itself on management training will be terribly slow in coming forward with any acceptance :of any grading scheme. I cannot see what is !wrong with writing into the legislation that there should be grades decided by a body of the industry and the education and training bodies concerned, who would lay down a system of grades which could be changed, which would have to be approved (but it would be a nominal approval, I hope), by the Ministry and the Licensing Authorities. I cannot quite see what the difficulty is in phrasing the legislation in those terms.
Cottee: It does presuppose some sort of agreement on the standards represented by Wilmot: This is the way we ought to word the legislation at this stage—without going into detail about what the grades may be.
Joyce: The present legislation is so worded that it means nothing. What it means in effect is that the Minister has got powers to make certain regulations. The law isn't there yet but he has powers to make the law and the allimportant thing is that when the regulations come to be made they shall be as near as possible to what the industry and the professional institutes have jointly agreed, This is the important thing and at this moment I'm firmly convinced that the Minister accepts this.
Cottee: But on the basis that there will be a common recommendation to him, and not two or three fragmented recommendations to him which he has then got to decide on— possibly not in the best interests of the industry.
Joyce: The rather important secondary consideration is that my committee has agreed that, after its next meeting, the Ministry themselves will be represented on it so that it will not merely be a joint recommendation from the industry but a totally joint recommendation with the Ministry participating. Wild: The irony of the situation is that we all agree there should be grading. The point at issue between us is whether or not all grades should be statutory.
Wilmot: I would have said that in regulations there should be laid down in the wording that "there shall be grades". It seems quite a reasonable compromise between these two views.
Simpkins: But we have said that the idea of the certificate, from the Minister's point of view, is purely safety. It is we who are saying that we should make something of it, to create a training need.
Sherriff: I'm convinced that Mrs. Castle simply wanted to pin someone's feet to the floor and say; "You are responsible; you lose your job if this fleet is unsafe, or records are falsified."
Simpkins: Isn't the Minister saying in effect that the law may have been broken in the past because of ignorance, but now everybody .who controls vehicles has got to have some knowledge and that knowledge should be subject to a test.
Wild: Do we all agree that a transport manager's licence, or a name that would be more acceptable to us, is a good thing?
Joyce: Looking at it from the point of view of the professional transport manager I think it is an excellent thing as it is the first step towards a more professional status. Representatives of trade and industry will have a margin of doubt. They must accept that it is in their interest to have more professionally qualified employees but they will want to keep the extra administrative onus to a minimum.
Wild: Well, I think it's a splendid thing. But it is really split quite definitely into halves—one the statutory requirement which I still say merely serves to provide a "fall guy", and one the opportunity we now have to lift the status of the industry to where many of us have wanted it to be for so many years. There used to be a jingle which I think still holds true in many companies today, that -down in the yard with the obsolete vans is the transport manager carrying the cans". Now we have this opportunity to exploit a statutory requirement for qualification and use it as a stimulus for educating the industry.
Cottee: You are saying that now is the chance to make virtue out of necessity.
Wilmot: I agree entirely with Barry Wild. Of course the Ministry's intentions were none of these things which we have discussed round this table. But it's a wonderful opportunity to take the whole industry by the scruff of the neck and push it towards better status. I see it as an accidental happening whigh is the means of a great breakthrough.
Mills: I think it's a wonderful opportunity now for us to improve the status of the industry. It is long overdue, and we should jump in now.
Simpkins: It is very reasonable, because if a person needs to be tested to drive a vehicle then there is no reason why a person shouldn't be tested in his ability to control vehicles. Besides being reasonable it does afford opportunities, and I think for these reasons it is good.