letters
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
/a welcome letters for publication n transport topics. Address them Commercial Motor, Dorset ouse, Stamford Street, London El 9LU Priver agencies have read with great interest the article June 30, Cropper's Column) about action 92(2) of the Transport Act and would ke to make the following observations.
The enforcement of Section 92(2) is not nly likely to raise some interesting legal oints, it is almost certain to rebound on the oad Haulage Association who are responible for pressing the Minister to act on this oint in the first place.
Early in 1970 when driver agencies were rst establishing themselves, the Minister 'rote to me and other interested parties Eating that the sanction of Section 92(2) was ot intended to prevent the operation of gency drivers and that he would consider mending the Act when time could be made vailable.
The growth of such agencies since then roves their economic value. However, the ackwoodsmen of the RHA heirarchy have ecided that their is a danger of driver agencies roliferating as have secretarial agencies, 'hey raise some dubious economic points vhich, even if true, hardly apply to drivers. or example, what comparison can there be etween the vast numbers of married women venting occasional secretarial work to fit in vith family circumstances and the small umber of part-time hgv licensed drivers vailable on a similar basis? Yet most secreanal agencies use such married women for ne majority of their jobs, The economic value of good driver agency ervices is clear to all operators. The .further estriction in permitted hours will enhance his need. The RHA's hope that the enforcelent of Section 9212) will kill driver agencies t, in my view, erroneous. Introductory con racts where the operator pays wages and IHI contributions will survive and with it he worst elements of the driver agency bus
-less; the self-employed tax-fiddling job vanderer, responsible to no one and without
ompany loyalty to operator or agency — ;ropper mentions the type himself. No good Iriver will work on the basis of having his lay records pushed from employer to em 'lover on a daily or weekly hire system. A eference checked and driver tested hgv river, properly employed by the agency ind hired to the operator on an hourly basis, Could not the trade associations, and inions if required, set down a Code of Conduct vith which an agency offering drivers would ie required to comply? Such agencies could hen be put on an approved register and sperators_would use non-approved agencies it their own ria.
Enforcement we must, regrettably, have n road transport but let us enforce the right hings first. Road safety will be only marginally mproved, if at all, by the enforcement of iection 92(2) — and many operators will )e severely inconvenienced in their day-tolay operations. RTITB challenged I agree with Mr R. A. Ementon's views (CM June 23) that those who require the RTITB should pay for it, while those who don't should not.
As a small operator (eight vehicles) I am definitely anti-RTITB, for I do not like paying out hard-earned money for nothing, and I further dislike the Board's big stick methods of collecting their dues.
If the RTITB were to undertake the training — for they get enough money from our industry, and they certainly have enough staff — I would not feel so bitter in contributing my share, especially if the Board had some trained drivers available when operators required them. Having forcibly taken their levy from us they do not want to know when we ask them to send us a qualified driver — not even the courtesy of a reply.
Obviously, we have to train our own drivers, at our own expense, as I have done since entering transport in 1936, so could some enlightened person tell me where the usefulness of the RTITB comes in?
One notes the DITB can operate on 0.7 per cent levy, and all employers have their payroll totals reduced by £3000 before assessment (CM June 23) but the RTITB need 1 .4 per cent and 2.0 per cent depending on the firm's size, and one is left wondering whether there is any justice left in this country.
Janus reported last year, that in the Yorkshire (West Riding) area, when a questionnaire was returned 83 per cent were for abolition of the RTITB, and this could well represent the views of hauliers all over the country.
Abolition would obviously be the answer, but if payment of levy is made voluntary, which is not much to ask from a Governemnt which is supposed to believe in democracy, then those who are keen on the RTITB could carry on paying, and the rest of us could opt Out, and make our businesses a little more viable.
Many hauliers are not aware of the financial implications of industrial training in our industry, and I quote from Janus: "In the 1970 training period total grants were £3,455,600 as compared with a levy of £5,776,500. In the previous 17 months from August 1968 to December 1969, the levy was £7,204,700 and grants amounted to £4,419,000." A prudent man would ask himself: what has happened to the £5,106,600?
If the payment of levy was made voluntary, this being the democratic way of doing things, one would find that those who now profess to support the RTITB would eventually opt out, especially when they are made aware of the financial mis-management of the Board, and abolition would ultimately follow.
Let us therefore support Mr Enoch Powell in calling for the repeal of the Industrial Training Act 1964, when he says "behind this facade of seeming fairness hides the desire of one set of citizens too see others forced to share costs which they have freely chosen to incur and others have not-.
W. H. BURGOYNE, Managing Director, A. Burgoyne & Sons (Transport) Ltd, Kin gsbridge, Devon.