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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Licensing division changed to 31 tons g.v.w. plated
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Attempts to raise—and lower—the weight at which vehicles will need quality licences met with no success during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill—but the Government did introduce a redefinition of the vehicles which will be affected.
Up to now the Bill said that vehicles with an unladen weight not exceeding 30cwt did not come within the scope of operators' licensing, while the Minister was given power to substitute plated weights for this unladen weight. Now a plated weight has been written into the Bill34 tons.
Recommending this change, Mr. Stephen Swingler, Minister of State for Transport, said 3+ tons was the nearest possible general equivalent to the original limit of 30 cwt unladen, which was retained only as a fall-back criterion for dealing with unplated vehicles. Consultation with organizations had led to the conclusion that there was no reason why a provision looking forward to the time when the use of plated weight for setting the quality limit would be generally possible should not be introduced into the Bill. The Government amendments had been agreed in principle with the user organizations.
No single equivalent could cover all cases, he pointed out. There would be some vehicles which weighed 5+ tons unladen—and which would therefore need a quantity licence—which, when plated, would be only 15 tons gross, and be outside quantity licensing. However, the user interests and the Department had agreed that the desirability of using a gross weight measure wherever possible outweighed the slight disadvantages in any marginal anomalous cases which might occur.
There were changes in the method of dealing with vehicle combinations in respect of large goods vehicles, said the Minister. First, small trailers, not exceeding one ton unladen, were excluded from the calculation of the weight of any vehicle combination, whether on a gross or unladen basis. Secondly the basis of calculating the gross weight of articulated combinations had been completely revised. The intention had been to use the "train weight", but on further consideration this had appeared to be unsuitable.
The Government proposed to add together the unladen weight of the tractor and the relevant plated weight of the trailer for the time being. This would approximate to the treatment of rigid vehicles, where the total gross weight was in effect made up of the unladen weight of the tractor components and the gross weight of the load-carrying portion of the vehicles.
The Tories had put forward—but did not press—amendments raising the weight limit to a carrying capacity of 24 tons, and a plated weight of 44 tons.
Mr. Peter Doig (Labour, Dundee West), speaking on behalf of the Transport and General Workers Union, introduced an amendment to lower the weight limit for quality licensing to 15cwt but was prevented, by a technicality, from pressing the matter to a division, as he wanted to do.
Before the Government changes were made Mr. Swingler promised the Liberal Committee member, Mr. Peter Bessell, to look again at the question of drivers of light vehicles not keeping log sheets.
The Minister of State also answered Tory worries about whether operators would be able to make temporary replacements for authorized vehicles which were off the road. The Bill was aimed precisely at enabling the operator to have some spare capacity, said Mr. Swingler. Having had his quality facilities improved, he would be able to get replacement vehicles without constant reference to the Authority.
If the operator could show he had maintenance facilities adequate for a much bigger fleet than he happened to have, he had permission to expand his fleet without reference back to the Authority. The Minister of Transport could not and would not interfere with specific cases before the Licensing Authority, said Mr. Swingler. Therefore no danger was foreshadowed of political interference with the functions of the Authority.
He was replying to Tory emphasis that the Authority should be completely free to make its decisions—one of the first points raised when the Committee started discussing the new system of road haulage licensing.
Putting the Opposition view, Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn) said that the Licensing Authorities would have to make judgments and decisions very different from those they had to take now. For example on quantity licensing they would be virtually taking judgments as between road and rail.
The Minister, he said, had indicated clearly that she expected the Authorities to act as independent adjudicating bodies, and the Tories suggested that this should be written clearly into the Bill.
"Our aim therefore in quality licensing is to cut out unnecessary red tape and iron out
anomalies, and in this way help the Government to bring in an efficient and workable system which will be broadly acceptable to those who are affected".
But, went on Mr. Campbell, the Opposition had a quite different attitude towards quantity licensing. This they strongly opposed.
It was in these two fieldsof quality and quantity licensing that the Licensing Authorities would be taking day-to-day decisions, and they should therefore be independent adjudicating bodies. But it was not clear that this was so in the Bill as at present drafted.
The Tories recognized that it was right that the Government should be able to give general directions to the Authorities, who would be guided by the Bill when it had been enacted. added Mr. Campbell. The Authorities should not receive special directions from the Minister on the individual cases or categories of cases with which they had to deal.
These general directions of the Minister should be published, said Mr. Campbell. If they were not the Government would not avoid a suspicion that the Minister would be able to give the Licensing Authorities secret directions as to how they were to take their decisions and how they were to operate. This would be a very sinister event.
Supporting him, Mr. Daniel Awdry (Cons., Chippenham), said it was very important that those who were making applications should, from the start, have complete confidence in the impartiality of Licensing Authorities.
Mr. Swingler replied that the Government was fully seized of two points: the importance of an independent Licensing Authority and the importance of the matters contained in the major reform of the licensing system which Mrs. Castle had undertaken. He assured the Committee that there was no change in the independent status of Licensing Authorities. The Minister would not be able to issue any general directions inconsistent with the statutory functions imposed by Parliament.
There would be some alterations in the functions of Licensing Authorities, but they would continue to be independent and act in a semi-judicial capacity when interpreting the task Parliament had imposed upon them.
The question of the publication of general directions had never been raised before, went on Mr. Swingler. The Government did not think it would be appropriate to put into the Bill that these directions should be published, but it was the Minister's intention that, if the power of general direction was used at all in such cases the public should be informed of the nature of the general direction that was issued.
Mr. Peter Bessell, the Liberal Member of the Committee, complained that the part of the Bill saying that the Authorities had to make annual reports to the Minister did not say what kind of reports.
For example, with the licences which would be granted in respect of large goods vehicles over 16 tons, and others which would be refused, perhaps at the behest of British Rail, it was clear that not only those directly concerned, such as road hauliers or industrialists, should be fully informed of the reasons, but the general public should know them too.
His case for a quarterly report was supported by Mr. Avvdry.
Mr. John Morris, the Parliamentary Secretary, replied that the Government was not changing the position at all with the Bill. There was already provision in existing legislation for the Licensing Authority to make an annual report to the Minister. These reports did not go into details of the applications heard over the year, and indeed it was hardly desirable that they should do so.