• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

FTA conference

report 1969

FACE TO FACE WITH MEN FROM THE MINISTRY-STILL MANY UNANSWERED

QUESTIONS by John Darker and Paul Moodie

THE IMPLICATIONS of the Transport Act for trade and industry provided a topical theme for the first of a series of oneday conferences arranged by the Freight Transport Association. Tuesday's meeting at the London Hilton was fully booked, a mark of the intense interest of the transport managers.

Mr. J. Lane, head of road transport (Goods Division), Ministry of Transport, said that operators' licensing—or "quality licensing" as it is generally called—was designed to encourage a high standard of operation of goods vehicles but it was not directly concerned with operational efficiency nor with regulating competition. The latter would be confined to the residual element of carriers' licensing which would remain for vehicles over 16 tons gross weight. This, in turn, would be succeeded by the system of special authorizations known as "quantity licensing".

While the present carriers' licensing system was also concerned with safety, such aspects generally came into action after something had gone wrong and an operator was caught out in some infringement of the traffic and safety laws. When this occurred the Licensing Authority could suspend or revoke the licence.

The idea behind operators' licensing, said Mr. Lane, was to help prevent this situation from arising by enabling the LA to make inquiries about an applicant's arrangements for looking after his vehicles and for operating his vehicles within the law before issuing him with a licence. This already applied to a limited extent when carriers' licences were renewed, but not for firms running vehicles on C-licences, which were mostly issued on demand and without inquiry. The changes coming about would affect Clicence operators more than others.

Special transitional arrangements would apply to existing operators with carriers' licences, but the criteria for the grant of operators' licences for people starting to run vehicles for the first time would differ slightly.

Mr. Lane stressed that LAs would check the previous record of applicants but there would be no rule of thumb like— "X convictions mean no licence". Whatever the arrangements made by operators to maintain their vehicles they should be such that they would be generally free from prohibitions if stopped by Ministry examiners in roadside checks.

Operators' licences could be issued for any period but to avoid many licences falling due for renewal on the same day the first issue would be for varying periods. It was intended to work towards a normal currency of five years, but if there were reasonable grounds, LAs could grant a licence for less than five years. This amounted to a "probationary licence".

C-licence operators at present had to apply to the Licensing Authority in whose area the applicant's head office was sit uated. The new Act required applications to be made to the Licensing Authorities in whose area their "operating centres" were situated. Thus, if a firm had depots in East Anglia and the South East, it would probably have to apply for three• licences; one each from the Eastern, South-Eastern and Metropolitan Licensing Authorities. Only one licence would be needed in each area, however, whatever the number of depots in that area.

Pilot scheme

Stressing that LAs would initiate many on-the-spot investigations Mr. Lane referred to the pilot scheme designed to perfect the application forms for operators' licences and their processing by Licensing Authorities. "I should make it clear" said the speaker, "that in considering an application, the Licensing Authority will have three and sometimes four, sources of information of which the application form will be only one." In the case of new applicants and when operators' licences came up for renewal there would be instances of information supplied by people with a statutory right of objection. Objectors would be called upon to substantiate their objections on safety grounds, at a hearing before the LA. Objections on the lines of those allowed at present in the case of A and B licences that existing operators already had sufficient capacity to carry the goods in question would not be entertained.

Mr. Lane said the new licensing, system would be introduced in stages in the autumn of this year. A and B licences would be replaced by operators' licences first of all, to be followed by C licences. Any firm with A or B and a C licence would have to apply for an operator's licence to cover all its

vehicles on the first of the appointed days. LAs would invite applications during the summer but the licences would not be valid until the appointed days.

As regards vehicles over 16 tons plated weight (or, if unplated, 5 tons unladen weight) operators would still need to have carriers' licences for these vehicles as well as operators' licences.

"Some thoughts on drivers' hours, tachographs and productivity following the Transport Act 1968" was the subject of a Ayer by Mr. J. Foster, transport manager, Chance Brothers Ltd.

Mr. Foster said that no date had yet been fixed for the installation of recording equipment and regulations were still awaited as to the type of device, its operation, exempted vehicles and supporting documentation (e.g. driver's logbook). There was much evidence that such equipment was viewed with suspicion by drivers and it was said that this resistance had prompted the Minister to try to gain operators' acceptance of devices recording less than the maximum information, without success, he believed.

In Germany, this suspicious attitude by British drivers seemed inexplicable for in that country their introduction had contributed to a situation which gave more desirable economic and social conditions for German drivers. A significant reduction in accidents was claimed and a union figure suggested that 80 per cent of police cases brought against commercial vehicle drivers since 1952 had been dismissed because the tachograph records had cleared the drivers. There was no doubt that the information provided by tachographs would be most valuable in the preparation and operation of incentive schemes of benefit to operator and driver.

With the reduction of driving time from 11 to 10 hours per day driving time was now defined as time during which a driver was at the controls of a vehicle for the purpose of controlling its movement, whether it was in motion or stationary with the engine running. Thus loading and unloading, and other work connected with the vehicle or load, no longer came within the limit on driving time. Nor did time spent with the engine running for the purpose of operating power pumps or other auxiliary machinery.

Working time, said Mr. Foster, was de ned as the total period during which a river was on duty, and must not exceed 11 ours per day. But the spreadover from time f starting work to time of finishing could be xtended to 12+ hours, provided the excess epresents time "off duty".

Unfortunately, "on duty" and "off duty" ,ere not defined in the Act, and this led to ncertainty. It seemed clear that rest taken way from the vehicle could be treated as if duty. Rest breaks on the vehicle were :ss clear and, pending a test case, it would e wise to regard these as coming within the 1-hour working day.

Similarly, waiting time could presumably e regarded as off duty when a driver could :aye his vehicle unattended with no liability return.

Productivity schemes

The effect of these changes would be to :duce the working spreadover from the resent 14 hours to a maximum of 12+ ours per day and, if advantage could be iken of the "off duty" provisions, to 11 ours per day.

This provision, said Mr. Foster, was liker to have serious effects especially for .ansport on own-account where a large art of the working day could be occupied rith loading, unloading, waiting and other 'fork outside pure driving. In an extreme ase a driver would only have one hour issurning 10 hours actual driving) per day ,r all these functions and his rest breaks.

Even where work could be scheduled ithin an 11-hour day the margin for error as gone. Hitherto a transport manager had at had to worry if traffic congestion, undue aiting and so on resulted in running over le scheduled time, because the 14-hour neadover permitted a legal margin of errr. Under the new rules, no transport maager could afford running over the 11 ours or 12+ hours, as the case may be. In ther words schedules must have a built-in iargin for any foreseeable circumstances. fr. Foster stressed that apart from the bolition of records for drivers of light vans one of the provisions described were effeeve until a Ministerial order was introduced.

Discussing productivity aspects, the 3eaker stressed the great advantage of shift lading. Articulation and detachable bodies 3uld also avoid turn-round delays and the

iovement of palletized loads in vans—

avoiding sheeting—could be facilitated by the use of JOLODA or similar systems. Customers should be urged to fit monorail hoists where appropriate; alternatively, a vehicle mounted crane or a tailboard lift might be the answer. He had no doubt that the greatest single barrier to increased productivity lay in the drivers' wage structure. Long hours, whether real or "paper hours" meant that the driver sacrificed his leisure while the employer was deprived of the benefit of the earlier return of vehicle.

Benefits to employers of productivity schemes were the following: (a) An earlier return implied a reduction in working hours, offering earlier availability of vehicles for more trips, maintenance or next-day loading.

(b) Increased travelling speeds with the same results.

(c) Acceptance of vehicles with higher carrying capacities.

(d) Changes in working practices, e.g. early starts, immediate turn-round from a night out, flexibility of manning, elimination of mates. (How many firms haven't some impediment, perhaps historical, to progress which is proving an impasse?) (e) Either a greater output in the number of vehicles or the same output in less vehicles—the result is a saving either in hired costs or one's own capital expenditure.

(f) Through more efficient operations, a margin can be created to cater for expanding production.

"The transport manager's licence" was the subject of a paper by Mr. D. H. Joyce, transport licensing adviser, Shell-Mex and BP Ltd, and chairman of the Transport Manager's Licence Committee.

Mr. Joyce said the Transport Manager's Licence Committee on which operators' associations, the RTITB and the Ministry were represented, were considering recommendations as to implementation under four headings: the likely requirements of individual companies for transport managers and their location; the degree of responsibility implied in the granting of a licence; the types of qualification required; and the means by which those qualifications can be acquired.

While the regulations were not expected before 1970 companies had to take certain decisions concerning location and standing of personnel. The Act gave Licensing Authorities discretion to approve applications from companies either to have more than one transport manager at one operating centre or to have more than one operating centre under the control of one transport manager.

Dual responsibility at one centre would arise normally where there were relatively large fleets at a centre and/or where the company concerned divides its transport management responsibilities between responsibility for fleet mechanical efficiency and responsibility for efficient operation according to the law. It would be quite unfair to place the responsibility for both functions on one individual if in practice he performed only one of the functions or had neither the knowledge not the authority to ensure that both were satisfactorily performed within the meaning of the Act. Apart from any unfairness to the individual it would be gross mismanagement on the part of his employers to put their on operator's licence at risk.

It was therefore incumbent on the employers, said Mr. Joyce, to ensure that their nominations as transport manager licensees were properly qualified in both respects. The ultimate process of establishing an examination system would be relatively slow and if transport managers were to be licensed as early as 1970 their applications would have to be considered by LAs on grounds of experience rather than by examination. The applicant would have to provide some evidence that he had held 'a position of responsibility in either or both of the fields concerned; hence, the possible field for training by employers in the immediate future of potential transport manager licensees by the process of ensuring that they perform authoritatively and responsibly in practice the function they would be occupying as a licensed transport manager.

Companies Nith a network of operating centres could be divided into those whose centres are all within one Licensing Authority's area and those who are located in more than one. Because the operator's licence requires the emplornent of a transport manager and the Act clearly defines that there must be separate operator's licences obtained in each licensing area in which the applicant has operating centres, Mr. Joyce felt there was likely to be a strong prima facie case for an applicant to have to provide at least one

transport manager in each Libensing authority's area. Much would depend on the discretion of the LA's. If there were two centres 20 miles apart each with 20 vehicles two transport managers might be called for; but if at one place there were 20 vehicles but at the other only two then the Authority might well permit the transport manager at the larger to assume responsibility for the smaller.

The director of the Freight Transport Association dealt with the Act as a whole and its implications for trade and industry. Quantity licensing (special authorizations), said Mr. Hugh Featherstone, posed planning problems such as: to what operations will quantity licensing apply? When will it be introduced? Will it be administered sensibly? How can sensible account be taken of it in current transport planning?

Quantity 'licensing would only apply to vehicles exceeding 16 tons gross plated weight if they carried goods on journeys exceeding 100 miles or carried bulk traffics like coal, steel and so on. In the latter case special authorization was likely to apply at very short distances indeed.

Although quantity licensing had been presented largely within the framework of Freightliners on the one hand and bulk traffics on the other, it applied in theory to any traffic whatsoever. For example, there would be nothing to prevent the NFC objecting to the grant of a special authorization for sundries traffic, irrespective of what mode of railway transit was proposed.

Expressing the hope that quantity licensing would never be introduced Mr. Featherstone considered that it would be unlikely to happen until the end of 1970 at the earliest. All this posed problems to operators concerned about vehicle replacement. He felt that operators should work on the assumption that quantity licensing would operate fairly and sensibly and that if a thorough investigation had been made of the possibility of sending additional traffic by rail, and rejected on commercial grounds, it could be assumed that a special authorization would be granted.

He warned that the factor or rates was vital. They could change a lot over the next year or two. It was necessary to think about the possible future movement of rates and it must be remembered that special authorizations would be refused where the Licensing Authority adjudged that the advantages of road and rail were equal.

Another factor to bear in mind was the cost involved in the cumbersome, timeconsuming procedures to which special authorizations would give rise, plus the cost of uncertainty. These though difficult to quantify were just one more unknown in the difficult equation posed by quantity licensing.

Mr. Featherstone stressed that in general, a transport manager's licence could only be revoked if the company's operating licence had first been revoked or suspended—at once a recognition of the principle of a master being responsible for the acts of his servants and a valuable protection for the transport manager. In other words, both the company and the transport manager were in this together, which was as it should be. With so many aspects of the Transport Act the subject of Ministerial regulations still awaited, it was to be expected that many of the questions could not be answered by the speakers. Mr. Featherstone made a powerful plea to the Ministry spokesmen on the platform—Mr. C. Toyne and Mr. D. C. Renshaw supported Mr. Lane—for early clarification of the drivers' hours regulations and of the timing of the tachograph requirements.

The meeting seemed evenly divided as to the merits of transport manager's licence proposals. Some thought it all a waste of money. Others held that it would raise the status of the industry. Mr. Joyce said that a manual was being drawn up by the FTA and RHA defining at a relatively low level the standard of competence of licence holders. He agreed that the designation proposed for the "junior" statutory transport managers Vehicle Supervisor—was not acceptable to everyone. He felt that the title of transport manager should be reserved for the senior posts in the industry, but more views from the industry were sought on this point.

Mr. E. H. T. Kelly (Colgate-Palmolive Ltd.) said that companies such as his would spend a lot of money to qualify depot staff' as holders of the transport manager's licence. Was it not possible for the licence to be tied to a particular company—he was afraid qualified people would be poached by other firms.

Mr. Joyce said the proposal had some attractions but it would be very difficult to put on the kind of control envisaged.

To a questioner who said his firm had no maintenance facilities of any kind, all vehicle maintenance being done by garages whose standards were sometimes appalling, Mr. Lane said it was no part of the Ministry's job to select garages for the industry. "How much do you want to be spoonfed? It is the operator's responsibility to see that his vehicles are safely maintained".

Asked whether there was any risk that personal driving licences would be suspended if a transport manager's licence were revoked, Mr. Renshaw said this would not apply unless the Minister specified it in regulations. He thought it was most unlikely that this penalty would be applied for a firm's traffic offences.

Mr. D. R. Baker (Tesco (Wholesale) Ltd.) asked whether the NFC and British Railways could be made to define their attitude now to particular traders' future requirements of large vehicles. Mr. Lane said he understood the State concerns would discuss their attitude with any individual transport operator but that was not to say that they would reveal whether an objection would be lodged to a particular application. The chairman of BR Board had said that the railways would not object for the sake of objecting to any licence applica tion. The railways were required to make a profit and they would not be anxious to accept loss-making traffic.

Mr. E. R. Durham (Keith and Boyle (Transport) Ltd.) asked if a limited hiring allowance would not interfere with the efficiency of many companies, especially those such as wine and confectionery merchants whose trade reaches seasonal peaks. Mr. Lane assured him that the size of hiring allowances were entirely within a Licensing Authority's discretion; there was nothing in the Act to prevent him giving an allowance of, say, 1,000 vehicles, if he thought it necessary.

Mr. S. M. Warren (London Carriers Ltd.) was concerned with which operator's licence a vehicle should run on when driven in a traffic area other than its own and by a driver from another base. Mr. Renshaw said that the driver's depot had no effect on the licence position. Vehicles were allocated to certain depots of large firms mainly for managerial reasons and it was sometimes difficult to define the depot for each vehicle; some public hauliers found themselves in this very position, but the common sense of the LAs had prevented any problems arising from the situation.

Mr. Toyne was called to give what he considered to be an acceptable frequency for vehicle inspections. What was needed, he said, was for the LA to be satisfied that an operator's inspection and maintenance system resulted in safe vehicles. Different fleets necessitated different types of facilities. He thought, however, that LAs should insist on adequate under-vehicle examination facilities.

The licensing position of driver-owned vehicles concerned Mr. A. J. Mortimer (Alan S. Denniff Ltd). Mr. Renshaw said that the vehicle user must hold the licence for any vehicle. It was possible for an individual owner-driver to satisfy an LA that his vehicles were well maintained; there was nothing in the Act defining any specific type of maintenance facilities.

Mr. P. Park (J. Sainsbury Ltd.) wanted to know who was responsible for the maintenance of hired vehicles. The user, said Mr. Lane, is always responsible for a vehicle's maintenance. A hiring company might provide facilities for maintenance but is not responsible for the vehicles' condition.

Regarding C-licence operation, Mr. Renshaw was asked (i) if C-licensed vehicles could work for companies, other than that holding the licence, within a group; (ii) if vehicles could work for hire and reward on contract C; and (iii) if contract C vehicles could work for more than one company. To the first two parts of this question Mr. Renshaw's answer was Yes, under the operators' licensing system. To the last part, he replied that when the operators' licensing system came into force any vehicle could work for anybody.