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 
Janus comments
Page 91
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The price of freedom
UNDOUBTEDLY a wise choice was made of quantity licensing as the main point of the campaign against those sections of the Transport Act concerned with goods vehicles. Trade and industry, if not the public as a whole, were able to understand the issue and were easily persuaded of its importance. The politicians saw it as an ideological battleground and the Opposition parties had the advantage that many Government supporters had misgivings.
Now that the Act is passed quantity licensing cannot so easily hold the centre of the stage. It will be one of the last major items to be put into effect. No firm date has been announced and the Minister of Transport has said that it will depend upon the satisfactory development of the Freightliner service. There will certainly be no quantity licensing before the middle of 1970.
In the late autumn of 1968 this seems a comfortably remote contingency. There have been strong hints from people who ought to know, that quantity licensing may never be introduced. The Conservatives have promised repeatedly that they will repeal the offending provisions in the Act and it is possible that not long after they are put into effect a Conservative Government will be in power.
From this point of view there should be rejoicing among operators. Few signs of it have been seen so far. The annual conference of the Road Haulage Association which by a coincidence took place within a week of the Royal Assent concentrated on subjects which though important in themselves had no connection with the Act
Obvious
One reason is obvious. A conference programme has to be drawn up well in advance of the event and political forecasting is notoriously risky. There was also the likelihood that little interest would be rekindled in the sort of campaign that had been conducted with some success earlier in 1968. Quantity licensing is not an immediate threat and the impression during the campaign was that no fundamental objections were being raised to the other provisions in the Act, including quality licensing, the licensing of transport managers and the reduction in drivers' hours.
Operators at the Eastbourne conference cannot have kept the Act entirely out of their minds. Its image must have been as insistent as that of the stranded Norwegian tanker which presumably was visible to them every time they looked out of their window across the seafront.
Reports indicate that the tanker, like the Act, played no part in the conference proceedings. No team of intrepid hauliers rowed out to fix a GV9 to its bows and no speaker chose it as a symbol of the Act itself with its load of useless ballast, the inconvenience caused and the risk of blowing up at any moment.
Only once or twice during the brains trust in the last session did the Act break surface. There was a complaint by one questioner about the undesirable practices of some local trade union officials and it was linked with the token strike against the provision in the Act for the compulsory fitting of tachographs. When this Will take effect is not clear although it is hoped that the first stage in the reduction in drivers' hours will be introduced next spring.
Of more immediate relevance to the Act was a question about another provision which has already taken effect. The 900,000 goods vehicles weighing not more than 30cwt unladen have been completely exempted from carriers' licensing. In his reply to the question Mr. R. H. Farmer described the change as "one of the most serious features" of the Act. It was "beyond belief" that the Government had refused to see the danger.
Operators of the lighter vehicles will not need an operator's licence nor will their transport manager have to hold a licence. They are outside the scheme for plating and testing. The vehicles will not have to be fitted with tachographs and no records need be kept. Traffic can be carried indifferently for hire or reward and on own-account and over any distance.
In these favourable circumstances Mr. Farmer foresaw a rush to acquire these vehicles and to increase the purposes for which they are used. He mentioned in particular a growth in the number of skeletal chassis to carry lightweight containers. In his opinion the present total of 900,000 would be swollen to 1.4m within five years and all these extra vehicles "will be milling about in the main cities".
As a carrier of parcels and smalls Mr. Farmer admitted a personal interest. If his analysis is correct the situation ought to cause much wider concern. Transport costs would greatly increase for many reasons. Increased congestion would mean a loss in productivity and this would also follow if more vehicles and men were employed in carrying much the same volume of traffic as before. Intense competition might lead to a temporary drop in rates but this would have to be at the expense of efficiency and vehicle fitness. Much of what the Government is trying to achieve would be frustrated.
Lone voice
Mr. Farmer's has been almost a lone voice. Little has been said on the subject in Parliament. A statement made some time ago by the Minister of Transport on the costs and benefits of the road transport proposals merely says that "the licensing of • these light vehicles, nearly all C-licensed vans and mostly engaged in local delivery work, serves no useful purpose and its abandonment will represent substantial administrative savings both to Government and to operators". If there is any substance in Mr. Farmer's fears this statement in years to come will seem to show an almost incredible complacency.
The assumption is that freeing the lighter vehicles from restrictions can only mean a saving in costs to be set against the expen sive items in the Act. This might be true if operators obediently followed the Minister's pattern and restricted their use of the lighter vehicles mainly to local delivery work on own-account. It would be obtuse of them. however, not to use to the full extent the greater freedom that the Act provides. They are not to blame if as a result the whole structure of the road transport industry is impaired. In any case if they do not take full advantage of the Act other people will.
What is, perhaps, frightening is that protests by hauliers during the passage of the Bill, however vigorous, would have had no effect. The Opposition are as much to blame as the Government. They felt corn pelled to support whatever provisions in the Bill promised greater freedom for operators. The consequences seemed not to enter into consideration.
Sensible
For example, the dispensation from keeping records is sensible when it affects mainly vehicles making local deliveries under C licence. Now that there is no limit on the use of the vehicles the drivers will have just as much inducement as any other driver to exceed the permitted number of driving or working hours. In spite of this he will be placed more or less on his honour while for all other vehicles records will have to be kept and tachographs fitted. It does not make sense or will not make sense if Mr. Farmer's fears are realised.
Other Ministerial statements on cost show an equally light-hearted refusal to accept that the profound changes introduced by the Act—with the possible exception of the reduction in drivers' hours--.can ever cause additional expense. The statement to which I have referred says categorically that -quality licensing of itself makes no requirements which will raise the costs of reputable operators" and adds that only operators who are not at present maintaining their vehicles properly will feel any effect. How can the Minister know this?
It is even said further that quantity licensing will actually reduce user costs "by promoting transfer to rail of traffic which can be handled equally well by the railways without any loss to the consignor". Selfdeception can go no further. It is as well that operators should continue to point out that for a Government to will the consequences of an Act is not necessarily to produce those consequences.