TE: In your final statement as part of the Traffic Commissioners' annual reports, you stated: "I view a successful environmental public inquiry as one in which goodwill is recalibrated and road safety assured." Your use of 'goodwill' there I think refers specifically to the case of haulage companies sharing space with nearby residents. But beyond that specific environmental public inquiry context, I am intrigued by the idea of 'recalibrating goodwill' more generally. To what extent does the TC role involve performing that function? How important is it in relation to the other social responsibilities of a TC?
Joan Aitken, the traffic commissioner for Scotland: What I would say to you about this is that one of the privileges of being a traffic commissioner is to regulate two lifeblood industries in terms of the economic well-being of the country. But in terms of a more general aspect, when it comes to the bus industry, then you are dealing with the day-to-day wellbeing of people as they go about their personal and educational working lives to get from A to B. Without these two industries, the goods industry and the passenger-carrying vehicle industries, the country would be as nothing. So in that sense, these industries are highly important to the wellbeing of Scotland, the wellbeing of Great Britain. Therefore, one wants the purposes of these industries to be respected, their role to be respected, their role to be acknowledged. A traffic commissioner can be an ambassador to these industries. One learns a great deal about how they go about their business, and how important they are.
But it’s imperative that a traffic commissioner, like any other regulator, does not get too close. Because if you get too close, you don’t see things properly; you don’t view matters with a clear eye. One of the virtues of having independent traffic commissioners is that we’re not at the coal face day in and day out, as an operator might be or for example as a DVSA examiner or tester might be. We have the distance, and in the distance lies the strength.
When I was referring to goodwill, I was saying that I can go into a community and see where an operator is keeping his or her lorries or trucks, and I can look at the houses, and I can look at the roads, and I can hear the stories from the representers – the neighbours who are unhappy – and I can turn to the operator and say, “Would you like to live next door to you? What do you like about your home, being a safe place, a place that is really important to you feeling good about your life?” Sometimes, someone like me, just using words like that, can make an operator who is thinking just about getting the wagons out, think: “Actually, we can do this in a different way.” There’s many a public inquiry that has turned into a mediation event where the outcome has been good neighbourliness and respect.
I’ll give you an example. I went to do a public inquiry in Loanhead [near Edinburgh], where the operator, who also had a waste transfer station, wanted to place additional vehicles there. And there were objections from householders on the roads leading up to site, part of which was a farm track. Included in the representations were matters to do with [rubbish] wind-blow coming from the waste transfer site.
And I went to visit. I went on my own; I drove my car all the way up the farm road and had a look at it. And I was appalled at the state of the road: rubbish lying here, there and everywhere, and wind-blow in the gardens of the householders. And these were nice houses, nice farm cottages and nice council houses on the earlier bit of the road. These were people who were not neglecting their properties; these were genuine homes that they obviously loved.
It came to the public inquiry, and I described to the operator what I’d seen, and he said to me: “It’s a shitehole, isn’t it?” And I said: “Yes it is. What are you going to do about it?” He replied: “Well, I think we’d better just clear it up”. “When are you going to do it,” I asked. “I think we’ll do it in the next couple of months.” “When are you going to do it,” I asked again. “Oh, well, okay, we could do it later this month” was the reply. And again: “When are you going to do it?” “Well, we’ll do it at the end of this week.” “When are you going to do it?” “We’ll do it tomorrow.” And I said to him, “I’m going to be back to check”. The next week I was in that area, coming back from another inquiry or business, so I drove all the way up that road and that farm track: not a bit of rubbish to be seen. And every time I see that man or his vehicles, I think, ‘That’s Mr Shitehole.’ When you achieve that for people, you feel pretty proud of yourself.
TE: Also in this year’s annual report, there was some discussion of decreasing times of O-licence applications and variations to four weeks. A few years ago (in the Traffic Commissioners' 2016-2017 annual report), you argued: “A target, which would see new licences granted within a few weeks, rather than two months, rubs uneasily against a gatekeeper role.” At issue is ferreting out dishonest operators who are trying to apply through fronts. Given that risk, do you believe that sufficient due diligence can be brought to bear on a licence application in weeks? Are digital records helping or hindering that work? Is it unreasonable of the general public to expect a faster service? What goes into an applicant check, anyway?
JA: I don’t think a new application can be granted in weeks. I think we do need time to look at who is applying, and why they are applying. And any new applicant or operator can’t expect to get a licence in days or weeks. You’ll notice I very carefully said, “any new operator”. If it’s somebody who’s been a sole trader or in partnership, and we’ve known about them for years, and granted them continued licences, and they are changing partners or going into another limited company, that’s totally different. We know these people. We know who they are. That’s a very different matter to people we don’t know anything about. And, you see, for the compliant industry, for people who are paying their taxes, for people who are going about their business lawfully and compliantly, it’s very important for them that someone like me makes sure that they are not undercut, or their businesses affected by cowboys who slip in an application but have no intention of doing it correctly.
We get a lot of clues from the application forms. And we also like to know who we are dealing with, because operator licences are not transferable. Particularly with companies, we need to know, who’s behind these companies. Are the directors who they say they are? Is the shareholding different? Why do they need vehicles? Why does somebody whom we’ve never heard of before suddenly want 20 vehicles? Why does somebody want that type of vehicle, operating from that location? We get quite skilled at asking questions, and the compliant industry wants us to do that.
It’s far more difficult to get bad people out than it is to keep bad people from getting in. If I can keep bad people out by not giving them a licence, that’s a lot less grief to the compliant industry and to road safety than if we let anybody in, and have to do catch-up after there have been road traffic incidents, or wheel loss, or driver fatigue, or not paying road tax, or whatever. There’s no automatic right to an operator licence. If there were, there would be no point in having operator licencing. Because if everyone can have one, why bother to issue licences at all? Then the licence would just be a piece of paper. But it is not a piece of paper. The licence represents commitment to being safe and a fair competitor.
TE: You have served for a long time in your post. How important do you feel the perspective brought by time, experience and local knowledge has been to you in your work? What would be the effect if, for argument’s sake, you were to do a job-swap with Sarah Bell, for example?
JA: I’ve been in my post a long time. I regard myself as one of the luckiest traffic commissioners in the UK, because I’m the traffic commissioner for Scotland, so I have a distinct country, as does my colleague, the traffic commissioner for Wales, Nick Jones. But every area of Great Britain has its distinct features. I’m not dealing with the channel ports; or Immingham, with its ports for the North Sea; I’m not dealing with the massive conurbations around Birmingham and the midlands of England. The regions and counties of Great Britain have their distinctive features, and the localism that traffic commissioners can bring means that you can have an understanding of the operating conditions. So if a driver says, “I keep getting stopped at the Dartmouth tunnel”, or a bus driver says that it’s been terrible in Bristol until recently, or the chairman of a council says that he or she wants to do this in Liverpool, to have that local knowledge and engagement is added value.
We could have one traffic commissioner for Great Britain, and call it Ofhaul or Ofbus or something, but the traffic commissioners, with our regional and country appointments, we bring this added value; relationships with the operators and the trade associations, and the local councils, and in my case of course with Transport Scotland, and the Scottish government, and the Scottish parliament. For my colleague Nick Jones, it’s with the Welsh Assembly and Welsh government. All of this is added value and contributes to our understanding of the operating conditions. When I do driver conduct hearings, when I do public inquiries, and the drivers are talking to me about the A9 or A75, or the Outer Isles, I know what they are talking about. It’s known territory to me. It gives me credibility and means that I can do a better job.
Traffic commissioners do sit in each other’s areas, when cases do require that. I’ve sat in other parts of Great Britain. We help each other out. But we do essentially hang on to our local knowledge and contacts as well.
TE: Why might you sit in?
JA: If someone were on holiday, or if there were a conflict of interest, or the upper tribunal had granted an appeal, and another traffic commissioner had to hear the case, or a traffic commissioner having particular expertise. For example, Kenneth Rooney came up at my request to sit on a case in Scotland recently involving very technical evidence about the construction of a particular type of service bus. That was really helpful.
TE: Have you found regulating PSVs [public service vehicles, buses and coaches] entirely different from HGVs? You have served, for example, on the BUS (Bus Users Scotland) organisation. Have you found the operational cultures and priorities very different between operators of HGVs and PSVs?
JA: When you’re regulating the industry, it isn’t the vehicle that’s the issue; it is metal and plastic and other commodities. It’s the humans that you’re regulating. And the humans are the humans are the humans. There’s nothing distinctively different between a man or a woman who sets up a bus or haulage company. What will be different is their state of knowledge or why they particularly like that industry, or how they came to be there. Of course, in Scotland as in the rest of Great Britain, a lot of it comes from family businesses still. And you grow up in business.
Where there is a difference is in regulating the type of delivery: in the PSV industry you are responsible for moving humans, as distinct from moving pallets or such loads. So when you regulate the PSV industry, you’re looking at how the industry engages with the human customers, whether the passengers are on service buses or coach trips. With the PSV industry, not only am I looking at the roadworthiness of the vehicles, driver fatigue and drivers’ licences, but also, can they run the buses to route and to time, and if there’s something that gets in the way of that, how do they communicate the problems to the passengers who rely on that service turning up? So there’s a service-to-the-public element to the PSV regulation that there isn’t in quite the same way as the HGV industry.
By the way, I’ve not been on Bus User Scotland - that’s a completely separate organisation. I don’t know where you got that from. Bus User Scotland is an organisation funded by Transport Scotland to deal with passenger complaints and customer service issues. If there are any regulatory matters which might affect whether the complaints are so serious that the operator licence is affected, then BUS will send reports to me. I get reports, of which I can take action against the operators, but I am not part of BUS. I never have been, and also I never could be as a TC. It’s deliberately separate.
TE: In your 2016-17 annual statement, you raised the issue of differing road traffic laws in England and Scotland: 40mph for HGVs on single-lane carriageways, and of lower drink-driving laws. In your view, how much trouble have these disparities caused among professional drivers? Do they, by their very existence, impose a significant enforcement and regulatory burden? If so, should greater efforts be made to harmonise road traffic laws?
JA: A traffic commissioner has to respect devolution, because devolution is an intrinsic part now of the constitution of Great Britain. The Scottish parliament and laws made by parliamentarians, these laws have been devolved from Westminster, and the politicians of the two governments have agreed that, and part of what has been devolved is from the drink drive limits and also speed limits. If, in their wisdom, and applying their judgement of what they feel is right for Scotland, the Scottish parliament, advised by Transport Scotland and the Scottish government, and government-sponsored legislation, if the decision of the Scottish lawmakers and of parliament is to have different laws for road users, then I respect that and will ensure that those laws are adhered to by operators in Scotland.
And it’s not for an individual driver or and individual operator to decide, once they cross the border into Scotland, that they wish that the laws were different, to go faster, or drink more. You see, some people would argue that Scotland is ahead of the rest of the country in having a lower drink driving limit, which is more in tune with the drink-driving limits in the rest of Europe; and others would say that Scotland is behind in not putting the speed limit up to 50 for HGVs. But that decision to put it up is a matter for Scottish parliament, based on whatever professional evidence it gets about road safety in Scotland.
So: asking about harmonising traffic laws is almost the wrong question. We have decided as a country, I mean Great Britain, to have devolution; and decided to devolve more rather than less; and inevitably that will mean that some of our laws are different when you cross the border, whether you’re going north or south.
TE: A big marker in the commercial fleet world is 3.5t gvw, above which fleets require an O-licence, driver CPC and extra driver's licence categories. Do you think that this weight class remains the most appropriate one to divide between the regulated and unregulated operator? There seem to be ever more vans on the roads, and their first-time MOT failure rates are much worse than for trucks. Same question for PSVs: are the current O-licence limits, 9+ passengers for standard licences – optimal?
JA: Weight class is not my territory. This matter, of whether operator licencing is a decision to be based on technical evidence about what risks are being presented by the lighter fleets. It should be evidence-based to look at, are particular types of accidents happening? Are these particular drivers falling asleep at the wheel? Are these fleets not being maintained? What is the evidence base for that? And I haven’t studied the technical evidence on that. The Transport Select Committee would have to look at that.
It’s funny that you ask about first time MOT rates. That’s a very easy matter to look at by DVSA or DfT. What I’d be as interested in, is there evidence of driver fatigue? Vehicle condition is a risk, as we know when brakes fail, in particular. But when drivers fall asleep, that’s one hell of a risk for all, and with white van man or white van womens’ extended days for the courier companies, I’d be as interested in driver fatigue as first-time MOTs. First-time MOT failures are a big clue as to whether any operator or user has a responsible attitude to that vehicle or not. The big clue is what fails at annual test. And as you probably know, in Scotland you’re not allowed to fail the annual test, or you get into big trouble with me.
TE: In your final annual statement, you mention your dismay at what you call 'continuing sexism' in the industry. So perhaps it's a good sign that your replacement in the job, Claire Gilmore, is also female. Do you feel the gender balance, or the issues surrounding gender, have shifted at all during your time in this industry? Do you have any opinion of what steps the industry, and/or society in general, should take to improve matters?
JA: I think these two industries are very male. They’re not quite as male as when I arrived, but if you go to any industry event, the male of the species has a dominant presence. I don’t think that these industries are attractive to women, and that is for a reason that bears on the disrespect that there can be on people who drive for a living. I think it’s appalling that male drivers, let alone female drivers, are denied toilet access at delivery points, and where they have to park overnight to offload at regional distribution centres or wherever. I think it’s shocking that industries that could not do their business without the driver do not afford that driver the collegiate respect that he or she deserve as part of the team that delivers the end product. I’m really appalled what I read in the trade press, what I hear when I talk to drivers and what I see for myself in terms of the closing of public toilets. That is a national scandal.
There’s so much government talk about encouraging diversity, cutting down social barriers and the wellbeing of the population. You cannot go out of the house if you cannot be confident of going to a lavatory without having to beg one from a café. And what is it like for humans, men or women, to be driving for a job, not knowing if there are facilities for them, in the way that you or I as office workers have a reasonable expectation of being in a building with facilities. Even workmen on building sites are better treated with Portaloos than drivers are. Not everybody has a cast-iron gut. You don’t have to be a genius that the female of the species needs the use of facilities more frequently than the male. And if there’s no where to go, then that’s not a job that you can go to, frankly. So a lot of women will have to be self-limiting: “I can’t be a bus driver, I can’t be a lorry driver.” Full stop. Until that problem is resolved, and until there is respect for the bodily functions of those you would have drive for you, then no, the industry will not be as female as it ought to be. And a lot of male drivers will have to take themselves out of the industry, or not be able to come into the industry. Because a lot of people are affected by physical problems which they won’t talk about, because we’re stupidly secret about so much of this.
And it is difficult for a lot of women drivers; some of the men are not respectful. I hear stories from some of the female drivers of loads being diverted and such like mischief-making. That’s across industries; it’s not particular to bus and coach or haulage. There’s a way to go in the gender balance in these industries, and a lot of it comes down to the fact that in the recruitment posters and information there are not exactly attractive pictures of laybys with facilities, towns you’ll be going through; what your routine will be; where you can look after yourself and be safe.
I’m livid about the closing of public toilets. Absolutely livid. It impacts on the tourist industry as well. Tourbuses have to have places for their people. And people aren’t always travelling between 9 and 5. If we’re going to be a tourism country, if we’re going to be a country in which we look after our mobile workforce, it’s part of wellbeing and part of public health, actually. It’s a fundamental public health thing. It’s not by chance that public conveniences were opened up for people. They may look scruffy old buildings now; in the day they were emblematic of the fact that clean water and proper sewage were the proper means of humans dealing with the bodily fucntions. We’re losing sight of that. It’s a fundamental. It’s wrong. It is totally wrong.
TE: Before being a TC, you were previously the Scottish prison ombudsman. How did you come to get involved with the Traffic Commissioners? Please would you sketch out your earlier career?
JA: Gosh, I thought that my history was so well known. I am a solicitor by profession, and worked in local government and private practice. I’ve chaired tribunals such as employment tribunals and disability appeal tribunals. I’ve engaged in other regulatory work on the council of the Law Society of Scotland, on the General Dental Council for about 15 years, the Scottish Consumer Council. I have done a lot of charity work with homelessness charities, and a range of charitable work. Notably, in the last two years, doing the Transaid cycling challenges – South Africa in 2018 and Zambia in 2018. I’m a Transaid ambassador; I’ve just been appointed as a Transaid trustee. I am a solicitor by career.
TE: In your opinion, what are the essential attributes of a good TC? Have any ever come from the commercial vehicle or road haulage industry? Could they?
JA: I can tell you this really easily. The absolute fundamental attribute is fairness. Fairness and evidence. When you’re dealing with something as important as road safety, and also an operator’s livelihood, I don’t take anybody’s livelihood casually. I’m not going to take it away based on gossip or guesswork. So the fundamental attribute of a traffic commissioner is to pay heed to evidence, to be fair, to be robust and to do so without fear or favour. And to be independent – but that’s what I mean by fair and fearless.
TE: In your opinion, what are the essential attributes of a good operator? What are the biggest warning signs that an operator’s grasp on safety is slipping?
JA: It’s somewhat who knows in his or her own skin that they can do the job, and that they are doing competently, and need not fear an inspector’s call. They just know that they are on the ball and can look the world in the eye. The biggest warning signs that the grasp of an operator is slipping are prohibitions, whether for roadworthiness, annual test fails, or whether drivers are stopped on the road and something’s not right. Often an operator can be reasonably compliant, but then during a period of business expansion, compliance gets forgotten in the chase for business, particularly new business, and we quite often get operators who have not caused us any particular problem, then they get some prohibitions, you have them in to public inquiry, and I look at them and say: ‘You’ve been expanding, haven’t you?’ and they say: ‘Yeah, we got the chance for this big contract,’ and you know that they went chasing the work, went chasing the timescales of the customer, and they did not retain enough ballast in their operating systems to make sure that, as they expanded, they were still doing their six-weekly checks, still analysing where their drivers were, still checking the driving licences and not letting a vehicle out the door until they knew that all was well.
The cutting of corners often comes when trying to please a new customer. And sometimes customers have to be told, or the work has to be managed or packaged in a way that you understand your customer’s stresses. So if you have a customer that is under stress, you think: ‘We’re going to have to perhaps put three lorries in there rather than two, because we might need to have a lorry in there in a backup role. Because if we only put two in, that customer is going to ask us to work for another four hours without having another driver called in, or some such like.
TE: Leading to noncompliance?
JA: Yes. You have to understand your customer, and what might be the pressures on them that might actually impact on how you manage your product for the customer. And think ahead a bit, risk manage it a bit more.
TE: What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishment from your time as a TC?
JA: The profile of the traffic commissioner is higher than it has ever been. The industries know that I expect them to be professional; I don’t expect them to do catch-up, but expect them to be on the ball when they turn a wheel; I expect their vehicles to pass annual test first time - they know that. I expect them to know what their drivers are doing, and that they will be properly rested, and I expect them to be safe. And they know that. And with regard to their contribution, whether they are hauliers or bus and coach operators, I expect them to be contributing to make Scotland a good place to do business in, because we’re safe. Because we actually care about our communities; we care about where we are doing business. It’s not about a truck or a bus; it’s about the operating conditions for people, respect, and being profitable. We like profit, because profit can be reinvested; profit brings compliance; profit rewards success, and we like success. And we also like the pride that many of our family businesses take in their traditions, and the service that they bring to their communities.