Vot like that!
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE confidence of the Traffic Commissioners has been troyed after reading the Standing Committee B report on the import Bill following its seventh sitting they can hardly be med.
'wo amendments to the Bill were discussed that day. Number lealt with who might hear an appeal from an aggrieved party i the other called for the non-Metropolitan county councils to ume and discharge in their counties the function of the &tic Commissioners with regard to road service licensing in pect of stage carriage services.
loth amendments were made by the Opposition, and both re defeated, but the thinking behind the arguments and Inter-arguments must give cause for concern.
Ile Traffic Commissioners were first conceived in 1905, and re introduced in their present role in 1930. To many, it seems it their function is archaic and to others, with the exception of chairman, they appear to be politically motivated. kmendment number 48, while uncritical of the Commisners in a political sense, drew comments from county Incils which spoke of an archaic system. Cambridgeshire unty Council said that they believed that if the Traffic mmissioners were abolished and the counties left to their own /ices, they could run a transport system in the county for less oney and with greater benefit to isolated communities, than ■ uld be the case under the present system. .
iorth Yorkshire County Council, which is the biggest land ea of all of the county councils in England and Wales, is Darted to have said of the Traffic Commissioners, "Unless and tii this archaic system is revised, initiative in the provision of itable services will be stifled and local authorities, particularly unty councils, will be unable to influence adequately the inner in which any financial support they offer is taken up by e transport operators."
Buckinghamshire wants the Commissioners to be retained ,th greatly reduced powers, and would prefer the Commismers to deal with border disputes and the licensing of drivers, hides and operators.
The Conservative Party believes that county councils have a uch better knowledge of the local situation and needs than the mrnissioners. They also consider that councils know best how get value for money. They believe that local government rows better than the Government or Whitehall how to plan cal transport — few would argue with that — and they endorse cal decision making. The Tories believe that if local decision aking is to be supported, then licensing powers should be ansfen-ed so that the decision can be made more by county runcils and less by a quasi-judicial body such as the Traffic ommissioners.
Ian Gow, MP for Eastbourne, who sits on the Committee, goes irther and seeks the total abolition of the Traffic Commisoners, whereas his colleagues seek only reform.
In his anti-Traffic Commissioner argument Mr Gow poses the Liestion, whether the Traffic Commissioners, however wise, Lithful, dutiful or conscientious, can decide whether a proposed us route is adequately served. He suggests that only one Itegory of person — the potential user — can make such a ecision.
In fact Mr Gow would leave route planning to trial and error. ie told the Committee that it does not need Traffic CommisLoners to say whether a route is adequately served but that it an only be done by seeing whether a service has any assengers.
Indeed, Mr Gow appears to doubt the capabilities of the 'raffic Commissioners on a number of issues. It seems that they are unable to weigh the arguments of objectors like the National Bus Company or British Rail to applications for new road service licences from the private sector. He suggests that the Traffic. Commissioners, although well meaning, are the most dangerous enemies of the people. The Government takes the view that the experience of the Traffic Commissioners should not be thrown away lightly. They also argue that the Traffic Commissioners are completely independent and totally unpolitical, and are therefore in the best position to discharge a quasi-judicial function and arbitrate on the conflicting interests of local authorities and passengers.
Whether or not the Commissioners should become the appeal body following a local government decision, has also been . debated by the Committee. It had been suggested that the Secretary of State might adjudicate on appeals if the Commissioners were abolished. If, however, they were to be retained, then there were those who thought that they might become adjudicators. One criticism levelled at the Commissioners was that they were not accountable. This argument is based on the fact that they are not elected to their positions by the electorate. They have, nevertheless, been considered fair-minded, independent and politically unbiased in the past, and it is understood that the majority of passenger operators would vote strongly for their retention in one form or another.
To the goods operators' ears this will sound all very strange. The chairman of the Traffic CommLssioners is also the licensing authority. The difference is that historically it is a tribunal which hears public service licence applications and fares adjustments, whereas only the Licensing Authority sits on operators' licences cases.
While there is possibly a case for the alteration of the role of the Commissioners, taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut• hardly seems the way to approach the problem.
The Parliamentary draughtsmen and politicians continue to consider goods and passenger transport as totally separate concepts, as of course they are when considering the loads they carry. But in principle they are very much alike. Each is meeting a public demand and providing a public service. If this is accepted, then surely it should also be accepted that the title. Chairman of the Commissioners should be changed to that of . Licensing Authority (Passenger Vehicles).
They have the ability and qualifications to weigh up the arguments put forward by both applicants and objectors and as they aptly demonstrated during the days of "carriers' licensing" they are totally independent. If the licensing authority system were adopted for passenger transport rather than the present traffic commissioners system, then it would be sensible also to adopt an appeals system such as practised by the freight side of the business. Appeals would be made to the 'transport Tribunal, who would make their judgement on the basis of the evidence submitted at the original hearing and would not accept fresh evidence.
It must be acknowledged that a danger does exist that there would be standing objections from both British Rail and the National Bus Company but in a truly democratic system this must be permitted.
Amendment 48 was defeated by one vote and so the role of the Traffic Commissioners, at least for the moment, remains as it was. Amendment no 11 was defeated so that the Secretary of State does not become the "appeal judge."
There is nevertheless such an undercurrent of feeling about the Traffic Commissioners' role that it seems it will only be a matter of time before the subject comes up for further debate.