Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Appealing to Cesar
" We have little doubt that if the services of such persons are incompetent or their fees extortionate, the remedy will supply itself in an absence of clients." NOT being familiar with the principle of the price mechanism, the essayists of the Augustan age may not have been capable of writing this sentence, but had the sentiment been theirs, that is almost exactly how they would have expressed it. The Thesiger Report, from which the words are taken, stands well above most other documents of its kind for style, clear thinking, moderation and the ability to deal with a pooblem at several levels.
In so far as the report has a protagonist, it is Transport Man, whose way of life has come more and more to depend upon road transport for getting to work and play, for attending ceremonies and junketings, in public and private parties, on special and not-so-special occasions. His need for transport—or his demand for it, which the report characteristically points out is not always the same thing—changes continually.
Not every demand by Transfiort Man can be met, nor should the operator expect only to give services that pay. The licensing system was set up as long ago as 1930 to provide a fair compromise between the public and the providers of road transport. It is surprising that, nearly a quarter of a century later, the Thesiger Committee can find little fault with the licensing machinery, but their report, which makes a strenuous and not unsuccessful attempt to give every side of the case, leaves little doubt that they are right. They had to face temptations almost as many and as varied as St. Anthony's. There is a formidable list of bodies and persons that submitted evidence, and as far as one can judge most of them advocated changes.
The Final Word
The Committee's approach to their terms of reference, and their method of dealing with the recommendations they received, may best be understood by reading the chapter on appeals. There are obvious objections to the present arrangement which makes the Minister of Transport the ultimate arbiter of an appeal against the decision of a Licensing Authority. The Minister is a busy man, and may have to delay his decision. Political considerations may influence him; it is not suggested that they ever do, but he must lay himself open from time to time to an attack on this score. He appoints the Licensing Authorities and the inspectors who actually hear appeals, and it may seem inappropriate that he • should reserve to himself the final word.
The extent to which these criticisms appear important or irrelevant evidently depends entirely upon the point of view. One's opinion on the appeal procedure is the touchstone by means of which one may formulate opinions on all the other problems of passenger licensing. It was significantly on this question alone that the Committee failed to reach agreement. With one dissenting opinion, the report is in favour of leaving the appeal procedure as at present, although two suggestions are added; the first that a bulletin of selected appeal decisions should be published periodically; and the second that the panel of inspectors might in all cases be chosen after consultation with the Lord Chancellor in England and the Lord Advocate in Scotland.
In justifying this decision, the Committee had to set down what may be called their philosophy of transport, which may be summed up by saying that laws should be made to fit Transport Man, and not the reverse. The main purpose of the licensing systetn is not to run the operation of passenger transport into a mould, so that it may ultimately harden into a rigid body of case law. The system ought to be kept plastic, so that it can change shape according to circumstances. " The words of the Road Traffic Acts," says the report, "are so wide that the Licensing Authorities are continually doing what Judges seldom have to do, i.e., deciding what is the desirable decision on the application as tested by representations as to the public interest. As opposed to Judges they are entitled to unmake any opinions they formulated earlier in their administration."
Fit the Mould
If this statement of the position is accepted, it is important that whoever considers any appeal against the decision of a Licensing Authority should have a similarly broad-minded outlook. Otherwise, he will be almost certain to reject any decision that does not tit the mould. The report suggests that an appeal tribunal would inevitably act in this way. "Consciously or unconsciously" it must have a policy to which it must adhere "unless it is to appear arbitrary or irresponsible."
I am not sure why the Committee should endow their hypothetical tribunal with a hypothetical unconscious capable of formulating a.• hypothetical policy. They may have come to the conclusion, after hearing the considerable mass of evidence, that it is always safe to assume there are two thoughts with but a single mind. A few lines later the phrase "conscious or unconscious" is repeated, this time applied to the critics of the present system who would nevertheless still prefer either that the Minister should have powers of direction over an appeal tribunal, or that the tribunal would not be allowed to deal with fares.
It is a ploy of the Committee to note hesitations of this kind in arguments put to them, and to balance contradictions against one another. They have a nose for inconsistencies, and a neat verbal wit for pinning them down. "We cannot refrain," says one comment, "from observing that some people asked us to open the door to admit them to greater freedom but were equally insistent that it should immediately be closed firmly behind them."
On another page is reported the suggestions (i) that vehicles which carry work-people free should be subjected to tests and examinations, and (ii) that employers who carry workers should be entitled to make a charge without requiring a road service licence. "These suggestions," the Committee add, with epigrammatic brevity, "were not of course made by the same person." Although many changes were proposed, the pros and cons tended to cancel each other out, and one may assume that "consciously or unconsciously" this helped guide the Committee to favour leaving things as they are.