TWO BITES
Page 85
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BOLITION of the Transport Tribunal has now become almost part of the official Labour party
plan for transport and there are many Conservatives o Would agree with this particular proposal. They would : like it to be taken literally: Their -objection to the bunal is chiefly because of the control exercised over L*4-st rates and fares. Whatever is done about this tenon, the Tribunal . would have to remain in being, ier the same or another name, to hear appeals against isions of the Licensing -Authorities.
f ever legislation were introduced to free the railways m rate restrictions that are, in any case, more apparent ,n real, the opportunity might well be taken to see how licensing system is working and whether it could be proved by changes in the machinery for appeal. There ; been at times severe criticism of the Tribunal over :isions. They have remained unmoved, perhaps because criticism is one-sided and comes mainly from hauliers, :11 perhaps because there is not complete agreement even tong hauliers. When these things are taken into account, ?ugh uneasiness is left to justify at least an inquiry.
Unlimited Discretion The wording of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, appears to ,e the Tribunal unlimited discretion. They have " Power make such orders as (they think) fit on an appeal.No ubt if they insisted on making bizarre decisions that cut mpletely across the law of licensing, they would be quietly toyed and the decisions reversed. But a reasonable erpretation of their powers should make it posSible for :m to ignore the law on occasions when common sense :ins to dictate a better course.
One common complaint is that; unlike the old Appeal ibunal before the war, the present body refuse to move ,tside the strict interpretation of the licensing-structure
• laid down by Parliament. Their indefatigable inanu:titre of case laWs -confines the haulier to a narrow arinel thatis mare and more difficult to chart, It woUld k the ability of a Mississippi pilot to remember all the ses that can now be quoted in the traffic courts.
Even when the Tribunal show that they are not inhuman, ere: are doubts about whether they are _acting. in the Lcrests of the road transport industry as a whole. They ye a particular weakness for the transgressor who sins, rough ignorance. Time and again this has been their stification for tempering the harshness of a decision by Licensing Authority. For complete revocation they have bstituted suspension and often arranged for the penalty end at the same time as they give their judgment. They e usually careful to make clear that their reduced ntence clears the offence,. which cannot then be revived :xt time the haulier concerned appears before the censing Authority.
This kind of absolution may be compared with the Isolute discharge given in the more ordinary courts, and e comparison helps to accentuate the essentially legal iproach that the Tribunal adopt. It is not so certain at this approach is right. The man before the magistrates .s committed an act for which the law prescribes certain !nalties. If they are waived by the magistrates, the an is not thereby entitled to continue in his misdemeanour . to reap the benefit of his crime. The haulier is somenes in a similar position; his normal scope of operation restored on condition that he no longer uses his vehicles egally. More often than not he is allowed, once the ban
on his activities is lifted, to retain. the goodwill he has captured from other operators' customers during his period of unlawful operation.
This may seem hard on his competitors who -have scrupulously kept to the -law throughout. The offender has gained traffic illegally at their expense,: and at the price of a temporary embarrassinent he is allowed to keep .it, -Where ignorance is bliss, they might imagine, it is folly to be wise.
One must admire the ingenuity of the Tribunal in keeping to their self-appointed task. Their decisions must often baffle the unsuccessful appellants or respondents, but it has always to be admitted in the end that the Tribunal are acting in exact conformity with the licensing provisions. Recent cases have shown no falling off in dialectical skill, although one is left speculating about the ultimate effect. Likely to become one of my favourites is last month's judgment on the appeal by five hauliers against the grant by the Northern Licensing Authority of three vehicles to T. Brady and Sons.
A licence for two vehicles had been .granted in 'May, 1959. On that 'occasion sevenhauliers had appealed and the Tribunal had ruled categorically that no need was proved for the grant and that there was no evidence of an unsatisfied demand for transport facilities on the part of the 'company's customers. Although the information was not contained in tlie original judgment, it now appears that the Tribunal allowed the company to-continue to operate the vehicles up to a date in January, 1960. In the meantime the second application was lodged and the three vehicles granted.
Threat of Appeal •
Most of the time under the threat of appeal, the first licence had nevertheless remained In being for nearly a year and the vehicles had done a-. good deal of work. An account of their activities was accordingly placed before the Tribunal, to show that the second licence was necessary. This the appellants evidently thought unfair, but the Tribunal would not accept their arguments. They ruled that thecompany were entitled to rely on their experience in using the vehicles under the first grant in order to satisfy their customers' needs. "We do not think it would be right to deprive them of these vehicles unless we were satisfied that they were not sufficiently employed." All the Tribunal would do was to delete the third vehicle from the second grant.
There may be facts not brought out in the summary of the conclusions reached by the.Tribunal. On the face of if there are some odd features in the case. Apparently the Licensing. Authority disagreed with the first decision of the Tribunal, reinstated the licence they had failed to ratify and added a third vehicle for good measure. One might have expected the Tribunal to show some indignation at this, but they made no comment whatever. Perhaps it was sufficient that the Licensing Authority was acting within his rights.
Other applicants who fail . on appeal may find it mirth while taking two bites at the cherry. If they can win the Licensing Authority round once, it should be all the easier to do the same thing-the second time, especially if they can find work for the vehicles between grant and appeal. It might have saved time if the Tribunal had admitted and accepted on the first occasion the evidence that was already available to them and that they found conclusive on the second occasion.