F-7Looking at =7 r . 7 I L L E2 , --0 7.0ZZIM m
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FTA Director-General Garry Turvey has expressed sympathy with the Licensing Authorities and their staffs for having to implement the extended '0' licensing regulations which came into force last month. More surprisingly, several LAs have already made clear in public their distaste for the new work-load imposed upon them.
So far no one has extended any sympathy to the body which will have to try to establish precisely what the new law means. That body is the Transport Tribunal. The tribunal is now a shadow of its former self. It once had a wide remit, but today its only task is to hear appeals against LAs' decisions in goods vehicle '0' licence matters. Appeals against bus licensing decisions taken while wearing their other hats as Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners go to the Secretary of State for Transport, though this may change soon.
In an average year fewer than two dozen appeals are lodged. About a quarter of these are not pursued, perhaps because the majority of the remainder are dismissed. So at present the tribunal is against an LA's refusal pressed.
The new environmental regulations seem bound to increase this load substantially, at least until the industry and the LAs have seen how they work out in practice. So it seems appropriate to examine how the tribunal works at present.
It consists of a president and two members, all now part-time. The president is John Hampden Inskip QC, a judge on the Western Circuit. The members are Peter Scott-Malden, former Deputy Secretary at the Transport Ministry, and Kenneth Cook, a retired senior member of the NFC staff.
The most frequent type of appeal to come before the tribunal is against an LA's refusal to grant a licence. There were 10 such cases in 1983, of which exactly half were allowed and half dismissed. Another seven operators appealed against the revocation of their licences. Two of these abandoned their appeals; the other five were dismissed.
There were no appeals last year by objectors against an LA's grant of a licence. But the tribunal's most celebrated case in recent years fell into that category. Their decision led — eventually — to the new legislation.
Following environmental pressure the Road Traffic Act 1974 amended the 1968 Act by requiring proposed operating centres to be "suitable for the purpose". In 1975 the RHA objected to an application by the partnership of Cash & McCall on the grounds that the operating centre — a private house — was unsuitable.
The North Western LA granted a licence; the RHA appealed against that decision. The tribunal threw out the appeal, arguing that, in considering suitability, the LA was not required to take environmental matters into account. This effectively killed the 1974 Act's environmental provisions.
That judgment was delivered in 1976. Eight years and two major reports (Foster and Armitage) later the new rules attempt to replace the 1974 Act, Apart from adding the British Association of Removers to the list of statutory objectors there are no changes to the objection procedure. So the number of appeals by disgruntled objectors is unlikely to grow much.
The joker in the pack is the new power of owners or occupiers of buildings and land "in the vicinity" of an operating centre to make representations against the grant of a licence. This raises several obvious questions; no doubt there are plenty of less obvious ones waiting to raise themselves.
There is an important difference between an objector and a "representer". As we have seen, if the former is dissatisfied with the LA's decision he can appeal to the tribunal.
A representer has no such right. He can put his case to the LA, and that is that. If he does not like the decision he has no legal remedy. An LA's judicial independence from political pressure makes writing to Ministers or MPs futile.
Although the tribunal will not be besieged by aggrieved representers the new power will increase its workload. Because a haulier aggrieved by the LA's acceptance of a representer's case has the right to appeal. And most applicants whose licences are refused on those grounds, or who find themselves saddled with unacceptable conditions, will use that right. The FTA and RHA will see to that. LAs, anxious for authoritative guidance on interpretation of the law, will probably encourage them.
The RHA and FTA have been invited to meet the Secretary of State this time next year to review how the scheme is working. But that meeting is unlikely to be fruitful unless the tribunal is given the resources to match its enlarged task.
With its present light load it takes at least three months before the tribunal hears an appeal. It seems inevitable that the number of cases will at least the detailed matters which an LA may take into account, and the sort of conditions which he might impose, are not going to be clarified by just one or two cases. So a prolonged period of uncertainty seems inevitable.
There is also scope for further conflict with environmental interests. Dissatisfied representers' inability to appeal to the tribunal is not their only potential grievance.
As we have seen, the operator can appeal if representers "win" in the LA's, court. But, unlike objectors, representers have no legal right even to be told that an appeal has been lodged in those circumstances. Local residents who think they have won, and then find that the tribunal has over-ruled the LA without their knowledge, will probably not consider that justice has been done.
No doubt in practice most traffic area offices will informally let representers know if an appeal affecting their case has been lodged. But the absence of a statutory right to be told would be difficult to defend, even if the industry were less unpopular with the general public.
An earlier article in this series (CM, October 1) explained how the Council on Tribunals keeps an eye on the work of statutory tribunals and inquiries, with especial concern for the rights of those making use of them. The council will no doubt turn its attention to this problem before much longer.
In the next couple of months the spotlight will be focussed on the traffic courts. But the action
will move on to the tribunal, 4 where the vital decisions will be taken.