Relative niche, but nonetheless important, parts of the coach and bus industry regulatory landscape are restricted O-Licences, and Section 19 and Section 22 permits. The former are seldom far from the desks of the Traffic Commissioners (TCs) – to the chagrin of at least one such office holder – and the latter have ‘enjoyed’ some wider attention in recent years.
The reason for permits’ existence is clear, if at times controversial. Restricted O-Licences, particularly those that apply to nine- to 16-seat vehicles, are less obvious in their justification.
Operation of the latter as a “sideline” can be no realistic reason why a qualified Transport Manager (TM) is not required to have control, particularly given that the cornerstone requirements for all licences – restricted or otherwise – are the same, as is laid down in the PSV O-Licensing Guide.
Evidently, many restricted O-Licence holders operate entirely within the stipulation of their authorisation. Others do not, as of course can be said of some standard licence holders.
How big a contributor no requirement for a qualified TM is to cases of non-compliance among restricted O-Licences is difficult to discern, but it certainly will not be of assistance. In addition, a less onerous level of financial standing for a restricted licence when compared to a standard authorisation hardly fosters fair competition.
Reform is clearly needed, but the likelihood of such an exercise being carried out is low. It could fall into the too difficult pile, or it may be seen as being of limited benefit for the level of effort needed.
Meanwhile, the Section 19 permit regime has seen several high-profile cases of non-compliance in recent years. The latest is of particular interest to the licenced segment as it involves North Lanarkshire Council, which like several other local authorities founded an in-house, permit-based arm to deliver services, in this case home-to-school transport.
The scale of wrongdoing that brought North Lanarkshire Council to the attention of DVSA and the TC is substantial. A pair of wheels lost was the tip of the iceberg.
One may well speculate what would have happened in this case had the guilty party been an O-Licence holder. TC Richard Turfitt, having been moved by comprehensive mitigatory measures presented by the local authority, imposed conditions on its permits – all 35 of them – although he acknowledges that revocation was an option.
The core argument for a Section 19 or Section 22 permit is easily understood. A similar position to that for a restricted O-Licence around the need for a qualified TM could be constructed if desired, but by the same token, the requirements for legal and compliant operation by a permit holder are clearly laid down in guidance.
Whether the breadth of the overall passenger operating regime has expanded to a point where some parts of it are difficult for TCs to regulate is known only to them.
But their 2017-18 Annual Report noted that 40% of the PSV licensing team’s time was consumed by restricted licences. Even six years ago, scope to look at legislation governing restricted O-Licences was floated by those regulators.
The argument for attention to the permit regime is similarly easy to make. Compliance, safety, and fair competition where applicable underpin the industry. A root and branch look at how that is best overseen and regulated is well overdue.
Do you agree? Email routeone with your view.
