Appeals against refusal
45. In our February 2000 Report, we set out our concerns
on the process of appealing against refusal of a licence. We examined
the seven appeals recorded in the 1997 Report, all unsuccessful,
and the fifteen appeals recorded in 1998, one of which was successful.
The Committees recommended publication of summary details of appeals,
including the elapse of time. The Government accepted the "basis"
of the recommendation, including the undertaking that "the
1999 Annual Report will give information on the performance against
target" — the target of determination of an appeal
within 30 working days from receipt of all relevant information,
as recommended by the Trade and Industry Committee in its December
1998 Report.
46. In July 2000 the Committees recorded in their
Report the comments made to them by five of the companies who
had appealed against a refusal in 1998. We recorded our disturbance
that these companies "should have had such uniformly bad
experiences of the operations of a Government department",
and recommended the introduction of an improved appeals procedure
prior to the passage of legislation. In response, the Government
set out the reasons why consideration of appeals could be "lengthy",
and recorded some steps taken to improve the procedure, including
the right of appellants to present in person any new information
or arguments on the application. This welcome step was taken in
response to the Committees' July 2000 recommendation that "further
consideration be given to ways of ensuring that an appellant company
can participate in the appeal procedure."
45. In 1999 there were 25 appeals against a refusal.
Six were successful; in one further case it was decided that no
licence was required. In response to our invitation, we received
seven letters from appellants—
- A company from Aldershot, which had appealed
successfully against refusal of a licence for export of scientific
equipment, felt that the time taken had not been excessive, and
recorded that the appeal had been decided in less than a month.
The speed may be attributable to the original refusal having been
very poorly based;
- a company from Essex, which had appealed unsuccessfully
against a refusal, felt that the process had taken "too long"
and that " meetings with the DTI and their advisers would
have been beneficial and would have speeded the process";
- a company from Warrington, which had appealed
against refusal of a licence and then learned 7 months later that
a licence was not required in any event, described the situation
as "very stressful", with the distinct chance that the
customer would take his business elsewhere. The Managing Director
wrote that "I do fear the experience will have a very
negative effect on the organisation's willingness to place future
orders with UK suppliers;
- a company from Broadstairs had appealed without
success against refusal of temporary licences to Argentina. Their
letter set out the frustrations of dealing with extensions or
renewals of OIELs, and in relation to the appeal suggested that
"had we had the chance to discuss the matter face to face
and even to demonstrate our equipment the outcome may have been
different. In any event we would have had the certainty that
our views had been received and considered";
- a Somerset company which had appealed unsuccessfully
expressed frustration with the refusal of licences to companies
that had in the past purchased equipment from them, and felt that
the chances of successful appeal were "very limited";
- a company from Worthing, which had appealed unsuccessfully
against a refusal, reported that they had twice had to fly out
to the intended recipient country to explain to the Ministry of
Defence there the reasons for the delay and then the failure of
the appeal. It was suggested that the equipment had been wrongly
classified in both the original decision and the appeal; but the
company's request for a meeting to explain had been turned down.
The Managing Director wrote "Had we been a large multinational
corporation we could have supplied the systems through a non-UK
subsidiary and no one at the DTI/FCO would have said a word";
- a company from Ross-Shire appealed successfully
against refusal of a licence but the company abroad had by then
"lost faith" in the British company's ability to supply
and had turned to a US/German company, with a licence granted
by Germany "within three months". The company's experience
of the US system showed that there had been an open discussion
over a similar application, which had been decided in two weeks
rather than 18 months.
47. In December 1998 the Trade and Industry Committee
recommended that there should be a time limit for determination
of appeals. The Government response of February 1999 was against
a "binding time limit" but considered that there should
be a target of 30 working days from receipt of all the relevant
information from the appellant. It went on "we will in due
course
that target has been met".[77]
Two years on, it is plain that the target of deciding an appeal
within 30 days is having no effect at all. "None of the
appeals made met the Government's 30 working publish guidance
on the handling of appeals...and report on the number of occasions
on which
days target."[78]
Of course appeals require " very
cautious and very thorough investigation".[79]
The Foreign Secretary told us that —
"I have limited sympathy
with complaints we are not moving fast enough".[80]
48. We are more concerned than the Foreign Secretary
with delays in settling appeals against refusal. We recommend
a rethink of the target of 30 working days for settling appeals
against refusals and renewed efforts to meet an achievable but
challenging target. We also reiterate our opinion that a procedure
be established through which companies would at least have the
chance to answer the departments' doubts or concerns.
64 
