§ (1) If at any time after the appointed day it is represented in writing to the Minister by twenty inhabitant ratepayers of any district served by any of the road services or railway services of the Board that, in the circumstances then existing, all or any of the fares or other charges demanded and taken for the services of the Board to or from that district should lie reduced or that the services should be improved or increased, the Minister shall direct an inquiry by three referees to be appointed by him in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, of whom not less than one shall be a member of the London and Rome Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and if the referees report that it has been proved to their satisfaction that all or any of the fares or charges should he reduced or that the services should be improved or increased, the Minister shall, by order in writing, require the Board to reduce the fares or charges or to improve or increase the services accordingly and the Board shall comply with the order under a penalty of fifty pounds for every day on which they omit or neglect to comply with the order.
§ (2) Where the Minister causes any such inquiry as aforesaid to be held all expenses incurred by the Ministry in relation to that inquiry shall be paid by the Board, and the Minister may certify the amount of the expenses so incurred, and any sum so certified shall be a debt due to the Crown.— [K. Vaughan-Morgan.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGANI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
281 7.49 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment, which stands in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson), is to provide an easier and readier means of appeal from the travelling public in the London passenger transport area than is provided by the existing machinery in the Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that under Clauses 29 and 30 an appeal lies only, from the local authority, and, in the first instance, by the local authority to the Minister, and then to the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee for a report, and thereafter to the Railway Rates Tribunal, who may make an order. The procedure is long and complicated, and I hold the view that, having regard to the great importance of the provisions of the Bill, to their complicated character, and to the fact that it will take all of us a good long time to master all its details, and, further, to the fact that for the first time it is sought to erect this elaborate, comprehensive and autocratic monopoly for the whole of the transport system in the area, it is of the first importance that the travelling public, apart from the local authorities, should have an easier means of securing redress if they have grievances demanding action.
Having expressed the reason why I consider the machinery of Clauses 29 and 30 insufficient for the purpose, I have endeavoured to provide machinery which might either be supplemental to, or take the place of, that which is provided in the Bill. I think that the Minister will hardly deny that there is a need for some such simple procedure as is suggested. The amending Clause, as I have drafted it, very likely contains certain defects, but, if the Minister and the Government will accept in principle what I desire to lay down, namely, the necessity of providing an easier and inexpensive form of appeal from the aggrieved travelling public, I should be prepared to accept seine modification of its terms, or an assurance that in principle my proposal will be favourably considered. In the circumstances, I shall be content to leave it at that, if the Government will accept in principle the need which I have demonstrated for providing the means of access of a small number of the travelling public, and not confine the whole procedure of the Bill to that laid down in 282 Clauses 29 and 30 limiting it to action by a local authority. There are obvious difficulties in having to move a local authority to take the necessary procedure in a matter of this kind. They may regard complaints as not sufficiently important or as not coming properly within their sphere of action. There is an historical parallel for the machinery which I suggest. It exists in the machinery based on the Tramway Acts and is part of the law now applicable to the London United Tramways. It is already an existing statute. It is simple, inexpensive, ready and convenient.
§ 7.54 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSONI have not previously intervened in the Debate on this Bill, but I do so on this occasion, and I support my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan), because I think it is essential that there should be some safeguard of this kind in the Bill. The Bill, as everybody acknowledges, creates a monopoly. It may be a necessary monopoly, but, if it creates a monopoly, the travelling public, who are the people who will be particularly concerned with the operation of the Bill should have some safeguard against abuse by that monopoly. I represent a constituency in Essex, and the London passenger transport area cuts right across my constituency, and a considerable number of the people living in outlying areas around London who come up to London every day for their daily business and to earn their daily bread are vitally affected by the Bill. There is no doubt that, if there is a falling off in services or if there is an increase of fares, they are the people who will primarily be affected by it. For that reason, I think that it is necessary that one should voice their fears in this particular respect.
My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out that the new Clause may be defective. Since we put it down upon the Paper we have observed one defect in it which the Minister himself possibly has also observed. Charging the expenses of any inquiry to the board might lead to frivolous complaints. We see no objection—and I am sure that the Minister will see no objection—to safeguarding that position by ensuring that there shall be no public charge for the inquiry unless the case is proved. That will prevent any 283 frivolous inquiry. It is obvious that you must have some safeguard to prevent frivolous inquiries. He might think that the number inserted in the proposed new Clause as being entitled to make an appeal is not sufficiently high. We do not hold any particularly strong views upon that subject, but we hold strong views upon the principle underlying this matter. The travelling public should have some safeguard against abuse by the monopoly of their powers. After all, they are providing the monopoly with their sinews of war, and, therefore, for that reason alone, they are entitled to some consideration. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the Amendment, will try and consider whether he cannot meet us in principle if he is unable to meet us in detail.
§ 7.57 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALAnybody can appreciate the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friends that there should be proper opportunity for securing consideration by the appropriate tribunal of the questions of rates, fares and facilities. I think that my hon. Friend who moved the Clause is under a misapprehension as to what he described as the cumbrousness of the procedure provided for by the Bill. The application by the local authority, which may be made under Clause 29 of the Bill, is not an application to the Minister, who then passes it on to the Railway Rates Tribunal, but it is an application which may be made by the local authority direct to the Railway Rates Tribunal. I should have thought, if you compare the two procedures—that is to say, the procedure in Clause 29 of the Bill as drafted, and the procedure in the new Clause of my hon. Friend—that on the whole the proposals in the Bill are much less cumbrous than his proposal. Let us contrast them. Under the Bill the proposal is, as Clause 29 stands, that the local authority may make an application or a representation to the Railway Rates Tribunal, who thereupon immediately consider the question which has been raised, and they make an order amending the rates or fares. The whole matter is considered by a body which is very familiar with the questions. They are likely to decide them with much more facility and speed than a tribunal which comes freshly to the task, and they are probably dealing with a matter which 284 they have already had before them on one or more occasions as the Act continues to be put into operation.
Take the suggestion of my hon. Friend. His proposal is that inhabitant ratepayers of any district may make a representation, first of all, to the Minister, then the Minister has to direct an inquiry by three referees appointed by him under the Ministry of Transport Act. The three referees, who are not a constantly sitting tribunal like the Railway Rates Tribunal, have to take the matters into their consideration. They then make a report and the Minister is then, as I understand the proposal, a mere agent for carrying out the report of the three referees who are specially appointed to consider the question. Thereupon, an order in accordance with the three referees is made and the costs of the inquiry are to be paid by the Board to the Minister upon his certificate.
I submit that the Committee will have no hesitation in feeling that the procedure under my hon. Friend's Clause is very much more cumbrous. It includes at least one important subject more than the procedure under Clause 29. It really comes down to this question, whether it is sufficient to leave the local authorities in possession of the powers to make representations as to amendment of the rates and fares. Local authorities include practically every authority that one could think of—the Common Council of the City of London, any Metropolitan borough council, any county borough council, any county council and any urban district council or rural district council—so that you have the widest possible range of bodies who may interest themselves in this question if they think there is sufficient local feeling to justify their action. I do not know why we should not leave local authorities to be put into action by the local inhabitants if they think there is a sufficient body of feeling to justify it. Even one who is sym. pathetic with my hon. Friend would, I think, prefer the plan in the Bill.
There is this additional objection to my hon. Friend's proposals, that the Bill does contain the Clauses to which I have referred, Clause 29 and the two Clauses following it, and Clause 105 defining the local authorities. If the proposed new Clause were to be accepted, it would result in a duplication of machinery for 285 considering this question, and you might very likely have the Railway Rates Tribunal making an order which was inconsistent and unworkable side by side with an order made by the Minister as a result of the report of the three referees. I cannot think it would conduce to convenience or efficiency if we had two schemes which covered the same ground and only differed in respect of the persons or authority that put the appropriate body into action. For these reasons I feel bound, in spite of my natural anxiety to do something to please my hon. Friends, to resist their proposal.
§ 8.3 p.m.
§ Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGANMay I ask whether I read Clause 30, Sub-section 2, correctly?
where any such representation is made to the Minister ho shall refer the matter for consideration and report to the Advisory Committee.I think the learned Attorney-General thought that was to come out.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThat Sub-section has been omitted by an Amendment we have made already.
§ Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGANI apologise for not having my copy of the Bill up-to-date. May I ask the Attorney-General whether he would have any objection to the body of resident ratepayers being put on the same footing, if he prefers the altered machinery in the Bill to my proposal, as a local authority, and bring them within the machinery of Clause 29 as amended? Admittedly he has made a case against the particular machinery as proposed in the Clause, and I think the case is good against my alternative proposals, but cannot he go so far as to meet it to this extent as to put a body of the travelling public on the same footing as the local authority?
§ 8.5 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI should have thought that undesirable from my hon. Friend's point of view. If a local authority realises it has the duty of looking after the interests of those among the travelling public who are its constituents, they are likely to take action in a proper case. If there is an alternative method of stirring up the Rates Tribunal by the action of 20 inhabitants, I should think the local authority is likely to say, "We have plenty to do; let the 20 inhabitants do their own work. They can set the ball 286 rolling." I should have thought it better, from my hon. Friend's point of view, to let the local authority realise this.
§ 8.6 p.m.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI do not think the learned Attorney-General has quite recognised the grievance of the travelling public in an area outside London, for instance, where the local authority might not necessarily be at all conversant with the matter. Many members of the authority quite possibly would be local people who never travelled up and down at all.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
§ Sir GEORGE HUMEI am authorised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) to say that, in view of the undertaking given by the Attorney-General earlier in the proceedings, he does not move his proposed new Clause— (Establishment of joint committee of board and staff).