§ 49. Sir A. KNOXasked the Minister of Transport on what grounds he, on the 9th October, allowed the London General Omnibus Company to extend its services between Slough and Windsor, thereby reversing the decision of the 22nd May, 1931, by the traffic commissioner, southern area, in view of the fact that many small owners had already been refused a licence to continue existing services, their applications being in almost every case opposed by the London General Omnibus Company on the ground that the services on this road were already sufficient?
§ Mr. PYBUSThe company lodged appeals against certain decisions of the commissioners on four through services on a route of which the road in question formed part. An inquiry was held into 845 these appeals on 6th August, and after careful consideration of the report of the proceedings at that inquiry and of all the relevant circumstances, my predecessor decided to make orders on the commissioners requiring them to modify their decision in regard to three of the four appeals.
§ Sir A. KNOXIn view of the fact that this decision of the Minister is in direct variance with the expressed intention of the Minister in the House that he will give a fair deal to the small owners, will he reconsider this case?
§ Sir A. KNOXIs it not a fact that eight small omnibus owners were turned off this bottle-neck through Eton, and that extended facilities have since been given to the General Omnibus Company?
§ Mr. PYBUSIt is obviously impossible, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate, to discuss the details of cases, which take days to try, across the Floor of the House at Question Time. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has anything in his mind that he would like me to investigate, I shall be glad to go into it.
§ Sir A. KNOXHow is one to get justice for one's constituents in these matters?
§ Sir JOSEPH NALLWill the hon. Gentleman consider the relationship between the principle involved in this question and that involved in the preceding question?
§ 55. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that small omnibus owners are not permitted to present their own case when before the commissioners and are compelled to go to the cost of employing counsel; and will he take steps to alter this system?
§ Mr. PYBUSThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is open to anyone who is entitled to appear as applicant or objector, to present his case personally before the traffic commissioners.
§ Mr. BATEYIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that in the north of England the Commissioners have refused to hear small omnibus owners except when represented by counsel?
§ Mr. PYBUSI am not aware of such a case, and I doubt if one exists, but I shall be glad if the hon. Member will lay the facts before me.
§ Mr. LAWSONCan the hon. Gentleman take steps to simplify this procedure? Is he not aware that the great combines can employ very costly counsel, and that the small man has therefore no chance; and can the hon. Gentleman take steps to prohibit legal representatives in this matter and let applicants put their own cases?
§ Mr. PYBUSI had previously indicated my desire to see that everyone appearing before the Commissioners has an absolutely fair chance, but I obviously cannot go so far as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
§ Mr. LAWSONWill the hon. Gentleman just visit one of these courts when they are examining cases? I am sure that he will agree that the small man has no chance.
§ Lieut.-Commander AGNEWIs the Minister aware that some small omnibus owners have had to give up their right of appeal because of the expense involved?
§ Captain P. MACDONALDIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable expense in having typewritten copies of the evidence taken, and will he undertake that copies of the evidence will be distributed by the Commissioners?
§ Mr. PYBUSTypewritten copies of the evidence are only necessary in the event of cases going to appeal.