HC Deb 19 July 1933 vol 280 cc1918-34
Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert instead thereof the words: (2) The licensing authority in exercising his discretion shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as those of persons providing, facilities for transport and, in particular, shall have regard in title case of an application for an "A" licence or for a "B" licence,—

  1. (a) where the applicant is the holder of an existing licence of the same class, to the extent to which he is authorised to use goods vehicles thereunder for the carriage of goods for hire or reward;
  2. (b) to the previous conduct of the applicant in the capacity of a carrier of goods;
  3. (c) to the number and type of vehicles proposed to be used under the licence;
and, in the case of an application for a "B" licence, also to the extent to which the applicant intends that the vehicles proposed to be used under the licence shall be used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward. This is really a redraft of the Subsection in the Bill, with the addition of the words: shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as those of persons providing, facilities for transport. There was considerable discussion of this Sub-section in Committee, and the Minister gave an undertaking that before the Report stage he would consider a suitable form of words. The redrafted Sub-section carries out the wish that was expressed in the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

9.8 p.m.

Sir G. RENTOUL

I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: (3) In any case in which the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence which differs from the licence applied for or imposes conditions to which the applicant does not agree the licensing authority shall if requested by the applicant state the reasons for his decision. I hope that the Minister may take the view that this Amendment is a very reasonable one, and that it deserves his sympathetic consideration and acceptance. Surely it is only common fairness that an applicant to whom a licence is refused should, at his request, have a written statement of the reasons which have brought about such a refusal, in order, if for no other purpose, that he may consider his position and decide whether he has any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. I moved in Committee an Amendment which had a, similar design but one which went rather further than this Amendment. That Amendment would have required a statement of the reasons to be given in writing by the licensing authority in the case of every refusal. I agreed with the Minister that that was unnecessary, but at the same time I confess that the reply which the Minister gave on the point hardly did him justice. He generally is so very convincing, from his own point of view, but on that occasion his reply was entirely unsatisfactory. He said that the reason why he could not accept the Amendment was not that he was unsympathetic to the object aimed at, but that he thought the Amendment would not attain the effect that I had in mind. His reason was that the licensing authority would probably fulfil this duty, if it was placed upon it, in a merely formal and perfunctory manner, which would be of no assistance to the applicant.

There might be something in that contention if you were to put a statutory obligation on the licensing authority to give a statement in writing in every case, but the Minister will see that the Amendment I am now moving differs very substantially from the Amendment which I moved in Committee, because this Amendment will require the licensing authority to give a statement in writing only at the request of the applicant. The Minister also said in Committee that it would surely be sufficient for the applicant if he got a statement of the reasons for the refusal when he lodged his appeal. That seemed to me entirely to miss the point. What I was anxious about was that the applicant should have an opportunity of considering and if necessary taking advice as to his prospects of success on appeal, and that he should not be put to the inconvenience and expense of having actually to lodge an appeal before he could obtain a statement in writing of the reasons for refusing his application.

I think that the Minister accepts the principle of this Amendment, because during the Committee stage he accepted, in Clause 11, Subsection (2), a provision that at the request of the applicant a statement of the reasons in writing should be given in every case where there had been a revocation or suspension of a licence. If there is to be a statement in writing in those cases, why on earth should there not equally be a statement in writing when the application for a licence is refused in the first place? It is a, perfectly simple thing for the authority to state a case, as it were, when asked to do so. The Minister said in Committee that he wanted the applicant to get the best he could get, and he was very anxious that any applicant whose application was refused should not go away with a sense of grievance. Unless the Minister accepts this Amendment, that is certain to happen. My original Amendment, the Minister suggested, might work in practice to the detriment of the applicant. That criticism cannot apply to the Amendment I am now moving, because it refers only to a case where the applicant makes a formal application for a statement in writing of the reason for the refusal of a licence, and it also covers the case where there is a variation of the conditions on which a licence is granted.

9.13 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would say to hon. Members, put yourselves in the position of one of these road hauliers, particularly those of more humble origin who have gone to a licensing authority with an application for an "A" or "B" licence. The application is turned down. The applicant is not told why. There may be no evidence at all given in his presence. At any rate he is told that he cannot have a licence. He naturally feels that he is perfectly justified in his application or he would not have made it. He goes away feeling that an injustice has been done to him. He is hardly in a position to know what step to take next. He may consider consulting a solicitor, to see whether the case can be taken to a higher court, but, having gone to the expense of that consultation, having taken the necessary step to put his case before a higher authority in an attempt to get what he believes to be justice, at last the licensing authority declares a case which shows that it would be quite hopeless for him to pursue the matter further because he is entirely disqualified for some reason from holding this licence. Had that information been in the man's possession at the start, when the licence was first refused, he would have been in a much better position to know what his next step should be. I suggest that as this proposal could not possibly entail any great amount of work on the licensing authority, it is a simple act of justice which should appeal to all Members of the House.

9.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

This Amendment differs from the Amendment which was introduced in Committee but we still think it is not reasonable to insist in a Statute that the licensing authority should give his reasons for refusing a licence or for imposing conditions on the licence with which the applicant does not agree. If we were to put that onus on the licensing authority it would not materially help the applicant. It might in a sense make things more difficult for him because if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) is right in what he said in Committee this might become a mere cut-and-dried form—

Sir G. RENTOUL

The hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind that there is a material difference between this Amendment and the Amendment which I moved in Committee. The Amendment which was moved in Committee required a statement in writing in every case. I agree that that procedure might become formal and perfunctory but surely it would not be so in the circumstances contemplated by this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I think I made it clear that I recognised the difference between this Amendment and the Amendment moved in Committee. All the same I do not think it amounts to much in the interest of the applicant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I think it is obvious that the licensing authority could not be expected on every occasion to give reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am ready to admit that the change which has been made in this proposal from that put forward in Committee has affected the position and perhaps it would be better in all the circumstances if hon. Members allowed me to consider this matter further in order to see if we cannot propose some change in the Bill which might meet the requirements of the Amendment. I cannot promise that that will be done, but I think the change to which I have referred does alter the position to some extent. Now that my hon. Friend the Minister is in his place I have no doubt that he will answer any further questions which hon. Members may wish to put on this point.

9.18 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

In order to give the Minister an opportunity of considering this proposal to which I feel certain he will consent once he has considered it, I desire to say a few words upon it. The point is as to whether it should be compulsory on the licensing authority who refuses to grant a licence, to state, at the request of the applicant, the reasons for his decision. Clearly there is a multitude of reasons, any of which might operate and it seems almost a temptation to the licensing authority not to give any proper reasons for his decision if he is not called upon in this way to do so. The Minister knows the temptation that there is to persons like arbitrators not to state reasons for a decision, if they can avoid doing so, because they may be wrong. Surely this is a case in which an applicant is entitled to have specified to him, if he requires it, the reasons for a refusal and in view of the altered form in which the Amendment is now presented, compared with the form in which it was proposed in Committee, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is prepared to accept it.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG

May I, in supporting the plea that reasons should be stated by the licensing authority, endeavour to clear up a misconception which was in the Minister's mind on Committee and which seems still to be in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister said in Committee: it seems to me that the general practice of the commissioners is to give at the hearing their reasons for the rejection of the application. No doubt that will continue to be their practice in these cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A.), 14th June, 1933, col. 236.] I assure the Minister that the giving of reasons at the time of the hearing is the exception rather than the rule. In any case, if the Minister is right in saying that it is the general practice, why not indicate in this Bill that that is so? It is erroneous to suggest that the applicant would be prejudiced in any way if the Amendment were accepted. There is no reason why he should not be given not only the reasons at the time of the decision by the licensing authority but also the more detailed observations which would be forthcoming in the event of a decision to appeal after hearing the reasons for the refusal. The Amendment might result in considerably reducing the number of appeals.

9.22 p.m

Sir B. PETO

Before the Minister replies, I ask him to consider in what respect this proposal could possibly benefit the applicant. It is obvious that even under the words now proposed, which differ from those proposed upstairs, it would be easy to give an ordinary general answer, as, for instance, that it was not in the public interest or something of that kind to grant the licence. Suppose the applicant got what he considered to be a conclusive answer, one which satisfied him and which specifically applied to his case, what is he going to do about it? I do not see in what respect it benefits him to impose this peculiar compulsory condition on a tribunal, to state reasons for its decision. I do not think it would be in the public interest to appoint a tribunal of this kind and then fetter it in the way suggested by the Amendment.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I apologise to the House for not having been present during the whole of this discussion but I think I have managed to pick up the threads of it. I think those who were present at the discussion upstairs realised my point of view. I was as anxious as anyone else to help applicants as much as possible, but I thought and I still think, that the applicant would gain little from any compulsion upon the authority to state the reasons for such a decision. Reasons could be given in a way which would satisfy this proposed provision but would actually leave the applicant very little wiser than he was before. We have just dealt with an Amendment which sets out the considerations which the licensing authority is to have in mind. It would be easy for him to give as his reason for refusing a licence that having regard to the interest of the public generally, including those persons who require as well as those who provide facilities, he was exercising his discretion in refusing the licence. That would satisfy the terms of the Amendment but it would leave the applicant no better off than he was before.

I objected to the Amendment as moved in Committee because it made this condition compulsory in all cases. I thought then as I still think that a compulsory provision of that kind would have a tendency to cause the licensing authority, instead of giving the applicant all the information he wanted, merely to satisfy the minimum requirements of the law. In fact, such an Amendment would, if anything, have prejudiced the applicant rather than help him. I agree, however, that the position is rather altered by the words which have been added to this Amendment, because it will be possible for him to make these inquiries. Probably the habit would grow up of not asking for the reasons for the decisions in trivial cases or cases where, obviously, it would be quite an unnecessary burden on the licensing authorities. I think the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)—although I rather agree with him as to the actual value that this provision will be to an applicant—went a little wrong in his suggestion that the applicant could get no value from having the reasons for the decision. As I take it, the object of letting the applicant know the reason is to enable him to decide whether he wants to appeal, and from that point of view it is clearly of benefit to him. In view of the alteration which has been made, although, frankly, I do not think this is going to be of much benefit to the applicant, I feel now that it will not be the positive disadvantage to him which I was afraid it would be in the earlier Amendment, and in these circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

9.27 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

As I was a supporter of this Amendment, may I thank the Minister for accepting it, and say that in accepting it I think he is probably doing better than he himself anticipates. When I read the proceedings in the Committee, I understood the Minister as having said that the present general practice of the commissioners under the 1930 Act, when announcing their decision, was to give their reasons for so doing. I cannot believe that the result will be that when ail obligation is laid on them to give their reasons to the person to whom a licence has been refused, and who wishes to have the reasons given, that then they will give some dry, formal answer that will really afford no information, whereas when that obligation has been laid on them under previous Act, they would have given their real reasons. Human nature may be strange, but if the reasons are at present given, as the Minister said, I cannot think it will be a useless boon to the applicant who asks for the reasons, and I think he will be able to get what, on the Minister's authority, the commissioners are already prepared to give. Therefore, we are grateful to the Minister for giving us what, I think, will be of more benefit to the applicant than the Minister himself appreciated.

Amendment agreed to.

9.31 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: An application for renewal 4 an existing licence shall not be refused except on the grounds on which a licence may be suspended or revoked. This question was raised in Committee, and debated at some length, but I think that anybody who reads the discussions there will feel that it was very inconclusive, and that the reasons given for refusing to accept the Amendment were such that, on examination, they do not carry conviction. There were two reasons adduced by those who moved similar Amendment upstairs. The first was that to know the future and to have some reasonable certainty in regard to the future helps a good business rather than a business of a less reliable character. When you get some certainty as to the future, you get a good class of person, into a business, and give him an inducement to improve it, to introduce the best conditions and apply the best organisation, and, on the whole, to make the business the most effective, on the one hand, and the most creditable on the other

That is one point in favour of the Amendment which was so amply argued upstairs that I do not wish to reproduce the arguments tonight. The other point was that, of course, if an Amendment of this kind is granted, those who at present employ those vehicles for which they will obtain "C" licences, will very likely be willing to have the whole of their cartage undertaken by vehicles which would have to apply for "A" licences. I do not wish to elaborate that, for the case was fairly amply substantiated in Committee. I wish, however, to lay before the House the objection which the Minister made to the Amendment. He said: I wish that the hon. Member for Mansfield in his interesting speech, had gone one step further and told us what he was going to do on this Amendment. I rather gather that hon. Members opposite intend to support the Amendment because it would increase the chaos and confusion and thus lead, ultimately, to their desired solution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 25th May, 1933; col. 145.] Is that a reasonable statement of the results to which this Amendment would lead? I put, perhaps, too briefly for those who have not read the Debate, the argument in favour of the Amendment, but Members should ask themselves how on earth this Amendment can lead to greater chaos and confusion? I wonder if the Minister himself, or anyone in the Ministry of Transport, has got real statistics showing the degree of congestion which is due to lorries at this moment, on what roads and under what conditions? As far as statistics are available, they show that far the greatest congestion on the road is due to passenger vehicles at certain times of the day, and especially at week-ends. Outside the great towns on the great main roads, if anyone were to stand and take note of the actual number of vehicles passing—as has been done on one or two occasions—he would probably find the amount of congestion caused by lorries is almost negligible as compared with that of other vehicles.

To say that the objection to this is that it would lead to a large amount of congestion, seems to me to be speaking without any data or facts to support such a contention. How on earth could a provision of this kind cause more confusion or congestion? If there is one thing which is likely, it is that there might be a transference of those vehicles which would in present conditions be run under "C" licences to the class of vehicles which will be run under "A" licences. As everybody knows, the vehicle run under a "C" licence will be used by the private owner in order to take his goods, and it will have to return empty, at any rate in 99 cases out of 100, if it is to continue to be used under a "C" licence and not a "B" licence, but if, as a result of getting a concession of this kind, he has the use of vehicles run under an "A" licence, it will reduce the number of vehicles, because you will have more vehicles running full to and fro, and fewer vehicles running empty half of their time.

I got up to deal particularly with one of the objections put forward by the Minister, but as to the case for saying that a renewal shall not be refused except on the grounds on which a licence may be suspended or revoked, I submit that it is just, and I do not think it can possibly controvert the objects of the Bill, assuming those objects to be desirable and on the hypothesis that they are. What is wanted under the Bill is to create a better organisation of road transport, to get owners to run their vehicles properly. If he could look forward to the future with confidence, the good owner would be encouraged. If he could have some security as regards the future, he would be much more likely to spend money and to be willing to perfect his organisation. I can see only good—I cannot see that there is any disadvantage—in giving him greater security of tenure.

Let anybody in the House envisage the occasion arising on which a person who now has a licence would be refused without having committed an offence for which it could be suspended or revoked. It is not easy to imagine such a case, and I can scarcely imagine that it would be the case unless there was such a development of other transit facilities by competition, or such a diminution of custom on the road, that the Traffic Commissioner could argue that the facilities then would be excessive and therefore would have to be reduced. That seems to be a contingency which, under normal circumstances, is so unlikely as to be able to be dismissed from mind. Then why not give this extra security? It can only be for good. It cannot increase, but can only relieve, congestion on the ordinary routes, and I submit for the Minister's consideration once again that, in the form in which we have brought the Amendment forward now, it is one which he might accept with advantage.

9.39 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON

I desire to support the Amendment. I will not go into the arguments which my right hon. Friend has used, but I should like to add that any licensed haulier who is carrying on a goods business would not be encouraged to continue that business on a proper scale if, in a year or two years' time, he might be deprived of his vehicles. I am not speaking at the moment from the point of view of the haulier, but from that of the public who use these vehicles. If that method of haulage is discouraged, it will reduce the methods of transport now available to the manufacturers, and I am sure that the last thing that the Minister would wish to do would be to do anything to discourage the best and most economic form of transport being at the disposal of the manufacturers and industrialists of this country. For that reason and for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) made an interesting speech, based largely upon a quotation which he gave the House to understand was the view that I had expressed upon a similar Amendment in Committee. If he looked again at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee, he would see that the sentence that he chose was what I had attributed to hon. Members opposite as their reason for supporting this Amendment, and therefore perhaps the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman built round that sentence lose some of their value. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am afraid that I was attributing motives to hon. Members opposite which were so unreasonable in their character that they would not be applicable, of course, to a Member of the Government.

I am afraid that I must return the same answer now as I did in Committee, namely, that I am not prepared to accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be, once a man had had an application granted, to give him a vested interest in that form of transport for the rest of his life. No matter what changes take place in these competitive times, no matter how many more efficient competitors try to increase their share of the transport work, however inefficiently or incompetently he may be running his own business, there he will remain with a vested interest in a number of vehicles. That is a position which seems to me to be destructive of that very private enterprise of which hon. Members who support the Amendment are standing in favour.

My right hon. Friend did not tell the House, when he was quoting from my speech in Committee, that I said then that, although I was not prepared to accept any Amendment which conferred this vested right upon the holder of a licence, I was prepared to consider some words which would show to the licensing authority that it was to extend some kind of bias or preference in favour of an existing holder as compared with a new applicant; and hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that at a subsequent stage I did move an Amendment to this very Clause 6 which makes it plain that one of the considerations which the licensing authority has to take into account when exercising its discretion is the extent to which the applicant is authorised to use goods vehicles under an existing licence of the same class. I thought then—and, as a matter of fact, I think all hon. Members supporting the Amendment accepted it—that that fulfilled the promise that I gave, and that it gives some definite preference to the existing licence-holder, without giving him an inalienable vested interest, which I could not for a moment admit and which, I think the House will agree, would not be in the best interests either of the transport users or of the transport providers of this country.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I am disappointed with the Minister's speech. He referred to a vested interest, but if he wants to avoid the creation of a vested interest, he should drop the Bill, because the purpose of the Bill is to create semi-monopolies. It is going to be decided who is to be allowed to continue in business. We have only to apply the same principle to grocers, tobacconists, newsagents, and a few others, and private enterprise as we understand it comes to to end.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Hear, hear.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am not in the least surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should cheer that observation. That is his purpose, and I am certain that on this issue he entirely sides with the Minister. But why should some commissioner decide whether or not a man is to be allowed to continue in business The Minister said that you may have thoroughly incompetent people. If you have incompetent people, nature provides its own remedy, and they go out of business, they go bankrupt, which is the natural way to elim- inate them. Provided that anybody can get a licence freely, natural causes will eliminate the incompetent. Now we are to have a commission to decide who or who is not incompetent. Personally, I am unsympathetic with the general trend of this kind of legislation. It is a denial of those principles of freedom in which I have always believed. I find that a man is not to have a renewal of his licence except on the conditions under which a licence can be properly withdrawn from him, and that seems to me to conflict with all the things in which I have believed. I am very disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

9.46 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. II. Williams) was, I always thought, a great protagonist of control. I seem to remember him talking about tariff commissions and the necessity for control—

Mr. WILLIAMS

The hon. and learned Gentleman will not discover any speech of mine in which I have advocated control. If you establish a tariff, everybody is free to import or export as much as he likes.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The hon. Member knows that when you put on tariffs you control the different industries of the country, and that, I thought, was his object. The object of these commissioners is to put on control, and now the hon. Member is protesting because the Government want to control the transport industry of the country. We are delighted that the Minister has realised the necessity for control and the necessity for eventually doing away with private enterprise. We are only sorry that he is not doing it rather faster.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

The speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) ought to convince the Minister that there is something in this Amendment. I want particularly to put to the Minister that there is no provision for compensation in this Bill for any man who loses his business. That is a dangerous precedent to give to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. I can understand that he is pleased with this Amendment, because this kind of legislation will enable him, if he is ever in the position to do so, to carry out the great principles which he so readily enunciates. I want to ask the Minister seriously if some protection cannot be given to a man who holds a licence. It is a dangerous thing if at the end of two years a man can lose his business, in which a capital of £30,000 or £40,000 may be involved. With the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman ringing in his ears, he ought to put in some Amendment to protect the interests of these men who run motor transport and to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman having such a nice peg on which to hang his hat.

9.48 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

I do not find myself often in strong disagreement with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but his speech and every speech I have heard entirely ignores the main purpose of this Bill. It is that we should ultimately arrive at some method of co-ordination between various means of transport, and, in order to decide what licences are to be granted, we set up a licensing authority. The Minister has already inserted in the Bill an Amendment in Sub-section (2, a) to provide that the licensing authority must take into consideration the extent to which the applicant is authorised to use goods vehicles under an existing licence of the same class. There, I think, you have all the protection that anyone can claim to have if the licensing authority is to have any authority whatever as to how many goods vehicles are to be licensed, and whether it is in tine public interest that more should be licensed. Therefore, while the hon. Member for South Croydon talks about fettering the industry and so forth, he ignores the fact that the roads of the country are limited. We cannot allow everything to rip, and that is the reason that this Bill has been introduced. If we are to give an advantage to a previous holder of a licence that his case should be specially considered, it seems to me that the Minister has gone as far as he can.

9.50 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND

I support the Amendment because I think that it strikes at the fundamental principle which should appeal to every Member on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said what was perfectly true. For the first time the authorities are going to be in a position to put a complete stop to a man's livelihood. I know that the Minister has gone far from his original intention by inserting in the Bill certain words instructing the licensing authority that, in granting or refusing an application for a licence, he should have regard to the conduct of the man who has had a licence in the past and the way in which be has run his business. That is all right so far as it goes, but I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) what he would say if the Government were placed in a similar position with regard to the railways, and if they could suddenly come down and say, "There is plenty of accommodation on the roads at the present time for carrying goods between Birmingham and London, and therefore we propose to close down the railways from Birmingham to London without any compensation. This is a serious business. Road transport has come to stay.

Sir B. PETO

We must assume, if there is to be any analogy, that the roads belong to the road transport contractors.

Mr. SPEAKER

We are getting a long way from the Amendment.

Captain STRICKLAND

This is a fundamental principle, for it places in the hands of a single individual, subject to an appeal to a tribunal, the power to stop the business of a man who has been engaged in the transport industry for many years and has conducted his business efficiently and without breaking the law. You cannot run a road haulage business for nothing. Road haulage vehicles are extraordinarily expensive forms of [...]musement, and if you are going to sink, Say, £10,000 in motor haulage vehicles, and suddenly the business ceases through no fault of your own, but through what is deemed by an individual to be in the public interest, there should be some provision for compensation out of public funds. Suppose a man has been running his business for 18 months of the two years under an "A" licence, and one of his vehicles wants replacing: Is it reasonable to suppose that he will plunge into heavy additional expense to replace his fleet when, at the end of two years, he may have his industry taken away at the will of one particular man? What sort of a test will be placed on the running of a man's business? If lie has broken the law he deserves all he gets, but what I want to know is what test has the Minister in mind which is to be brought into operation in deciding whether the man's livelihood is to be taken away?

This is a new departure. I know of no other business where this is to be applied. In the case of other tradesmen or manufacturers there would be a storm of protest if the State were to come in willy nilly with power to destroy their businesses. What is the test in deciding whether the man's livelihood is to be taken away? Is it a question of his efficiency? If it is a matter of efficiency then, as the hon. Member for South Croydon. (Mr. H. Williams) said, time itself will eliminate the inefficient man. One cannot run a business unless he is efficient, one has to keep up to the scratch, and the inefficient man will in any case disappear. What test have the Government in mind in deciding whether an efficient man who has kept within the limits of the law and run his business in a legitimate way is to have his business taken away, either in the public interest or for some other reason?

Amendment negatived.