HC Deb 26 July 1934 vol 292 cc2135-9

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 7, line 9, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 10, after "the," insert "qualifications."

2.32 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

As will be seen from the wording, this concerns the meaning and sense of the Section and not any alteration of the law.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 8, line 11, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 21, at the end, insert. (c) for ensuring that a person submitting himself for a test and failing to pass that test shall not be eligible to submit himself to another test by the same or any other person before the expiration of a prescribed period except under an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the power conferred by the next sucr.eeding subsection.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

When the Bill was before the House of Commons, it was pointed out that a man, having failed in one test, might immediately go and submit himself to another officer. The object of this Subsection is to avoid that, just as the next Sub-section is to ensure that he has fair play and can have another chance.

Sir W. BRASS

Would it be possible under this Amendment to prescribe the special period, because in the Amendment it speaks of the "expiration of a prescribed period"? Does not the Minister think it would be better, instead of a "prescribed period" which is not defined, that so many months should be included?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I will, in accordance with what I understand to be the usual practice, consult the representatives of organisations as to what would be a reasonable period.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

Has the Minister consulted the representative organizations on this point? Is he aware that a person who has submitted himself for the test and has not been successful, may feel a grievance because of the result? Should not he, in fairness, be entitled to be tested elsewhere? I think that was the intention when the Bill was before the Committee upstairs.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

There is the next Sub-section.

Mr. GRENFELL

That does not give a man any claim to be tested elsewhere. I should like the Minister to give an assurance on this point.

2.35 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

This Amendment goes actually beyond what we discussed in Committee upstairs. We were a little perturbed as to what would happen if the person who conducted a test had a prejudice against somebody and might turn that person down. I cannot think that the court in such circumstances would give a favourable decision, because there would be no obvious kind of reason to bring up against that prejudiced person. It is a grave matter, because such persons are not entitled to go to another person to have a further test unless they get an order from the court of summary jurisdiction. I think this is carrying the test to a point where, if it comes into operation, you are certain to get cases which will mean that later on the Government of the day will be forced to amend the Act.

2.36 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

We discussed this actual problem, and the Minister told us he saw no objection at all to men going from one examiner to another, because, if a man failed with examiner A, he would be bound to fail with examiner B. Consequently, there was no danger in it, even if he went all over the country trying to pass the test. Under this arrangement, it is obvious that anybody who is a little groggy as to his competence will find out who is the easiest man with whom to pass the test. I do not see any advantage in this Amendment, but great disadvantage and objection to putting in useless words.

Mr. JANNER

I do not know why the Minister cannot tell us what is to be the prescribed time, for that is a matter of very grave importance.

2.37 a.m.

Mr. CAPORN

What objection is there to having a further examination? The applicant has to provide his own car and has to pay a fee which presumably covers any expense to the State or to the local authority. Why, if a man afterwards gets some further instruction—it may be within a few hours—should he not be allowed to submit himself for a further examination?

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 24, at the end, insert: (6) A court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which a person who has submitted himself for a test of competence to drive resides shall have power on the application of that person to determine whether the test was properly conducted in accordance with the regulations, and, if it appears to the court that the test was not so conducted, the court may order that the applicant shall be eligible to submit himself to another test before the expiration of the period prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection, and may order that any fee payable by the applicant in respect of the test shall not be paid or, if it has been paid, shall be repaid.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

2.38 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS

This new Sub-section says that a court of summary jurisdiction shall have power to determine whether a test was properly conducted before the expiration of the period prescribed. I want to ask what person in the court is capable to decide whether a test was a proper one and was carried out properly. Is the court going to have experts who can say whether it has been carried out all right? If that be not so, I do not see how they are going to come to any judgment upon it.

2.39 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

We hope this Clause will never have to be used, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Apprehension was expressed that there might be some exceptional and improper methods, where a man might be deliberately prevented from getting qualification, although he was entitled to it. It is obviously a very real safeguard, and I do not think we need go into the question of how it will be done. If there be this right to go to court and tell the circumstances, I think the. House will agree that that is a safeguard. After all, if there should be any difficulty here, it is not a matter which is incapable of being dealt with. We have no reason to anticipate any sort of unfair play or action in dealing with these tests. We think it is just that there should be this right to go to court, for any unfairness or improper disqualification is just as much susceptible of proof as anything else.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 31, at end, insert: