HC Deb 22 December 1937 vol 330 cc2127-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Dugdale.]

11.10 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I should like to raise a matter which arises out of a question which I put to the Minister of Transport a few days ago respecting an application for an additional licence for a lorry, which was made originally in April, 1936. I should like at the outset to express my regret at the very curt way in which the Minister dealt with this question. It has been a subject of a considerable amount of comment from many hon. Members that he was extremely curt. Briefly, the facts are these. Application was made before the licensing authority in the East Midland area for a variation of licence, in April, 1936, 20 months ago. On 9th July of that year inquiry was instituted at Nottingham and ultimately adjourned. On 8th October the inquiry was continued at Leicester. On 20th October, 1936, the inquiry was resumed at Leicester and the application was refused. There was another case of an application to take over an existing "A" licence from a firm of hauliers in Leicester. That application was made in December, 1936, and heard at Nottingham on 4th February this year. Application was made to the licensing authority on the 3rd March, in respect of an additional vehicle. It is always the same case, which goes on continually. Finally, it came to appeal on 13th October of this year and the appeal was allowed on the 7th December last, a matter of 20 months since the first application was made.

The Appeal Tribunal spoke very clearly about the action of the licensing authority, and allowed costs amounting to £60, when they granted the appeal. It is obvious that those costs are of an unusual amount and show what the Appeal Tribunal thought of the licensing authority. The total legal charges in respect of that one 2½ ton lorry came to £322 17s. 10d. Deducting the £60, the amount is £262 17s. 10d., which is the figure given to me since I asked the question. These are very high legal charges in order to get one licence for a 2½ ton lorry. The Minister in his reply to-night may say that the lawyers managed to get too much. I agree. I consider that the solicitors were not doing their job properly, but the Law Society can deal with them. That is only part of the problem.

It is with the licensing authority that I wish to deal, that is, a Mr. Stirk. I consider that on the evidence the Minister should see that Mr. Stirk gets sacked, because he is not capable of carrying out his job. If the Minister says that he has not powers to deal with the licensing authority, then he must get powers, or this House must see to it that a licensing authority which cannot mete out justice and whose whole line of conduct was full of injustice must not be allowed to continue in that position. While I am on the question of the lawyers, it may be complained that the lawyers were poor, but I would point out that competent solicitors and counsel have very often refused to take any case in which they would have to appear before that man, because they know that justice will not be meted out by him as the licensing authority. This is not a question of being up against a licensing authority. It is not a question of 10, 20 or 50 complaints but it is a general series of complaints throughout the whole of that area. There is only one other area which has such a bad name as this area, and that is in East Yorkshire.

Mr. Stirk stated that he refused the application on all the grounds on which he was capable of refusing it. That is not the sort of language to use when you are acting in a judicial capacity and dealing with a judicial matter. I hope that the Minister will take these powers or that this House will exercise its authority and give the Minister power to deal with a man like this, and get rid of an incompetent Traffic Commissioner. In his answer last week the Minister said: I have received no recommendations from the Transport Advisory Council that Parliament should be asked to amend the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. which relate to proceedings before the licensing authorities and the Appeal Tribunal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1937; col. 1164, Vol. 330.] I am surprised to hear the Minister say that he is dependent on advice from outside sources before he can take action. If the Minister sees that action is necessary, surely he has not to wait for advice from outside sources. But apart from that, the report of the Traffic Advisory Council on Services and Rates implies that action has never been taken, and there is also an implied suggestion that the Minister should look into the matter and make some alteration in the method of granting licences. However to-night I wish to confine myself to this Traffic Commissioner and ask the Minister to see that this man is put somewhere else, and not continued in a Traffic Commissioner's job, because he is not capable of carrying it out.

Mr. Oliver

Will the hon. and gallant Member give us the evidence on which he attributes incompetence to the Traffic Commissioner, and also the evidence on which he attributes incompetence to those who acted on behalf of his client?

Colonel Sandeman Allen

The legal charges are sufficient evidence of the incompetence of the solicitors, and I understand that the Law Society has taken the matter up. On the other point, I suggest that the hon. Member should read the judgment of the Appeal Tribunal, because he will find that they turned down the Traffic Commissioner on every point and allowed the appeal. That shows that there is something very wrong. It is not only one but there are a multitude of complaints against this particular Traffic Commissioner. The high costs allowed by the Appeal Tribunal surely shows that they consider there is something wrong in the matter.

11.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson)

The House will realise that I am in some difficulty to-night because the hon. and gallant Member is criticising the procedure of one of the licensing authorities or the Appeal Tribunal, or both, and these are bodies whose jurisdiction has been made entirely independent of the Minister of Transport or of the House, by Act of Parliament. I am sorry he has accused my right hon. Friend of rudeness. I am sure he never intended to be rude but he realised, as I realise, the difficulty of answering a supplementary question when the House has made these tribunals independent of its jurisdiction. The simple facts of the case are these. A haulier applied to the licensing authority for permission to use an additional vehicle. The licensing authority "exercised his discretion" as directed by the 1933 Act, and having heard all the evidence, refused the application. The haulier then exercised his right of appeal to the tribunal, which is also a body outside the jurisdiction of this House or the Minister, and the tribunal granted his appeal and gave him £60 costs. Obviously, in those circumstances, it would be highly improper for me to comment on these decisions of quasi-judicial authorities which are completely independent of my Ministry. Parliament has given my Minister the duty of appointing the licensing authorities and also the members of the appeal tribunal, and Parliament has also given him the power to remove any one of them for inability to perform his duties or for misbehaviour. It has given him no power of varying their decisions, and no duty of reviewing them.

As regards a possible amendment of the 1933 Act, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said, in reply to the question which has caused this discussion: that he had received no recommendations from the Transport Advisory Council that Parliament should be asked to amend the provisions which relate to proceedings. The point I would put to my hon. and gallant Friend is that the Minister has by Statute to consult the Transport Advisory Council in such matters, and that therefore he was perfectly right, in answering such a question, in saying that he had had no recommendation to that effect. I would remind the House that the Transport Advisory Council contains people who are in every form of transport, and who, if they felt that things were seriously wrong, would undoubtedly bring them forward and would advise the Minister. I do not find any great volume of opinion in favour of the restriction of the independence of the licensing authority or of the tribunal. Independence may have its disadvantages, but I think the House will realise that it also has its advantages.

My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the question of costs. The appeal tribunal is empowered by Section 15 of the Act, to award to any party to an appeal such costs as the tribunal considers reasonable, and in this case, which as my hon. and gallant Friend has explained was a rather long-drawn-out case, they awarded £60. I would remind the House that if any person elects to appear in person before the licensing authority or before the tribunal, he may do so, but if, on the other hand, any person feels any doubt as to his ability to present his case, no one would wish to deprive him of his right to invoke the aid of the most skilled legal practitioner whose services he can command. But the House will realise that that is bound to add to his expenses.

I hope that from what I have said my hon. and gallant Friend will see how very strictly circumscribed our powers are in regard to this matter. He has said that there is a big volume of opinion in favour of amending the 1933 Act. I must say that that volume of opinion has not come my way. As it is, my hon. and gallant Friend is asking me to do something which this House has strictly put outside my powers. Therefore, although my answer must remain unsatisfactory to him, at the same time I do not see what else I can do, except to tell him that the Traffic Commissioners, in my opinion, do their work extremely well, and that unless we find that there is this volume of opinion is in the country, obviously it would be ridiculous in the short time since the passage of the 1933 Act to ask the House to take such action as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he had powers, where there is misconduct on the part of a traffic commissioner in dealing with cases, to take action?

Captain Hudson

I said misconduct, and I think the House will understand what that means.

Mr. Speaker

I am not clear whether this Debate is in order at all, or not. Apparently, the hon. and gallant Member is asking the Minister to do something which he has no power to do, and the alternative is that he should amend the Act, a proposal which is quite out of order on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Captain Arthur Evans

On a point of Order. Am I not correct in saying that we understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that his right hon. Friend had power to consult the Traffic Advisory Council? I imagine from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) that his case would be partly met if the Minister took note of the evidence which has been submitted to the House to-night with a view to consulting the Transport Advisory Council to see what action, if any, can be taken.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will advise me on that point.

Captain Hudson

The Transport Advisory Council under the 1933 Act advises the Minister on matters concerning transport, and normally, with cases like this, they would have had it brought to their notice if there was any big volume of opinion that the Act should be amended in some way. All I have told the House is that we have had no communication from the Transport Advisory Council to that effect.

Mr. Petherick

On that point of Order. Is it not in order, if the Minister has power to remove an official for misconduct, which presumably does not only apply to misconduct in the financial sense, to raise it in this House?

Mr. Speaker

If it were a question of misconduct, it might be raised in this House, but I do not think this is a question of misconduct.

Mr. McGovern

Has the Minister any evidence of any volume of opinion against what are considered to be unfair decisions by this commission?

Captain Hudson

No.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.