HC Deb 17 March 1960 vol 619 cc1619-26

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

10.23 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

May I say how grateful I am to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise a matter concerning a constituent of mine, Mr. J. A. Graham-Woollard, who lives at Broken Cross, near Maccles-field. This gentleman was involved in the railway accident at Stockport on 30th November, 1948, and he suffered a fractured pelvis, a dislocated femur head and a fractured right hip. Fifteen or twenty people were killed at the time, and he was very fortunate to escape with his life. He afterwards spent a year at Macclesfield Infirmary, and at the time of the accident his income ceased, with the exception of National Assistance, which after eight weeks was reduced to 16s. per week.

At this time, I was brought into his case as his Member of Parliament, some twelve years ago, and I had a long correspondence with the British Transport Commission about the plight of his family. I succeeded in getting the Commission to make an interim payment on account pending a final settlement in the Law Courts. At Manchester Assizes on 16th July, 1951, Mr. Graham-Woollard's case was taken care of by a former Member of the House, Sir Basil Nield, and very well dealt with, if I may say so. But this was two years and seven months after the accident.

Mr. Graham-Woollard was awarded £7,275 by Mr. Justice Oliver. This may appear to be a large sum, but in the years after the accident he has been unable to do any work whatsoever. He has had to support his wife and two children, prices have risen, and we all know what has happened to the value of money in the past twelve years. The British Transport Commission says that he is a victim of inflation. We all know that. His wife, after the accident, commenced work—she had never done very much of it before—and got busy to support the home, despite the fact that she had undergone a major operation early in 1954. He has a son of 17, who is quite capable of passing a scholarship to Cambridge, but his father is unable to make up the difference in the cost of sending him there. There is also a daughter.

He is doing all he can for his children, but he has spent all his capital. The rent of his home is something over £2 a week. He has now practically no money at all. The sad thing is that had this accident not taken place, in the following January he would have taken up his appointment as general manager of the Air Survey and Transport Company of India, Limited. He was in the aircraft business. He was due to take up his appointment in January, 1949, at a salary, then, of £1,800 per annum, with first-class passage out to India for his family, free accommodation and a car allowance. In fact, his salary was worth much more—probably £3,000 to £4,000 a year—and at that time there was very little taxation.

Mr. Justice Oliver said that the award was for personal pain and suffering endured and to follow, loss of earnings and expenses incurred to date of the hearing on 16th July, 1952. Of course, Mr. Graham-Woollard should have appealed, and there was a strong case, but he was too ill. When a man is broken in body and mind he is in no fit state to think of his personal affairs and to understand the circumstances in which he and his family are placed. I have tried to get him light employment, but for a man who is crippled and in his middle sixties it is extremely difficult. I tried to get him a job with A. V. Roe, Limited, but it did not come off.

I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he has no responsibility and that it is a matter for the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. I have several files of correspondence with Sir Brian Robertson about this case, and he has sent me very courteous letters. I can understand that Sir Brian may say, "If we deal generously with this case, many others will follow", but could not something be done by the Commission taking out a covenant for the further education of the children to take that worry, at least, off Mr. Graham-Woollard's mind?

I recognise the difficulties, but here is a family which has been wrecked because of negligence by British Railways. I am not blaming the railways—accidents happen in every walk of life—but I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will have personal discussions with Sir Brian Robertson, or one of his executives, with a view to exploring every possible avenue to see whether anything can be done to help this man in the very difficult situation in which he finds himself.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has said, this is a very distressing case. Mr. Grasham-Woollard was injured in this accident in 1948 and has suffered from the consequences ever since. The difficulty in which I am placed tonight, as my hon. Friend said, is that the Minister of Transport has in no way responsibility in this matter. All I can do is give what information I can about the view of the British Transport Commission.

As my hon. Friend said, Mr. Graham-Woollard, having suffered these injuries, had recourse, as he was entitled to, to the courts to recover compensation. The Commission admitted liability, and I understand that the action really turned on the amount of compensation that he should be awarded. The amount finally fixed by the court was £7,275 and I understand that this was paid shortly after the hearing.

Whatever may have been the reasons —and it is quite understandable that perhaps Mr. Graham-Woollard was in those days in a very poor state of health and unable to take this action—the fact remains that he did not appeal, and he must, therefore, in law, be accepted as having agreed to the amount of the award of the court. That must be the situation of the defendants, the Transport Commission.

It is true that some considerable time elapsed between the accident and the actual bringing of the action in the court. I am told by the Commission that there were quite protracted negotiations to try and settle the amount of compensation. During the period before the action actually came on the Commission, I believe at the instance of my hon. Friend, was willing to advance some money, amounting to, I think. £1,500, to Mr. Graham-Woollard by way of an interim payment of damages to help him meet his liabilities.

Sir A. V. Harvey

That sum was, of course, deducted from the final amount awarded. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it was nearly three years before the case was heard?

Mr. Hay

I said, I thought, that the amount was advanced. I certainly meant that, because it was a sum which was deducted from the eventual amount of compensation.

The Commission's position, as it represented it to me, was that this was a case where a plaintiff brought an action against it for negligence. The Commission admitted liability and eventually was condemned in damages, and the amount of damages was then paid over. In those circumstances, I think, the Commission is quite entitled to say, "This is the end of the story as far as we are concerned. We have met the obligation which the court has imposed upon us."

However we may sympathise, to try now to reopen the whole of this transaction and to award even on an ex gratia basis, further money to Mr. Graham-Woollard would be contrary not only to law—because we must remember that the Commission can only act under the Statute which set it up—but would, of course, open the floodgate to all manner of claims which have been settled and cleared in the past arising out of railway accidents.

I think that my hon. Friend recognises the force of this argument. It would be quite impossible for all the nationalised bodies to be put in this position. We can think, for example, of the Airways Corporations where, of course, as so often happens, accidents result in fatalities or serious injuries to their passengers. We can see the serious position in which they would be placed over the reopening of cases with further ex gratia payments once the courts had decided on damages or compensation.

Nevertheless, I understand that the chairman of the Commission, Sir Brian Robertson, has throughout taken a keen personal interest in the case. He thoroughly appreciates and sympathises with the difficulties of Mr. Graham-Woollard. I am told that on several occasions he has done what little he could to help, but I am afraid that he has not been able to meet the main point which Mr. Graham-Woollard makes, that he should have a further award of money from the Commission's funds.

Over the years Mr. Graham-Woollard has been very active in putting his point of view forward, not only to the Commission but to my right hon. Friend's predecessor and, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a number of letters. All these letters and all the facts that they contained have been very carefully considered indeed.

I think that the House will accept that, admitting as we do that this is a sad and, in many ways, a tragic case, if it had been possible somehow to stretch a point and make a further payment it would, I am sure, have been done. The very fact that neither the Ministry of Transport nor the Commission has been able to find a way of giving Mr. Graham-Woollard further financial assistance indicates, I think, that it is really something that we cannot do.

I may, perhaps, say a word about the position of my right hon. Friend in this matter. It might be thought, perhaps, that he had some power conferred upon him by Statute to direct the Commission to make a further payment to Mr. Graham-Woollard. That is not the case. My right hon. Friend is not empowered to direct the Commission to accept more liabilities beyond those which happen to be imposed by law, or which have been negotiated by agreement with the Commission. The position of my right hon. Friend is that, much as he regrets it, he cannot intervene in this case.

While I understand Mr. Graham-Woollard's situation I think that he ought to take account of the various things that are open to him to do to obtain financial assistance from some source other than the Commission. After all, it is the pride of this country that we now have a system of social security which does not permit anybody to go hungry, and which does not permit anybody to be penurious. I am confident that if Mr. Graham-Woollard realises that he has come to the end of the road and that there is no way in which he can be helped, and if he is now prepared to consider, if he is in the difficulty that my hon. Friend suggested, applying for some kind of financial assistance from another source, it might be better for him and for the members of his family.

That may seem cold comfort to him. I understand his feelings, but I must make it clear that neither my right hon. Friend, nor my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have power to intervene in this case. The Commission would, I think, be acting illegally if it sought to make any further payment to him in this matter, which is now closed and done with. I hope, therefore, that Mr. Graham-Woollard will realise that the time has come when he cannot go any further in this matter.

Sir A. V. Harvey rose—

Mr. Hay

I have not finished my speech yet. I hope that Mr. Graham-Woollard will seek some other way of reviewing his position.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Will my hon. Friend undertake to have a discussion with Sir Brian Robertson, or one of his executives about assistance in some other way for educating the children?

Mr. Hay

I took note of that point when my hon. Friend made it during his speech. Although I will look at it, I am sure that the Commission has no power to do it.

My hon. Friend suggested that perhaps the Commission might take out a covenant for the education of Mr. Graham-Woollard's children. I am informed that at one stage, only about eighteen months' ago, the Commission sought to help Mr. Graham-Woollard by offering his son a job. I have no details as to what the job was, but the boy was still quite young. Whether that offer might be renewed I do not know, but I will investigate that with Sir Brian Robertson.

The probability of the Commission being able to take out a covenant, as suggested by my hon. Friend, is remote. I am certain that Sir Brian Robertson, who has taken a personal interest in this case, has done everything he can do within his statutory obligations. All I can promise to do is to send to Sir Brian Robertson a copy of our proceedings tonight and ask him again if there is any way in which he can help. Beyond that I cannot go.

Mr. John E. Talbot (Brierley Hill)

Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that damages awarded by the courts have tended to increase during the eight years since this case was heard? Could that factor be taken into account in the review which is about to take place?

Mr. Hay

I would be deceiving the House if I said that that was so. The position is that this case went before a court in 1951. The court decided the amount of damages. The damages were paid, and it would be a quite impossible situation if, as a result of inflation, one could in any case, however hard and however distressing, go back and say that because there has been inflation since 1951, because the value of money has fallen, the award of damages made so many years ago must be reassessed and the defendant be obliged to pay more money. I do not think that I could do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Back to