HC Deb 31 July 1963 vol 682 cc439-41
8. Mr. Mathew

asked the Minister of Transport how many officers and members of transport users' consultative committees are railway employees or ex-railway employees; and if he will give a direction, under Section 56(16) of the Transport Act, 1962, that these committees should not hold inquiries into proposed branch railway line closures on premises which are railway property.

Mr. Marples

The present secretaries of all the transport users' consultative committees are all either former or serving railway officials who have been assigned to the committees in accordance with Section 56(16) of the Transport Act, 1962. Under that Act the membership of the committees no longer includes nominees of any of the nationalised boards. Any member of a committee who is a railway employee is not appointed to represent railway interests, and I know of only two such members. I have no power to give directions about where committees shall meet, but they do not normally hold meetings about closures on railway premises.

Mr. Mathew

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which clarifies the position? Will he bear in mind that, although there is actual independence of railway influence, it is very important during the coming months when the T.U.C.C.s will be meeting to ensure that the apparent independence is also understood by the British public, who are a little suspicious when these committees meet on railway premises?

Mr. Marples

I agree. It was for that reason that during the Committee stage of the Transport Act I said that any consideration should be in offices away from railway premises. That we are trying to do, and I think we have succeeded. The other point is that although railway men are secretaries of these committees, which is very useful because of their great knowledge of the subject, they do not take part in decisions. The decisions are taken by the committee and not by the secretary, who merely provides the information.

9. Mr. Mathew

asked the Minister of Transport in considering proposals for railway closures put to him by consultative committees, what consideration he gives to whether or not the objectors had been allowed rights of legal representation and cross-examination.

Mr. Marples

I expect to get from a transport users' consultative committee, in accordance with Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, a report on the hardship which it considers will be caused by a proposed rail closure together with any proposals which it wishes to make for alleviating hardship. In general the Section provides that committees shall determine their own procedure. I understand that committees in fact permit objectors to be legally represented and allow questions relevant to matters within the scope of the committees' functions to be put to representatives of the Railways Board. I have no reason to think that committees will not carry out their statutory duties in a fair and proper manner.

Mr. Mathew

While I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, will he bear in mind that there has been public criticism of the T.U.C.C. procedure in the past on the ground that the tribunals were apparently not sufficiently judicial? In dealing with this matter, will he bear in mind that it is very difficult to get at the truth of a matter without the right of cross-examination and that it would be very unfortunate if the British public got the impression that these closures were being steam-rollered through without a proper judicial tribunal?

Mr. Marples

One of the recent decisions should dispel that illusion. Under the Statute, when reporting on hardship and proposals to alleviate it, the committees will normally be shown hardship by the evidence of the objectors; but if a representative of the Railways Board gave evidence about hardship I would expect questions about it to be allowed, as well as questions about information given by the Railways Board for alternative services. I do not think it wrong for objectors not to be able to question or cross-examine on matters not relevant to the essential function of the committee.

Mr. Bowles

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been present at a hearing of a consultative committee? It is extraordinary that I have and he has not.

Mr. Marples

No. As I am in a quasi-judicial capacity, it would be improper for me to be there. What I have done is to read the evidence in full.

Back to