HC Deb 20 July 1933 vol 280 cc2035-9

Amendments made:

In page 19, line 37, leave out the words "continue in" and insert instead thereof the words "come into."

In page 19, line 27, leave out the word "after" and insert instead thereof the word "upon."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I beg to move, in page 20, line 8, to leave out from the word "examiner" to the end of the sub-section and to insert instead thereof the words: if he is satisfied that the vehicle is fit for service. This will enable the examiner to withdraw his prohibition if he considers that it was not justified.

Amendment agreed to.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS

I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, to leave out the words "on the matter being referred to him," and to insert instead thereof the words: within forty-eight hours of such application being made shall examine the vehicle, and. The object of this is to deal with the position that arises when the examiner has examined a motor vehicle and the result of his examination does not meet with the approval of the owner and he is given the right under sub-section (7) to apply to the certifying officer and have it examined by him. There is no limitation as to the time when this examination may take place. When the matter was raised in Committee, the Minister said it might necessitate the appointment of more examiners and might run to some expense, and I daresay he may be right over that, but it does not seem to me to be a matter of very much account to have one or two extra certifying officers if it is going to meet the convenience of licence holders. The point that the Minister made was that the words in the Bill are exactly the same as those in the Road Traffic Act, and he said he had had no complaints of delay under that Act when these examinations were required. I have here a copy of correspondence referring to a case where the owner of a vehicle at Yeovil applied to the certifying officer to have it examined on 25th May. On 16th June it had not been examined, so he wrote to the manufacturers. They in turn wrote to the Minister and the correspondence culminates with a letter from the owner of the vehicle dated 22nd June in which he states: Your action has had immediate effect. An inspector has been here this morning and given the bus a four years' licence. I can give the hon. Gentleman the correspondence. This was a few days before the Minister assured us in Committee that there were no complaints under the 1930 Act.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. Member has given me the correspondence without the letter that I wrote.

Mr. ROBERTS

You have all the correspondence.

Mr. STANLEY

It has been removed from the bundle.

Mr. ROBERTS

I assure the Minister that I have not seen any correspondence except that which is there. In any case, there was a delay of three weeks, which is a very serious matter for a man who has to make his living either by using an omnibus or a commercial motor vehicle. I am only asking—and I think the House will consider that it is very reasonable—that where a man has exercised his right to have his vehicle examined by the certifying officer, there should be some limitation as to the length of time the officer can sit upon the case. If the Minister cannot accept 48 hours, I hope that he will accept some limitation of time and so give protection to these people.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

I beg to second the Amendment.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I think that it is a little unfortunate, if the hon. Gentleman was to depend almost entirely for his arguments upon a case which was brought to my notice, that he did not give me notice that he intended to raise it. It would have been possible for me to have been present here with all the correspondence in the case. The correspondence which my hon. Friend has handed to me lacks one very important document, which is the reply I sent to Sir John Thorneycroft, who first raised the matter with me. Without that notice I can only speak subject to my imperfect memory, but my recollection of the case is that, having inquired into it, I found that the delay was entirely the fault of the applicant, who had, as far as I remember, mistaken something which he had to do.

On giving that explanation to Sir John Thorneycroft, he expressed himself satisfied that in this case it was not the fault of the examiner at all. I only wish that my hon. Friend had given me notice in order that I could have been able to produce that correspondence for certain, but, as I have explained to the House, subject to the imperfections of my memory, that is my recollection of the case, and therefore it was not in any way due to the bad or slow machinery of the 1930 Act.

With regard to the actual Amendment, it must be obvious to hon. Members that a limitation of 48 hours within which a certifying officer must inspect a vehicle is quite impossible. One can see circumstances arising at week-ends and during holidays when such limitation could in no circumstances he observed. As I pointed out to the Committee—and I must point it out again—whatever number of hours you chose to put into an Act of Parliament, it would necessitate keeping a staff of officials far greater than the ordinary business would require. If you had a, staff which normally must finish all its examinations within an interval of three or four days fixed by Parliament as the statutory period within which it ought to be done, you would immediately have to make provision for unforeseen circumstances, the illness of an inspector or the possibility that in one area there was suddenly a large number of cases, in order that you should not break the Act of Parliament. I can assure the House that in this weighing of the disadvantages to the applicant between any delay in this process or any extra expense he himself may have to incur, we shall be very careful to do all we can to help, but to accept either this Amendment or any Amendment on these lines would, I feel sure, only involve the licence holder in a great deal of unnecessary expense, without any corresponding advantage. If the House wishes, as I am sure it will, the assurance that this work will be done as rapidly as possible, and that all possible inconvenience will be spared to the licence bolder, I can certainly give it with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. ROBERTS

In view of the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to assure him that the fact that he has not had the correspondence before is no fault of mine. I received it only this morning; and no discourtesy is intended.

Mr. STANLEY

I have known my hon. Friend sufficiently long to realise that he is the last person from whom I should get discourtesy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made; In page 20, line 30, leave out from the word "person," to the word "at," in line 32, and insert instead thereof the words: drives a goods vehicle carrying goods, or causes or permits a goods vehicle carrying goods to be driven, on a road. In line 34, leave out the words "on summary conviction," and insert instead thereof the words: be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act and."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]