PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (LICENCES)

HC Deb 19 June 1952 vol 502 cc1676-83

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Public Service Vehicles (Licences and Certificates) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 900), dated 2nd May 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th May, be annulled.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must apologise for not having raised this point in advance, but this is to all intents and purposes a consolidating Order and I would, with respect, like to refer you to the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Clifton-Brown on 25th February, 1947, that in cases of this kind the debate should be confined solely to those points that are new points in the consolidating Order.

I have taken pains to go right through this consolidating Order, and 90 per cent. of the Order is purely consolidating. There are two or three paragraphs which have been inserted in order to clarify the situation. In one or two cases the figures involved have been altered, and, to meet the rising cost of living, fees have gone up. Otherwise, this is broadly the consolidating of three Orders and in no sense a new Order. I would respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the debate should be confined solely to such new paragraphs or figures as appear in the Order.

Mr. Davies

Further to that point of order. There are certain fundamental amendments which are referred to in the Explanatory Note. Not only is there an increase in the fees but there is an alteration in the length of time during which objections may be made in the case of appeals. That obviously provides the opportunity for discussing the procedure of appeals, which is very relevant.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

With great respect, I would submit that the question of appeals could not be properly before the House, and that all that would be before the House would be the length of time during which appeals could be made. If that is so, I have little doubt that the points at issue between the two sides of the House could be disposed of very speedily.

Mr. Speaker

It is in general true that when the House has before it a consolidating enactment, discussion on it should be confined to what is novel in the consolidation. In this case it seems to me that this Order is in general a consolidation of past enactments. It is true, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that there are certain longer periods allowed for notices of appeal, and I think in general discussion should be limited to those changes.

Mr. Davies

I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will endeavour to confine my few remarks in moving this Prayer to the amendments which are made in the Order.

In order to do that, I will start by referring to the increased charges. The Minister, in suggesting that they were imposed in order to meet a rising cost of living, was excusing the fact that there is a very considerable increase in the case of the fees of public service vehicle licences from £2 to £4 and in the case of certificates of fitness from £3 to £5. This means that as far as each vehicle is concerned, the annual charge will rise by £7 per vehicle. It is true that per vehicle that may not sound very much, but when it comes to a substantial fleet of vehicles it makes a difference to the overall cost. It is a small pinprick, perhaps, but it is the series of pinpricks which this Government has been imposing on the cost of living and the cost of travelling, which are affecting the community and causing a further rise in the cost of living.

This small increase on the passenger vehicles comes on top of the increased Petrol Duty, giving rise to a further increase in the cost of living, and it will inevitably lead to a demand for higher wages, which again will lead to higher fares, so that in these cases the public suffers from impositions which will cause the fares to go up further.

The other major amendment in this consolidating Order refers to the time during which objections can be lodged in the case of appeals, and it is to the length of time which appeals take that I wish to refer tonight. The period within which an objection or representation may be made with regard to licensing is extended from 14 to 21 days, and for variations from seven to 14 days. I should like the Minister to explain why it has been decided to lengthen those periods. I very much regret that it has been impossible to shorten the period or in any way to simplify the procedure for appeals, and that it has not been found possible to take this opportunity of doing so in order that there may be a speed-up in the procedure.

During this Session we have discussed certain cases where there has been a very long interval between the first application for licences, the granting or refusal of those licences and the lodging of an appeal. Long periods have also elapsed before the appeals have been heard. In the case of the Northern Roadways, we had a situation where, although the appeal was granted, the licensing authorities were instructed to revoke the licences, and the Minister gave an extension for a period of four months during the holiday season.

I know that it would be out of order to go into any great detail with regard to this matter, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the necessity for simplifying and speeding up the appeal procedure. In the case to which I have referred, it was very regrettable that, whereas the applications by Northern Roadways to operate London services were first made in October, 1950, those applications were not heard until December, 1950. The decision to grant the licences was made in April, 1951, which was seven months after. It took seven months from the time of application for the decision to be made, and during that time there was great uncertainty both on the part of the operators and the travelling public who wished to use the services.

Surely it is possible for that procedure to be speeded up. I know that the procedure has been the same since the Act first came into operation in 1930, but I should have thought that, as we are having new Regulations brought before us which are the first for some time, an opportunity might have been taken to overhaul the machinery and to see whether some speeding up could be brought about.

That is not the whole story. It is the appeals themselves which took so much longer. In the case to which I have referred, the appeals were promptly lodged after the licences were granted to Northern Roadways to operate between Glasgow and London. Those appeals were lodged in April, 1951.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that part of this Statutory Instrument which deals with the period of appeals is limited solely to the period during which appeals can be lodged and in no case does it deal with the period within which the hearing of the appeals can operate. I respectfully submit that that question is out of order.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) was conscious of the fact that he could only refer to it in passing.

Mr. Davies

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am still passing.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must pass.

Mr. Davies

To cut short my remarks, I think I may conclude the statement which I am making by simply saying that these appeals were lodged in April, 1951; they were heard in November, 1951, and the decision to revoke the licences was not taken until March, 1952; that is, the total time for the hearing of the appeal was 12 months and, from the time the first application for a licence was made, the period was 18 months. I draw this to the attention of the Minister in the hope that now that these Regulations are before the House, now that the matter has come to his attention, he will see whether it is possible to speed up the process.

After all, we understand that in the White Paper the Government have pro- posed that there shall be a review of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. We on this side of the House hope that the review will not result in any changes in the Act. which has recently had such high praise from the private operators, including the Chairman of the B.E.T. We hope that the review will simply mean that there will be an improvement in the operation of the Act and not that there will be changes reverting to the position which existed before the Act came into force.

In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there is no more that I can say at this stage, but I ask the Minister to explain, first, why it is necessary to increase the fees at this time, when so many other burdens are being imposed upon the transport industry, and secondly, why it has been decided to extend the period during which these objections can be made, thereby prolonging the process of the application and appeal.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

I beg to second the Motion.

The Motion has been moved with enforced brevity by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I had intended to be brief, but your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, makes it necessary for me to be even briefer than I had originally intended. As has been pointed out, the Regulations extend the time during which it is possible for objectors to an application to lodge an appeal against the application. That extension applies to variations of licences as well as to the application for the original licence.

What we on this side of the House contend is that these regulations make worse an already bad situation. It is a bad situation which was disclosed by a case to which I shall refer only in passing—that is, the Northern Roadways case in which, as my hon. Friend has said, there was a wholly unjustifiable delay by the Minister in dealing with an appeal against an application which had been granted. That led to considerable difficulties; and I shall not go into those difficulties, Mr. Speaker, because I happen to notice the way in which you are looking at me.

I want to quote the case in passing simply to point to the fact that what these Regulations will do is lengthen the time in addition to that which the Minister, in his dilatory manner, might take in a future case—to add to the time taken for each of these possible objections to applications which have been granted, or to variations which have been agreed, by an additional week.

I appreciate that this is rather dangerous ground, but I think I may say that in my view the Minister might have taken this opportunity to put right what was disclosed by that case. He might have imposed upon himself a time-table which would have shortened the time which the inspector takes to report on these cases—which is one of the bad features of them—and he might have looked at the whole problem in order to place before us some system which would have obviated some of the difficulties to which I have referred, I hope briefly.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

I am very grateful to the two hon. Gentlemen the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) for the good temper with which they have taken the inevitable limitation of this debate. I can assure them that the purpose of these new Regulations, this new Statutory Instrument, has nothing sinister about it. To almost all intents, all the Regulations attempt to do is to tidy up the three previous sets of Regulations. In the very limited field to which attention is drawn in the Explanatory Note, the Regulations do things which, I think, are wholly defensible.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East said that this was going to put still further burdens upon the public service vehicle licensees of this country, but I think that, on reflection, he may agree that that is a shade exaggerated. The effect of this burden is not likely, I think, to be reflected in any opposition or difficulties with regard to standards of living of workers concerned or wage rates. All it does is to raise the cost of the public service vehicle licence for one year from £2 to £4. I would remind the House that those who have such a licence can operate with that particular vehicle quite a number of different bus facilities. It also raises, in Regulation 24—the previous rise was in Regulation 17—the charge for a certificate of fitness from £3 to £5.

We are always anxious to profit by the advice and example of the Opposition, and in this particular case we looked to the parent Act in 1930, and to the speech at that time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) when introducing the original licence proposal. He said: It is intended to cover the whole cost of the organisation of the Traffic Commissioners and their staff, as, for example, the certifying officers and public service vehicle examiners, and the office establishment charges set up under the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1930; Vol. 235, c. 1647.] It has always been accepted by both sides of this House that this should be a self-supporting service. When in 1939 a small profit was being made, the fee was reduced from £3 to £2. Should a profit be made again, a reduction will take place. The purpose of this variation is solely to make it self-supporting, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South suggested it should be.

The only other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, apart from the special case of Northern Roadways, to which, in a sentence, I should like to refer, dealt with the period for objection to an application for licence or for variation of a licence. This has been extended in the case of applications for licences from 14 days to 21 days, and for variations of licences from seven days to 14 days.

When we are in a situation where the cost of travel—this has been true for the last few years—is a very big factor in deciding whether to reduce the alternative services within the meaning of the original Act, and when the question of fares and the cost of travel, whether of Royal Air Force personnel or anybody else, is a matter of great importance at week-ends or any other time, we have got many more complicated considerations than the licensing authorities have got to consider. Local authorities have told us that they are very keen that there should be such an extension of the period during which objections can be launched, and this argument has been used, that, at the present moment, people who are not quite certain whether they would have a proper ground of objection are tempted to lodge an objection straight away, in case, on reflection, they find they have a really good case, and the effect of delaying by a few days this right may well be to cut down what are unnecessary applications.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Northern Roadways. There was, as hon. Members know, a long discussion in the House on that particular project. I would not at this stage—nor would I be in order in doing so—deal at any great length with it, but I would remind the House that the particular factor in that case was the sale in advance of a large number of tickets on which people had made their holiday plans. The purpose of a government is to help the people whom it is governing, and not to interfere to an unnecessary extent in the way in which the law is framed or administered, to the detriment of the people——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman is now in danger of transgressing the principle which he himself invoked.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I humbly apologise for that. I therefore end by saying that the purpose of all legislation including the Statutory Instrument which I am now defending in this House, as long as the present Government is in power will be to look after the interests of the people to the best of our ability.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

Is it not also the function of the Government not to encourage people in practices which cannot stand up to any real examination, which are very unfair to other operators, by taking people's money and then saying, "Here we are, lads; we are all committed, and therefore you have got to do something about it"?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

If I am in order in replying, I would say that that case may one day, and very shortly, be again sub judice, and it would probably be better if I did not make any comments in the House upon it.

Mr. Ernest Davies

In view of the situation that has arisen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.