HC Deb 30 July 1956 vol 557 cc1007-9

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, at end insert: and (b) where in the opinion of a police constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out, he may require the test to be carried out forthwith.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

When we previously considered Clause 3, the provisions whereby a motorist could defer the test upon his vehicle were severely criticised in several parts of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport gave an undertaking that he would seek a way to prevent a motorist having the option of a deferment, in the special case, where the examiner is satisfied that the car is a danger on the highway and ought not to be allowed to proceed except for a limited distance…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1956; Vol. 553, c 532.] In consequence of this Amendment there will now be two situations in which a motorist cannot insist upon getting a deferment of his spot check. One, which is already in the Clause, is where it appears to a police officer that because of an accident having occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on the road, the test should be carried out at once. The second is this new provision, that where in the opinion of a police constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out… it may be ordered forthwith.

The power to decide that the case is one which calls for immediate examination is vested in a police constable, because it is thought that the ordinary motorist will more readily accept such a decision from a uniformed officer; and the police are prepared to accept this responsibility. It is open to the police constable to consult a Ministry examiner about the technical work involved if he wishes to do so. Spot checks are normally carried out by teams of police and Ministry examiners.

I hope that this Lords Amendment goes some way to meet the undertaking given by the Government.

Mr. Ernest Davies

We are grateful to the Government for having gone some way to meet the objection which was raised mainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss.) He suggested that it was unreasonable, even foolish, that, a car having been stopped for a spot check, the driver should then be able to say, "I do not want to have my car tested now. I will drive it away and have it tested in a few weeks' time, by arrangement." Obviously, he would have the car put in order, and so escape the penalty for driving it in an unfit condition on the highway—that is, if it was in an unfit condition. It was suggested on this side of the House that deferment should be the exception rather than the rule.

As the matter now stands, anybody will be able to ask for a deferment of test unless the car is obviously in an unroadworthy condition. I think that that is allowing a little too much freedom to car drivers. We should prefer the Clause to provide that if a driver has what the police officer considers a valid reason for proceeding on his way, he may allow him to go, subject to the car not being in an obviously unroadworthy condition. We should prefer that to an automatic granting of permission to proceed unless the car is obviously in an unroadworthy condition.

As the Joint Under-Secretary of State is aware, it is not easy to detect that a car is in an unroadworthy condition. Sometimes it is obvious that the steering, for instance, is defective; but a car may be in an unfit condition, and that may not be at all obvious. As it is, it will be possible for cars not in a roadworthy condition, and which could attract penalties for being in an unfit condition, to be driven away upon request for deferment of testing, even after they have been stopped for a spot check. Therefore, although this Lords Amendment goes some way to meet the objections which the Opposition raised, it does not go the whole way. We should have preferred deferment to have been the exception rather than the rule.

Captain Duncan

I wish to raise again the Scottish difficulty. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said a little while ago that it was unreasonable in some areas to have obligatory tests, and so power was given to exempt such areas from the obligation of tests. Suppose that in such an area a police constable is of the opinion that a vehicle is so defective it must have a test immediately. What happens? It is an area where there is no test. The last time I raised the question I failed to get an answer from my hon. Friend. If he does not know the answer to the question, perhaps the Lord Advocate, whom I see on the Treasury Bench, will answer it.

Mr. Ernest Davies

He does not know either.