HC Deb 12 June 1958 vol 589 cc500-4

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I have only one or two small points to raise on the Clause. It is introduced, I understand, to enable motorists to take their vehicles to be tested when compulsory testing is introduced, as it will be shortly, for old vehicles. They will be able to take them to the testing station even if they are unlicensed and, if they decide to take them away to have the necessary repairs done should they not pass the test, to be able to take them away to a place where they wish the repairs to be done. That seems to me to be highly desirable.

I am particularly glad it is provided that motorists shall be able to take their vehicles away because, as it is proposed by the Government that most of the testing shall be done in private garages, if motorists were not able to take them away from the private garage and their vehicles had failed to pass the test it would be necessary to have the repairs done by the garage which was responsible for testing the vehicles. As these garages are in any case probably not entirely disinterested, this would be an added incentive to find fault with the cars, which would require repairs being done in their garages.

I also note, however, that in the Clause it is provided that this applies only where application has been made for a test by previous arrangements—that is, that no motorist will be allowed to drive away his car, which is required to be tested, has not been tested and which has not been licensed, by saying that he is on his way to have it tested, because he will always have to prove, I take it, that he has made an arrangement to have it tested.

The necessity of the Clause arises largely from the manner in which the Government are instituting the testing. Instead of having it done by State testing stations and by municipalities, it is being put in the hands of private garages and, therefore, these extra precautions have to be introduced. Certainly, in those circumstances, the Clause appears necessary and cannot be opposed.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I want to make only one inquiry. I see the point of putting in the reference to a "previous arrangement". I suppose that it is to prevent the motorist getting off by saying that he had just thought of resorting to a garage and having a test carried out. As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, that is particularly advisable in view of the provisions concerning the tests. But what happens if the motorist says, "I had a previous arrangement"? What check is there on him? Surely all that has been done is to remove the matter one stage further and add a little to the seriousness of the fib, if any, which the motorist may be tempted to make. He now says, "I am now going to the garage in order to have a compulsory test done", and he has only to add the words, "I rang up the garage the other day and fixed it", and all is well.

It seems a little illusory, if that is the reason why the reference has been put into the Clause, and if it is intended to serve as some form of protection. Have the Government considered exactly what attitude would be taken in the case of a mechanically-propelled vehicle found in use on public roads? Have they considered what questions would be required to be put, and what answer would be accepted—and what would be taken as a sufficient excuse to bring the motorist within the ambit of the Clause?

I am not suggesting that something of the sort is not right and proper, but I wonder whether sufficient consideration has been given to the way in which the process will work. No doubt the police have been consulted in the matter. It would be interesting to know the point of view of the Metropolitan Police, and whether they think that this concession can be used—notwithstanding the reference to a previous arrangement—as a method of allowing a man to go along the road scot-free when he has perhaps omitted to take out his licence in time, or has committed another of the minor offences possible in this connection.

Mr. Nugent

The words "by previous arrangement" have been correctly interpreted by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I was glad to hear him welcome the arrangement, which, as he observed, is really no more than machinery to key in with the testing scheme and make it legal for a vehicle to be taken on the road without a Road Fund licence for the purpose of a test and for repairs if the motorist, after a test, wishes to take it elsewhere. The words were put in to provide a simple check that the motorist was in fact taking the vehicle to be tested and not just motoring around for his own purposes.

The effectiveness of the provision will depend upon the evidence of the testing station. I am certain that in normal circumstances a testing station will be completely reliable for that purpose, and, where the police apprehend a car moving on the road without a licence, if the driver says that he is on the way to the testing station the police can ask him which testing station he is going to and whether he has an appointment. If, on checking up, they find that he has, it will be sufficient to justify his continuing.

It is not impossible that there might be collusion between the motorist and the garage, but human nature is usually not so frail that that simple arrangement would break down. Normally it would be reasonably fool-proof if the police checked straight away with the testing station to find out whether an appointment had been made. I think that that would be an effective practical arrangement.

Mr. Mitchison

I have often heard that truth was to be found at the bottom of a well, but I never expected to look for it with such certainty in a garage. I understand that the official view is that if the motorist says, "I have a previous arrangement", and the garage says, "No, you have not", the motorist is then liable to proceedings, in which no doubt someone from the garage would be called upon to give evidence and the matter might resolve into a question of which side should be believed.

Surely this is an odd arrangement? I could understand it in relation to an official garage, but when we are dealing with private garages, ought not they to be obliged to keep some record of appointments, as a check? Otherwise there will be very unfortunate word-for-word differences.

Mr. Nugent

Yes; I take the hon. and learned Member's point. I think that that would be a good arrangement, and I shall be glad to see that it is put into action. It would undoubtedly substantiate verbal arrangements. It ought to be quite easy to do. Records must be kept of the testing, and it would be quite simple to provide that there should be a booking of appointments. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his suggestion, and I shall be glad to see that it is put into practice. We want to make this arrangement work in a sound and respectable fashion. I hope that with that assurance hon. Members will be ready to accept the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.