HC Deb 06 May 1958 vol 587 cc1125-9
Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 27, line 45, at the end to add: (6) Any order under this Part of this Act whereby any power to run public service vehicles (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1930) would otherwise become exercisable as respects any road as respects which it would not be exercisable apart from the order shall contain provision whereby the power shall be exercisable as respects that road only with the consent of the traffic commissioners or traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the road is situated, and the order shall provide for applying section one hundred and two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which provides for the procedure on applications for the consent of traffic commissioners and for appeals from their decisions) to applications for such consent under the order. I can explain the Amendment in a few short sentences. What it amounts to is that where the area of a local authority is extended, that extension in itself should not extend the running area of any public service transport undertaking. The question of the area of the running of the public service transport undertaking should be left, as I understand it always has been in the past by local Acts, to the decision of the Traffic Commissioners. What we are saying is that a requirement to this effect shall of necessity be included in any Order which is made under the Bill where it is appropriate to do so: that is, where there is an extension of a local authority boundary.

Mr. Mitchison

I feel some difficulty about this Amendment. Although it is a matter in which I do not claim any special knowledge, I understand that the Thesiger Committee recommended that Sections 101 and 102 of the 1930 Act should not be continued. We are not considering an Amendment to those Sections, but we are considering their extension to a new case. I should like to know whether the Government have considered the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee in paragraph 314 and onwards of its Report. If so, are they sure it is necessary to apply this procedure in the case they have in mind? I am not convinced that it is necessary, and if the procedure has been regarded as unsatisfactory by the Thesiger Committee, then perhaps the Government would like not to press the Amendment at this stage and to have another look at the matter in another place.

Mr. Bevins

My information is that the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee represents a rather controversial issue. Therefore, in the Bill, as we hope to amend it, we are following well-established precedents. It is the case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, that the Thesiger Committee recommended the abolition of the requirement in Section 101 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 for local authorities to obtain the Traffic Commissioners' consent before running public service vehicles outside their areas. They took the view that the consent procedure was unnecessary because local authorities still have to obtain road service licences before they can run bus services. The private operators set great store by the consent procedure, which they regard as an additional obstacle for local authorities to overcome.

As I say, that recommendation is regarded as a controversial one. The Amendment does not really prejudice the issue. All it does is to preserve the consent requirement in those cases where local authorities extend their boundaries as a result of Orders presented by my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has strong feelings on this point but we have tried to do the right thing on the basis of precedent, as I understand it.

Mr. Ede

How does this Amendment come to be on the Order Paper? I cannot recollect that the matter was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs. If that is so, who has made representations to the Minister that this addition should be made to the Bill at this stage? Was it overlooked by the Ministry when the Bill was being drafted?

We are now told that this is a controversial issue and, on the story told by the Parliamentary Secretary at the Box during the last few minutes, the Government have come down on the wrong side of the controversy. This is a matter which the Parliamentary Secretary says is to restrict the local authority, and the restriction is welcomed by the private enterprise people who might be in competition with the local authority if this were not in the Bill.

I do not think we have had a sufficient explanation, and I hope that before we part with the Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us its origin.

Dr. King

Before we leave the Amendment, may I say that I have in times past paid a tribute to the Parliamentary draftsmen, but this drafting is a little unfortunate? We want the law to be clear but, at the same time, we want it if possible to be euphonious. Whatever can be said about the Amendment, nobody can say that while it is clear, it sounds pleasantly. I know that in the United States a long time was spent in trying to rephrase a 200-word clause and they came to the conclusion that it could not be altered, but I suggest that this Amendment could be changed with advantage. The offending passage reads: Any order under this Part of this Act whereby any power to run public service vehicles (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1930) would otherwise become exercisable as respects any road as respects which it would not be exercisable apart from the order shall contain provision whereby the power shall be exercisable as respects that road only with the consent of the traffic commissioners … I suggest seriously to the Minister that "as respects" could be replaced by the simple word "for" in each of the three cases, without losing any of the meaning of this precious Amendment.

Mr. Bevins

I am the last person to criticise Parliamentary draftsmen and I do not feel myself competent to comment on what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen (Dr. King). However, I will ask my advisers to look at the Amendment again from the point of view of what he has said.

As regards the comment of the right hon. Gentleman, I will gladly elaborate the reason for this Amendment to the Committee, although I do not want to take up too much time. Shortly, what we are doing here is to secure that if an Order is made by my right hon. Friend under this Measure which extends the area of a local authority, the question whether the local authority should be empowered to run public service vehicles in the extended area should be one for the Traffic Commissioners. As I understand it, that has always been the position under the Road Traffic Act.

The position formerly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that whenever a local authority area has been extended by a local Act, a provision has been put into that Act and the effect has been that the Traffic Commissioners' consent would be required to the local authority running public service vehicles in the additional area. The outside operators who might have been affected were able to secure this reasonable safeguard because they could petition Parliament and secure Amendments in Committee to the Private Bill concerned, if they so wished.

The Orders made by the Minister under the present Measure affecting changes in local authorities areas will not be subject to Amendments by Parliament. The Amendment simply meets the difficulty by providing that a requirement for the consent of the Traffic Commissioners must be obtained before the vehicles are run in an added area, and that the requirement shall be written into each Order as the various Orders are made by the Minister concerned.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think the view of my right hon. Friend was that as the Thesiger recommendation was a controversial one, he preferred to follow precedent in this Bill.

Mr. Ede

Will the Minister answer my question? How does the Amendment come to be on the Order Paper? Who made representations to the Ministry that it should be put down?

Mr. Bevins

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. The fact is that at the time the Bill was drafted the provision simply did not enter into the minds of our advisers. It has since been realised that the provision should go into the Bill, and that is why we are bringing it forward now.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

In a case of sheer inspiration suddenly arising in the Ministry one feels reluctant to interfere. Apparently this consideration was not present in the minds of the hon. Member's advisers when the Bill was drafted, and it has now become advisable. We are somewhat bewildered as to how the process occurred, but we should hardly be justified in resisting the Amendment on that account. I will make only one comment. We hear a great deal about Tory freedom, and about the Government's idea of giving more liberty to local authorities, but those ideas seem to disappear when there is a conflict of interests between private transport undertakings and those of local authorities.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

Would not it be rather a good idea to insert an explanatory note, so that both laymen and lawyers might understand what the provision means?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.