HC Deb 14 March 1960 vol 619 cc1057-63

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

I had hoped that the Minister would have spoken on the Bill on this Motion for Second Reading, because it is a very important Bill. Parliamentary counsel, appearing before the Joint Committee, described it as being the biggest Bill which he had presented, at any rate in the last ten years. There are certain points which arise even within the very strict rules about discussing consolidation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

As the hon. Member knows, we can discuss now only whether the law should be consolidated or not.

Mr. Benn

With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was to that point that I proposed to turn the attention of the House, because in the Committee, at which certain of my hon. Friends were present, this Bill raised very interesting points of law, within the interpretation of consolidation, and it raises a question which remains, and that is, whether it is desirable to consolidate the law within a few weeks of the presentation of a new road traffic Bill promised by the Minister of Transport. Indeed, although I have not gone back over the precedents, I cannot think of a parallel to this, for the Bill which is now before the House to consolidate the law is intended to receive the Royal Assent, and then not to come into force till September, by which time, the Minister has assured the House, there will be considerable amendments in the law affecting road traffic.

Before I come to that, I want to come to some of the points which arise out of the Joint Committee's Report and out of points of interrogation by Parliamentary counsel. First of all, there is the question of traffic areas. In the primary Acts which we are seeking to consolidate by this Bill, there are references to many different traffic areas, and for the first time in a road transport Bill the provision for areas is to be laid down by signed maps. I think that there are three copies—one to be available in the Ministry of Transport, one to be available in the House of Commons, and, I think, one to be available in the House of Lords. It means that if the Minister varies traffic areas, as he is very likely to do in the next few years, hon. Members will be called upon to vote in the House on an affirmative Resolution without having before them in verbal form the amendments which are proposed to be made. Although Parliamentary counsel, presenting this proposal to the Committee, said there were precedents for it in certain circumstances, there is, as far as I can make out, no precedent for the House discussing an alteration of a map which is not to be presented to the House and will not, therefore, be available in debate for hon. Members to refer to.

That is the first point. The second point is that the change, which is alleged to be only one of consolidation, I think raises a matter of principle which it is proper to raise before the House at this stage. It is referred to in the Report of the Committee. I think hon. Members will have the Report. It is the proposal to consolidate the law as it concerns the liability presumably of innkeepers who are involved in abetting people to be drunk in charge. This is a point of substance which I think arises from the consolidation.

As I understand it, at the moment the position is that a man who aids and abets a man to drive drunkenly is not liable to disqualification, but if a man aids and abets someone to be drunk in charge he is liable, as a man aiding and abetting such a situation, to loss of his licence. Parliamentary counsel, in considering these provisions, described aiding and abetting someone to be drunk in charge as a lesser offence than aiding and abetting a man to drive while drunk, and, therefore, having come to the conclusion that it was a lesser offence, recommended that there should not be under this consolidation liability to disqualification from a licence for the innkeeper. I must say that if we consider the practical effect of this it means that in the future, if this Consolidation Bill becomes law, an innkeeper who serves a drink to a man who has clearly had too much to drink will no longer be liable himself to lose his licence.

This is a very curious provision of the law. I did not even know it existed until I came to read this section of the Report, but it seems to me of particular importance. Now that drunken driving is very much in the public mind and very relevant to the road casualty figures, it is very important that a Consolidation Bill should not appear to take away from a landlord the responsibility for seeing that these people whom he serves in the bar are not in charge of vehicles. I should like a reply on this question.

The third point is on page 19 of the Report. I refer to the evidence of the Parliamentary counsel which deals with the position of charges of drunken bicycling. It is a point of substance, not that a drunken cyclist is a man who necessarily may do a great deal of damage himself, but if he leads to a motor vehicle going off its course it can be as serious as drunken driving. In the consolidation of these passages, it seems to me that the seriousness of the offence of riding a bicycle while drunk appears to be lost, and I should like some questions to be raised on this.

My primary point, however, and one of considerable substance is whether with the Road Traffic Bill promised by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary last Friday to be presented before Easter—I believe that he said it was to be before Easter —am I right?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

To put the matter quite clearly, what I said was that I hoped that if all went well we should be able to present it before Easter.

Mr. Benn

If the definition of a pledge is that if, as one hopes, all goes well it will be possible, we shall have to accept that. Many people sign the pledge with no greater seriousness than the hope that if all goes well they will neither touch, taste nor handle, but if the hon. Gentleman gives that pledge we can only assume that it is a serious proposition.

This point was discussed again when it came before the Joint Committee and the Parliamentary counsel was asked why he was recommending the consolidation of a Measure which might be replaced before it came into force, and he replied: … all that has happened in that there has been some speculation in the popular Press. But, of course, it has gone a great deal further than that, certainly since last Friday's debate.

If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will look at the consolidation Measure and consider how many of its provisions are likely to be affected by the Bill which he knows will be presented to the House, he will see that there is a case for considering whether or not to postpone, because this Bill will receive the Royal Assent within a few days and almost immediately afterwards a new Bill will be printed to amend it. That is why I hope that my remarks are strictly within the rules of order, for the purpose of a consolidation Bill is to bring together existing legislation.

This is a good Bill because it makes the law clear, but it does not come into effect until September, by which time there is no question that the Minister's new Road Traffic Bill will have come into effect. In these circumstances, I submit that there is just cause for a rather fuller explanation than we had when the hon. Gentleman nodded his head, hoping to get the Bill through formally.

Mr. Speaker

On the question of order, everything that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been saying in my presence was in order, but I am in this difficulty, that I took the Chair in the middle of his observations. I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I understood that at one point the hon. Member had been saying that he was suggesting that the Bill made substantial changes in the law as it stands. Before any attempt is made to reply to him, I think I must rule that under these provisions the corrections and improvements approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills—as they have been before the Bill arrives here—are deemed to become law and cannot be amended here, and for that reason that kind of point is out of order. But the rest of what the hon. Member said I conceive to be in order. I hope that I am not blaming upon the hon. Member something which he did not say.

Mr. Benn

I am very glad to find, Mr. Speaker, that at least what you heard was in order. When you rose, I expected sterner treatment than that. I believe that what I said earlier was also in order because, as I understand the procedure, the Joint Committee looks at the matter on behalf of the House and makes a recommendation to the House that in its opinion the Bill as presented by the draftsmen, with whatever amendments they make, does not alter the law. On further examination of this matter, I feel that I have found certain points that make a difference of substance. I was only, therefore—not with a view to recommending changes— drawing the attention of the Minister to certain points of substance which I detected had occurred in the process of consolidation, and since the Report is only a recommendation to this House and does not acquire the force of law until the House has ruled upon it by giving the Bill Second and Third Readings, I hoped it would not be out of order to point out this apparent distinction.

Mr. Speaker

It is out of order for this reason, that the Statute charges the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker, respectively, with seeing that no impermissible changes are made in the recommendations to which the hon. Member refers. The Lord Chancellor and myself have to be satisfied that they are within the particular degree of small change which is permitted by the Statute, and until we are so satisfied the House does not see a Bill of this kind. Much as I should like to, I cannot allow the hon. Member to question my judgment in the matter or that of the Lord Chancellor, because it happens to be committed by Statute to ourselves. That is the only distinction, and I conceive everything else the hon. Member has said, in a merciful line I should desire to take, as being in order.

Mr. Benn

If the law provides that either you are right or I am, Mr. Speaker, I must yield to the position.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

There is a point I want to raise, because it seems to me that in Clause 66 (2) the principle of past legislation has been altered. If this has taken place, could we please be informed of it? My point is a simple one. It would seem that under Clause 66 (2) a change is being made from the Home Office to the Ministry of Transport for the licensing of hackney vehicles in the Metropolitan area. I would like to have an assurance that no such change is contemplated in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, but that is not open to the hon. Member or the House at this stage. I should do slightly better had not the light above my head apparently fused at this moment. It is not open to the hon. Member to argue now that there are changes made which represent changes of substance. He can argue in any form he likes that the consolidation of the enactments should not take place but, mysteriously, for the purpose of so doing he may not refer to the substance of the enactments to be consolidated. Such is the Ruling of my predecessors. I cannot help it.

Sir W. Wakefield

Under those circumstances, I will leave the matter, but I hope that perhaps the Minister can give an assurance on the point I have asked.

Mr. Speaker

No, indeed, he cannot. Even Ministers cannot.

9.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) obviously found himself in the position of Lord Clive. He was astonished at his own moderation when he found that one point he had made was in order, and I must reply to it. That is the real question which we have to debate on this Motion, namely, whether it is expedient that we should consolidate. He quite fairly made the point that it is unusual, and he is right, that we should consolidate when there is another Bill likely to be introduced in the near future.

The reason why we have taken this course is that, apart from consolidation, the law on this subject—as the hon. Gentleman recognised when he said that it makes the law clear for the first time —is at the moment very far from clear. One has only to look at the Eighteenth Schedule, quite apart from the other Schedules, and see the enactments repealed and re-enacted, to realise what a fantastic task Parliament will have when a new Bill on this subject is introduced.

Therefore, it was felt that it would be very much in the interests of hon. Members if. before an amending Bill was introduced, quite exceptionally the previous law was consolidated. That was the main motive, but there was also this to be said, that on general principles there is no reason why a consolidating Measure which is desirable should be held up while amendments are being considered. I think it is true to say that since 1930 there have been enactments relating to road traffic about once a year, and, therefore, if one held up any consolidation Measure pending amending legislation being completed, it might be held up almost indefinitely. I appreciate that the Measure which my right hon. Friend is to introduce might be a more far-reaching one than some in the past. Nevertheless, I think the point that I have made is a valid one.

Mr. Benn

The new legislation will be enacted before this consolidation Bill comes into law, because this Bill does not come into law until September this year. Are those circumstances not an additional reason for postponing the matter now and consolidating once the new Bill has been enacted?

The Solicitor-General

What we hope to do is to enact this Measure, although it does not come into force until September. But what we shall then be able to do is to introduce a Measure which will refer to this Measure, which will then have become an Act of Parliament. It is because we felt that that would be so immeasurably to the convenience of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that we have presented this consolidating Bill, and I ask that it should be passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Committee Tomorrow.