§ 34. Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport what were the legal difficulties that caused the four years' delay in the introduction of the compulsory vehicle inspection scheme.
§ Mr. MarplesThe principal legal difficulties concerned the testing of lighting equipment, re-testing at a reduced fee, liability for damage and the drafting of regulations imposing standards of braking performance.
§ Mr. StraussDoes the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a short time ago he said in a speech that
The difficulty has been the legal interpretation put on this matter and I am determined to stop the wrangling which has been going on for at least four years.Two days later, in reply to a supplementary question which I put, he said:I have never made a speech suggesting that there have been four years' wrangling.Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment?
§ Mr. MarplesYes, I would indeed. For the record, the sentence which the right hon. Gentleman read out was right. His supplementary question on 30th March was not about the legal difficulties—which is in the sentence I have referred to—but about testing stations. He suggested in that supplementary question that if testing stations were run
…either by the State or by municipal authorities there would not have been four years' wrangling."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 1308.]I replied that I did not think that there had been four years' wrangling. I should have added the words "in respect of making administrative arrangements for testing stations."—[HON. MEMBERS: "But the right hon. Gentleman did not."]—I did use the phrase "four years' wrangling", but not 435 on the subject matter of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I hope that this puts the matter right and that the record is now straight.
§ Mr. Strauss rose—
§ Mr. ManuelOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled twice this week that Members on either side should not quote during supplementary questions on Questions which they have asked. Does that rule apply to the Minister, who has just given us a long quotation?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt applies all round to questions. Hon. Members must not quote from newspaper articles, or quote at all in questions. But obviously we may get a case where the whole burden of the question relates to the precise words used, and it would make profound nonsense of it if the Member concerned could not refer to the words then.
§ Mr. StraussIn view of the fact that the Minister denied using the words which he now agrees that he did use two days before—and it makes not the slightest difference what interpretation I put on it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He denied using the words which he used two days before. Is it not up to him, as he misled the House—unwittingly, I am certain—and told an untruth in this matter, to apologise to the House for misleading it?
§ Mr. MarplesI admit freely that I used the phrase "four years' wrangling". I admit that I used it in the question of the legal interpretation which my Department was seeking to put on the question of testing of vehicles. But the supplementary question which the right hon. Gentleman asked was not about the legal interpretation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, no. His suggestion was that if we had used the State or municipal authorities for testing there would not have been four years' wrangling. In that context, I never used the words, and I never will.
Mr. Gresham CookeIf further difficulties arise, can my right hon. Friend sort them out quickly with the trade? Is that not the real issue?
§ Mr. MarplesThere has never been this wrangling as far as the trade is concerned. The difficulty has been, as the 436 House knows, in all our deliberations to find the precise legal words which would give effect to the intention. With all respect to the lawyers, it is sometimes not easy.