HC Deb 16 July 1965 vol 716 cc1072-5
Mr. Powell

I beg to move Amend-mend No. 3, Clause 7, in page 8, line 14, to leave out from "carriageways" to "by" in line 15.

On re-reading the proceedings in Committee on the Bill I am inclined to conclude that the object of this Amendment, which was discussed there, was never really understood by the Government. If it had been understood then I do not think they could have resisted it.

I am reinforced in this by re-reading the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. He began by saying that for many years past he had been agitating for particular vehicles to be banned from the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is just possible that the Parliamentary Secretary has been agitating for vehicles which he knew to belong to well-known and powerful Tory supporters, not to be allowed to go about their lawful occasion in the town from which his constituency takes his name.

On a more generous construction of his words, however, I am inclined to believe that he understands "particular vehicle" in the sense of vehicles of a particular class or description. But they are already included in the rest of the wording of this Clause. All the peculiarities of a vehicle which the Parliamentary Secretary proceeded to list, which might very properly justify being forbidden the use of the bridge by those administering the bridge, appear to me to come under the description "vehicles of any particular class or description", in line 15 of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman mentions very tall vans, vans of a particular shape or character. These are all characteristics which could be specified but they are not the characteristics of a unique vehicle. It seems to us that the addition of the words "any particular vehicle" to that already comprehensive phrase "vehicles of any particular class or description" would permit those controlling the bridge literally to discriminate against a particular vehicle, a van not different in any physical respect from other vans, but a van which belonged to Jack Robinson or Joe Smith. Of course that is not the intention and I suggest the Clause would be entirely satisfactory and give rise to no particular risk if those words were omitted.

Mr. Swingler

It was perhaps rather dangerous to refer to Newcastle-under-Lyme during the Committee stage, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I actually had in mind particular vehicles—I do not know whether they belong to Tory supporters or not. We are thinking here of particular vehicles and the need for somebody (again we are discussing exceptional circumstances) to judge whether or not a particular vehicle should cross the Severn Bridge in, for example, a 100-mile-per-hour gale. It is not possible to put into the Bill every kind of vehicle we might have in mind because we would have had to define every kind of weather condition we had in mind and every kind of movement of the bridge in the face of an 80 to 100 miles-per-hour gale.

The reason for allowing the power in respect of particular vehicles is to discriminate against them in order to safeguard the drivers, so that someone who knows conditions can say to the drivers, "You should not cross the Severn Bridge in these conditions because it would be dangerous to you and damaging to the bridge, and, therefore, you should go round another way." That would be not prohibiting a whole class of vehicles, but the particular type of load which the man had on the vehicle in the conditions and circumstances of the time.

Orders have to be made about this. They will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. But I hope that it will be appreciated that there have arisen very considerable dangers to people in the past about river crossings and bridges in this country and other countries. We have exceptional circumstances in mind and the need for someone to have the judgment, and the power to back that judgment, in the prohibition, not just of classes of vehicles, but of particular vehicles in these exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Powell

The Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps be relieved to know that, although I am still not satisfied with his answer, I do not propose to call into action on this Amendment the numerous troops by which this building is packed from attic to Crypt. I venture to hope, however, that the Government will look at this matter again during subsequent stages of the Bill.

I simply cannot believe that it is impossible in regulations to hit upon some such description as "by reason of its size or other peculiarities is likely in the circumstances to cause danger to itself, the structure or other users of the bridge", which would bring any particular vehicle within a class and would enable the person who believed that he was being unreasonably discriminated against to have a basis on which he could, in extreme cases, test the matter in the proper way.

Therefore, it is not because I am satisfied, but because I wish to allow the Government the opportunity of further consideration of the matter that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.