ROAD TRAFFIC BILL (Hansard, 20 February 1967)

§ Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we get to the Third Reading may I ask you whether, in view of certain circumstances that I will put to you, it would be better if we adjourned consideration for a morning sitting or a later sitting?

§ Mr. Speaker
The consideration of the Bill is over. There have been no Amendments submitted and the question is "That the Bill be now read the Third time".

§ Mr. Webster
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Government have requested that we should adjourn the sitting of the House? This Bill was considered in the Second Reading Committee and it has not been considered on the Floor of the House.
Under the new Parliamentary reforms we thought that this was to prevent these things being dealt with in a perfunctory manner and we have had an assurance from the Leader of the House, whom I cannot see here, that we would have the proceedings of the House accelerated by having morning sittings and earlier Adjournments so that we could deliberate these matters more seriously in the light of day. As the Bill contains retrospective legislation—the powers expired 11 months ago—and raises a constitutional point of some seriousness, may I ask whether the Leader of the House should be asked if he would ask for an adjournment?
I appreciate that the Minister is exhausted after a long day and this adds weight to the need for us to consider this when we have had our resources strengthened by a little rest.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I correct an inaccuracy on the part of the hon. Member who, perhaps through exhaustion, seems to have overlooked the fact that the retrospective element which originally 1350 appeared in the Bill was, as a concession to the Opposition, deleted in the course of the Committee stage? That is perhaps the reason that no Amendments appeared on Report, and I think that we can proceed.

§ Mr. Speaker
We are getting into political argument rather than order. So far as the Chair is concerned the Bill was before the House for consideration. There were no Amendments for consideration and the Question before the House is "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill was given full consideration by the Second Reading Committee and during the Committee stage where substantial concessions were made after Opposition representations that the retrospective element should be deleted.
It is a simple and straightforward Bill to give effect to Government policy to give local authorities every encouragement to deal with traffic congestion. It includes provisions to enable local authorities to provide off-street parking in mixed developments. I need say no more, because hon. Members who are interested devoted careful attention to the Bill in Committee.
However, I should like to take the opportunity of saying, as I have given notice to certain hon. Members that the Government would make a further statement in response to certain points raised, that my right hon. Friend the Minister has given her support to the proposal being made by the Greater London Council to introduce additional provisions in its Greater London Council General Powers (No.2) Bill to promote pre-payment street parking in its area. This will be the quickest way of enabling this procedure to be introduced where it is most needed.
This matter of residents' parking, especially in congested areas of London, concerned several hon. Members in previous stages of the Bill and I am sure that they will be glad to know that action is being taken in another respect to meet residents' problems over parking. The other matters have been dealt with very fully.

§ Mr. Webster
I come back, Mr. Speaker, to some of the points which I raised when I asked you whether you had had a request for the Adjournment of the House. Under this new procedure, there has been a change of affairs, by which the Second Reading of this Bill was considered in Committee. It has been quite a saga, which started on 26th October, when, as we know, the wrong Parliamentary Secretary appeared. We do not have—

§ Mr. Swingler
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me. We are on the Third Reading of the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman can discuss now only what is in the Bill.

§ Mr. Webster
Would it then be in order for me to move, "That this House do now adjourn," so that we can consider this matter more thoroughly in the day time?

§ Mr. Swingler
On a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman was once again starting to make aspersions on my personal behaviour—for which I have previously apologised during proceedings on the Bill—may I be allowed to know, if this sort of conduct from the hon. Gentleman is to proceed any further, whether I shall have facilities for making a further explanation?

§ Mr. Speaker
The fact that one hon. Gentleman is out of order does not justify another hon. Gentleman in doing the same. I am trying to keep the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) in order at the moment. We are on the Third Reading, and I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's Motion.

§ Mr. Webster
Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Of course, if I have made any aspersion on the Parliamentary Secretary, I immediately withdraw it. I have said a number of times that I acquit him of any discourtesy to the House as it was represented in the Second Reading Committee on the Bill. I have not the slightest objection to his behaviour or to that of the other Parliamentary Secretary. Both were so ardent in their duty that, the second time we came to the debate, both were there. One was in the Committee—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. On the Third Reading of the Bill, it is not out of order to speak about the Bill itself. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Bill.

§ Mr. Webster
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to the Bill, and come to the Bill on a number of occasions, as did both the Parliamentary Secretaries. I would simply deplore the fact that the Leader of the House, having said that we would get through our business with greater expedition—

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Webster
You, Mr. Speaker, are keeping order, not hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Leader of the House has said that we would get through our business with greater expedition under the new procedures and with the morning sittings, and that we would get away earlier—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot, on Third Reading, debate morning sittings and the time that the House rises. May I remind the hon. Gentleman? The Question is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

§ Mr. Webster
I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and will, of course, reduce that part of my speech. The difficulty is that it is impossible for all Members of the House to attend a Second Reading Committee, and we know—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member cannot come to the Bill, I must ask him to resume his seat. The Question is the Third Reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. Webster
I apologise again, Mr. Speaker.
This is the first time that, after a White Paper which dealt with the problem of parking at great length, we have come to the issue of parking facilities being provided by a local authority. Our great difficulty—I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his quick recognition of the problem which we faced—was that the powers under the original Act, the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, which came into force on 20th March, 1961, were for five years only. They had expired by some considerable length of time when the Bill came to the Second Reading Committee 1353 of this House and, because of the ineptitude of the Government, they are still in a state of suspense.
When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about whether any compulsory powers had been taken under the provisions of an expiring Statute—which had, in fact, expired nearly 11 months ago—and asked if any compulsory acquisitions had been made in the interests of off-street parking after 20th March, I found the hon. Gentleman very conscientious in his examination of the point. It is a very serious point, because if he had reported that these powers had been used extra-statutorily, there would have been a number of extremely serious problems. The House would have required that compensation should be paid to people against whom compulsory acquisition had been forced in order that off-street parking should be provided.
Secondly, we should also have had to pass a Bill of indemnity in order to assist any local authority which had taken these powers without the statutory right or obligation so to do. This is a highly difficult and complex problem. We on this side of the House pressed it during the Second Reading, and the moment that the Parliamentary Secretary saw the point, he said that he would make inquiries. We all know that there is a vast number of local authorities given power under an expiring Statute and, in this case, that power had lapsed. It was necessary, therefore, to communicate with all the local authorities concerned, in order to ask them if they had used this power.
At the time of the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary reported on the issue, and said that he would accept an Amendment from us about the retrospective element being taken out. He also said that, to the best of his knowledge at that time, no local authority had proceeded ultra vires, without legal right in order compulsorily to acquire property. I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is here to assist us in what is a complex matter. We are always grateful to have his agile mind applied to such an intricate subject, and I was about to say that we should have the right to give a Bill of indemnity to local authorities who acted innocently because, like many hon. Members of this House, they did 1354 not know that the powers had lapsed, and also to give compensation to those proprietors taken out of their right to protect their own properties.

§ Mr. Swingler
I have listened with the utmost tolerance to the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that on the Third Reading one is permitted only to discuss what is actually in a Bill. The hon. Member keeps referring to something which was deleted during the Committee stage. It was then that we conceded that the retrospective element of the Bill should be removed and, therefore, the original proposal of the Government to make these powers retrospective, is no longer in the Bill.
Is it, therefore, Mr. Speaker, in order for the hon. Gentleman to keep discussing matters which arise only from the retrospective provisions that were in the Bill at the time of the Second Reading, but which are now no longer in it?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) to be discussing the retrospective element which was taken out. I understood him to be asking what is the effect of the Bill as it stands.

§ Mr. Webster
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer me and give the same assurance that he gave in Committee. He seems rather sensitive on this point, so I shall press him for his assurance that no local authorities have proceeded in this way and no people have suffered. Let him give that assurance so that the House can definitely know it and have it on the record. We need no ombudsman in this House but hon. Members standing up for their constituents, and we ask him for that assurance.

§ Mr. Swingler
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I explained the position at considerable length twice upstairs. [Interruption.] I assume that hon. Members read the proceedings on the Bill. We discussed at considerable length on Second Reading and in Committee whether this retrospective element was eliminated, and I gave the assurance that, having investigated the whole situation, we could find no case in which a local authority had incurred expenditure and it was, therefore, on that basis that the 1355 retrospective element was eliminated. That is all on the record and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should have raised the matter again.

§ Mr. Webster
The hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, protests a little too much. I wonder why there is this reluctance to give the same assurance today. It would have been quicker to have given it and put the position to the House. These powers have expired and it is the duty of Parliament to make sure that powers are not used after their expiry. I am astonished by this sensitivity of the hon. Gentleman when he was so reasonable on Second Reading and in Committee.
I am trying to tread like Agag and keep in order in considering the main purpose of why there was the 5-year lapsing provision. This was done in the time of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) as Minister of Transport. It was decided not to have direct trading by local authorities from off-street car parks. I understand that the Labour Party when in office wishes to have trading from local authority controlled car parks, however, and I want to know how much this will cost on the rate burden and on the Exchequer grant.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to walk as delicately as Agag but not quite delicately enough at the moment.

§ Mr. Webster
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a problem of the financial aspect of this—how much the ratepayer's money is to be used to compete against himself. We debated this at great length on the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said clearly that the reason for the lapsing of these powers five years after the Act went on the Statute Book was in order to prevent trading. I appreciate that the opposite opinion is now in power, but I want to know what will be the cost of this change of policy. It is our duty to find out the cost. We know that, in Greater London, there is the greater prospect of both direct labour contracts and the ratepayer's money being used against himself and we here have a great problem through the equalisation grant and other measures to help local authorities when the rate bur 1356 den is taken from them and put on to the taxpayer.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. These are interesting points but they are not connected with the Bill.

§ Mr. Webster
I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, but this surely is a point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said was the purpose of including the expiry part of Section 20 of the 1960 Act. That has now been revoked. There is no longer a five-year term on the powers which the House in its wisdom is granting tonight to the Government.
The reason for that elimination of the five-year term, as referred to on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, is expressly that there should be direct trading by the local authorities concerned. If Parliament is granting these powers to local authorities, it has the right to ask how much of the taxpayer's money and how much of the ratepayer's money will be used to build up competition against himself. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is well equipped to give the answer to these questions. If not, we will have to seek the answer in the way best known to ourselves.

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
It is absolutely disgraceful that the Bill should come before the House at 1.15 in the morning. It has not been before the House before. It has been to a Second Reading Committee. I have tried to understand it from the Committee proceedings and from the Bill itself. It is an abominable abuse of the Second Reading procedure to bring it before us at this time of night.
The Bill asks us to ratify payment to reimburse money paid out without authority. Clause 1(2) states that There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this section in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment. In this short debate, at this time of night, we are asked to authorise the payment of money without being told the amount or the justification for the Bill. What was the increase? What is the money that Parliament is asked to provide—the increase attributable to this section"? 1357 We have not been told what the increase is, to what it is attributable, on what it was spent or who spent it. None of these things has been told to us tonight. Neither can we have a satisfactory debate on a Bill of this importance at this time of night.
The Parliamentary Secretary has protested several times that the Bill is not retrospective. What is Clause 1(2) if it is not retrospective? We are told in subsection (1) that certain provisions of a previous Statute expired on 19th March, 1966. We are then told to delete that provision of the previous Statute so that that Statute now goes on indefinitely. Therefore, for the period between March, 1966, and when the Bill gets Royal Assent, somebody has been spending money without authority.

§ Mr. Page
Indeed, what is the purpose of subsection (2), which asks us to authorise the payment of money against that increase attributable to the extension of the period of the previous Statute? That must surely mean the money spent between March, 1966, and the present date. If it does not, what is the purpose of the Bill? If it is not retrospective to authorise payment over that period, to indemnify those who have paid during that period, what is the purpose of the Bill?
Has there been any increase to which this money is payable? From the protest of the Parliamentary Secretary when interrupting from time to time my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), one gathered that nothing had been spent, that nothing had been done during that period and that the Bill was of no purpose and was not retrospective. What, then, is the purpose of bringing the Bill before the House at this time of night? We have had no justification for it.
This is the first time that the Bill has been before the House. [Interruption.] I have tried to read it. Does the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) know what is in the Bill? Perhaps he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and endeavour to tell the House about it. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not told the House—[Interruption].

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot proceed at any time of the day by interruption after interruption.

§ Mr. Page
I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me from the wording of this short Bill that we are being asked to pass retrospective legislation. We are asked to say that a Statute which expired in March last shall not be treated as coming into operation with the passing of this Bill, but as having run for the period between March last and the present time.
The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but what is the meaning of the deletion of the words in the previous Statute within the period of five years beginning with the coming into force of this section"? If these words are deleted the Act runs straight on past March, 1966, and now we are legislating to whitewash local authorities who, I presume, have been collecting money from parking quite illegally and paying it out quite illegally. It may be that the House is quite prepared to give them indemnity, but for heaven's sake let us have it explained to us. Let us be told the amount of money, who has been collecting it, and who it has been collected from, and why we are asked to do this.
The Bill of 1960 set a period of time of five years, and at that time the House obviously thought it was the right period of time. It is now to be extended, but we have not been given any justification for it. Have not the local authorities had time to get on with the job under the 1960 Act, to put forward proposals to the Minister, and to have their proposals approved? Are there many local authorities waiting to put forward their proposals?
If the House were told that we might be prepared to pass the Bill on Third Reading, but we are not told. This is the first time the Bill has come before the House, and the Leader of the House should be ashamed of abusing his powers by putting the Bill before us in this way and at twenty minutes to two in the morning.

§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if you would accept a Motion, "That the debate be now adjourned", because there is a special circumstance so far as this 1359 Bill is concerned in the sense that the Bill was sent to the Second Reading Committee?
This is a method of dealing with Bills of this sort which both sides of the House have agreed upon in order to speed up business, and which is appropriate for certain types of measure. But if this Measure does require publicity throughout the country, because there may be local authorities which have been adversely affected during the lapse of time, it is a very bad abuse of the House if a Bill of this sort is bought on for Third Reading at this time of night.
If it is to be the practice of the Government to bring on at this time of night Bills referred to the Second Reading Committee, we on this side of the House will have to consider carefully our whole attitude to this procedure. I would submit that it is in the interests of both sides of the House that the Government should accept that this is not an appropriate time to debate this particular Bill, and that the debate should now be adjourned and we should pass on to other business.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not prepared to accept the Motion. I am in complete sympathy at times with points of view put by both sides of the House, but these matters are not for me.