HC Deb 08 May 1967 vol 746 cc1221-3

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 9, line 22, at the end, to insert: (2) In framing regulations under the said section 64 prescribing a weight of any description which is not to be exceeded in the case of goods vehicles of a class for which a manufacturer's certificate or Minister's approval certificate may be issued under section 10 of this Act the Minister shall have regard to the design weight of the like description determined by virtue of the said section 10 for vehicles of that class and shall secure that the first-mentioned weight shall not exceed the design weight.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment has the effect of making clear that the design weight of a vehicle is not necessarily the same as the plated weight which it will not be permissible to exceed when the vehicle is approved.

Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)

The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a somewhat complicated Amendment. I understand that it is the intention to make the new arrangements for type approval as flexible as possible, and this we welcome. I understand that there have been talks with the interested parties who accept this Amendment.

I find the drafting of the Amendment a little obscure. The last line refers to "the first-mentioned weight". If one reads the subsection and shortens it, it provides that In framing regulations … the Minister shall have regard to the design weight of the like description determined by virtue of the said section 10 for vehicles of that class and shall secure that the first-mentioned weight shall not exceed the design weight. Would I be right in assuming that "the first-mentioned weight" means in fact the plated weight, and that it is the intention that in no circumstances shall the plated weight exceed the design weight? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear this up.

Mr. Swingler

I speak again by leave of the House. The point is the difference between the design weight and the plated weight, which will become clear on Amendments to Clause 10. I recognise that there are some technical complications about this. This Amendment is necessary to explain the Amendments which in consultation with the interested parties we have arrived at on Clause 10. I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment in order that we may pass to that Clause, in which case I shall give a full explanation of the view we have arrived at.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 12, line 38, after "thereof", insert: being a contravention which is declared by the regulations to be an offence".

Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment is aimed to allow for greater flexibility in the regulations requiring drivers to co-operate in goods vehicle tests, so that a driver does not automatically render himself liable to a penalty under subsection (8) in circumstances where this would be unreasonable.

Mr. Galbraith

We are all in favour of flexibility, but I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give some examples of how he envisages that this will help to protect the worker.

Mr. Swingler

The Amendment. is aimed at ensuring flexibility in regard to the contraventions concerning penalties in regard to the examination of vehicles. On reading the full Clause, it should be clear that better definitions were necessary. I do not wish to give specific examples, which might be prejudicial, but those who have examined the discussion in another place will appreciate why we wish to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith

I do not understand why the Government should be so cagey about giving an explanation which they gave in another place. Why should we not have the explanation here and an example of the sort of case which the Government anticipate will arise? The hon. Gentleman has spoken in generalities—he has to do that—but when a member of the Opposition asks for an example to be given, I cannot see that there is any harm in giving it, particularly as it was given in another place. Why should not we be told?

Mr. Swingler

I should have thought it ridiculous merely to duplicate the work of hon. Members by stating the case which, I hope, all hon. Members have studied from the proceedings in another place. The subsection provides, however, a penalty for the driver who fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (6,c,ii) in failing, for example, to be present when required during the examination of his vehicle, failing to drive it when required or failing to operate the controls of the vehicle as directed by the examiner.

The specific penalty was provided in the Clause because, while the owner presumably has an interest in seeing that the test goes as smoothly as possible for the vehicle, a driver other than the owner might conceivably have little interest in the job or in the vehicle. The flow of work along the testing lanes cannot be allowed to be delayed or impeded by an uncooperative or disinterested driver, nor without special interruption of the work flow ought the staff of the Ministry of Transport to be taken from their jobs on the lane to operate a vehicle the driver of which has, for example, absconded.

At the same time, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which the driver must legitimately have to absent himself without being able to obtain the necessary permission under subsection (6,c,ii) or might physically be unable to attend to act as directed. It is necessary, therefore, to leave sufficient flexibility in the regulations so that the driver does not in such circumstances automatically render himself liable to the penalty in subsection (8).

Those are the reasons why we propose that the Amendment should be accepted. These reasons were plainly stated in another place. I hope that the House will approve the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.