HC Deb 20 December 1968 vol 775 cc1801-12

3.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)

I wish, first, to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Speaker for being allowed to raise this matter this afternoon. I am painfully aware that on a previous occasion when I had opportunity to raise this matter I was, it might be said, taken short by the rising of the House at lunchtime on a Friday. I am deeply grateful to be given the opportunity of raising what I regard as. a genuine grievance on the part of my constituent and for the fact that he has not been made to suffer through my being remiss.

The matter which I wish to raise is one in which I hold strongly that a constituent of mine has been shamefully treated by the Ministry of Transport. Although this is a constituency matter, I believe that it has wider political implications, as I shall endeavour to show. The story is a long one but I will do my best to condense it.

My constituent, Mr. Frank Bell, runs a small garage in the village of Kingsmuir, in my constituency. For many years he has had a Ministry of Transport authorisation as a vehicle testing station. At no time, he assures me, has there been a breath of criticism from any quarter of the way in which he has conducted authorised tests.

Early in the spring this year, he received, in common with other vehicle testing stations, a copy of a special notice to authorised examiners, as it was called, from the Ministry of Transport. The notice told Mr. Bell that, among other things, the minimum requirements for equipment were to be raised and that the additional equipment—in this case a second hoist—had to be obtained by 15th July on pain of the testing station losing its authorisation. He was also assured in the course of the note from the Ministry of Transport that the new requirements had "the full support" of the associations representing the motor industry.

I accept, as does my constituent and as would, any sensible person, that Ministry of Transport test must be properly carried out in the interests of road safety. My constituent felt, how- ever, and I agree with him, that there was no logical reason for thinking that the additional of an extra hoist would necessarily make a significant contribution to that desirable end.

The idea obviously is that if a garage has only one hoist and a car comes in for testing at a time when another car is already under repair, the car which has come in for testing might not be put over the hoist and thus not properly tested. Whilst that may be true, the situation in a large garage might be that there were two cars in for repair, or one in for repair and another for testing, when another car came in for testing. If the testing station required to have only two hoists, the possibility would equally arise that if another car were to come in to be tested, it might go through without proper inspection over the hoist.

My constituent argued that a small garage like his, with a small clientele whose vehicles required testing, was considerably less likely to try to test two cars at the same time than a large garage was likely to be testing three vehicles.

That was the case put to me by my constituent in March. I passed it to the Ministry for comment and I received a reply on 11th April, a full three weeks after the Ministry received my letter. This reply was largely confined to a reiteration of the terms of the original circular, with a possibly significant phrase about how the garage proprietor must make up his own mind as to whether the game was worth the candle.

I passed this letter on to Mr. Bell, who passed it on to his trade association, the Scottish Motor Trade Association. The Association wrote to him on 18th April to say that the Ministry's claim that the new rules, as set out in the circular, had been agreed with the trade associations was "not correct". On the contrary, they said, representatives of the Motor Agents Association and the Scottish Motor Trade Association had met the Ministry in November, 1967, and obtained their agreement that, in relation to equipment, special circumstances would require to apply to outlying garages. Yet the circular that the Ministry had issued contained no reference to this stipulation.

As a result, the trade associations asked for a meeting with the Ministry about it.

It took the Ministry until 1st April to arrange such a meeting. On 25th April, I wrote again to the Ministry to report these comments. This time it took the Ministry a fortnight to reply and they told me that the question of what were now referred to as "remote garages" had been discussed with the trade associations on 1st April, but the outcome of these discussions was not disclosed.

Therefore, I wrote again to ask about the outcome of the discussions. This time, it took the Ministry almost a month to reply, and when they did, the answer made it clear that the original claim, that the terms of the circular had been agreed with the motor associations, was totally without foundation.

The reply, however, also made it clear for the first time that a garage like that of my constituent would be required to conform to the terms of the Ministry's Circular. That letter was dated 7th June, and my constituent immediately placed an order, at a cost of £500, for a second hoist with a London firm. Almost simultaneously, the Ministry's senior area mechanical engineer in Aberdeen told my constituent that, if he did not have his new equipment by 15th July, he would only be allowed a short period of grace. But my constituent heard from the London firm that was supplying the hoist that it was quoting six months' delivery.

On this basis, he applied for and was given a further stay of execution from the Ministry until 15th September. By the beginning of September, he still had no sign of his second hoist. At this point, he received seven days notice of termination of his authorisation. He approached me again and I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary on 7th September, asking for an assurance, by return, that the authorisation would not be withdrawn pending delivery of his second hoist.

This time, it took the Ministry nine days to answer and the answer was that the axe would have to fall on Mr. Bell on 13th October, 30 days after expiry of the notice. Mr. Bell, I was told, "had not acted very expeditiously" in placing his order for the second hoist. This, from a Ministry which had taken four months to arrange a meeting on this very subject with the trade associations about a Circular which was apparently issued more or less under false pretences and three solid months of correspondence to establish Mr. Bell's precise situation.

I am glad to say that this saga appears likely, at long last, to have a happy ending. Two weeks ago, Mr. Bell's second hoist arrived and he was told to apply for reinstatement as an authorised vehicle tester. I spoke to him this morning and he told me that, by a strange coincidence on which perhaps I should not elaborate, the Ministry of Transport in Aberdeen had telephoned him last night to say that his authorisation reinstatement as a vehicle tester would be approved. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to confirm this reassurance.

But we cannot leave the matter there. For one thing, my constituent tells me that, since his authorisation was withdrawn on 16th October, he reckons to have lost directly at least £100 of business on testing alone. That is not an insignificant matter for a small garage. Secondly, there is the intangible loss which may have arisen from suspicions among Mr. Bell's customers—totally unjustified suspicions, I hasten to emphasise—that there must have been a good reason for the withdrawal of his testing authorisation.

Finally, there is the suspicion that this is an instance in which the Government have acted in a manner which is motivated by political considerations. Let me explain precisely what I mean. Mr. Bell tells me—and I understand that he is not unique in thinking this—that there appears to be a campaign by the Government to drive small vehicle-testing garages out of vehicle testing with a view, it is thought, to providing a gap which could be filled by the garages which the railways are to be empowered to set up under the terms of the Transport Act.

It might be thought that this was a pretty far-fetched suspicion on my constituent's part, but I understand that it is a widespread suspicion in the garage business. I am bound to say that when I raised the matter on the last stages of the Transport Bill in the House, all that I got from the Minister of Transport was, not an assurance that the Government did not intend to try to carve out a special preserve of vehicle testing for these garages which the railways intend to set up, but a suggestion that I should write to the Ministry about the case—a case about which I had been in correspondence with the Ministry for over six months. It was in the light of that reply that I originally applied for an Adjournment debate.

I hope that this afternoon the Minister will give us a categorical assurance that the Government will not badger and bully small garages out of vehicle testing, which can be an important and valuable element in their trading livelihood, in order to make room for vehicle testing by the railways under the Transport Act. That is the least that we can demand from the Government in this matter.

Furthermore, I believe that my constituent has been shamefully treated and disgracefully bullied by the Ministry, which has dared to accuse him of dilatoriness after showing inexcusable dilatoriness throughout the whole of the affair, from beginning to end. In the light of all the facts, my constituent is entitled to a thorough-going apology from the Ministry of Transport, and I hope that the Minister will give that, too, this afternoon.

3.58 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has raised a specific case of the Ministry's testing scheme in his constituency. However, it may be helpful if, before replying to the specific points which he has raised, I give some account of the background against which the events in this case have taken place.

Following a sample check of the testing standards maintained by garages operating the testing scheme, the Minister announced in December, 1967, a series of measures designed to enforce testing standards. The results of the check had shown that only 40 per cent. of the tests were carried out fully satisfactorily. The position clearly called for some pretty drastic action and the Ministry had to decide what action should be taken.

Three alternatives were open. The first was to abolish the existing scheme and replace the garages with Government testing stations, as with heavy goods vehicle testing. The second was to reshape the scheme to concentrate testing in a very much smaller number of garages by relating testing capacity to demand in any given area. The third—

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Mr. Brown

The third was to attempt to make the existing scheme work efficiently by introducing measures to improve standards. We decided that the latter course was right in that it was better that there should be a very large number, over 20,000, of garages efficiently carrying out vehicle testing, not least from the point of view of the convenience of motorists who would have to travel a distance to get their cars tested if the number of testing stations was drastically reduced. We appreciated that the introduction of higher standards would lead to some reduction of the total number of testing stations, but, in the event, it looks as though the reduction will be marginal.

I completely refute the hon. Gentleman's inference that the purpose of lightening the standards is to drive smaller garages out of the testing business and ultimately to drive all private garages out of it so that we can do the testing through British Rail garages, if B.R. eventually decided to run garages.

It was not, and it is not, the purpose of these measures to drive garages out of the testing business. I assure the House of this. It is true that the nationalised industries, under powers provided in Section 48 of the Transport Act, 1968, have the power to establish garages should they so desire. But if the Minister had any thought of this, then clearly he could have established Ministry testing stations, as with heavy goods vehicles. But this thought has not entered the Minister's head or the Government's thinking. If the hon. Gentleman says that there is much suspicion in the garage trade about this, I suggest to him that much of that suspicion has been sown by himself and other hon. Gentlemen opposite.

If, however, British Rail should opt to operate garages, there is no reason why they should not be eligible to apply to be authorised to test vehicles, just as any private garage is entitled to do. And, like any private garage, to become authorised they would have to meet the current requirements. There would be no question of any lower standards being applied to a nationalised industry.

In the 44 per cent. of the tests found unsatisfactory during the sample check, no pit or hoist was used to examine the underside of the vehicle. We consider the use of such equipment to be absolutely essential if the examination is to be done properly. The reason for a pit or hoist not being used in a large number of cases was because the only pit or hoist in the garage was already occupied by an immobilised vehicle.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that in bigger garages which had perhaps two pits or hoists both could be in use when a vehicle arrived to be tested, so that it would be examined without a proper under-body inspection. It should be apparent to the hon. Gentleman that, by and large, the bigger garages do this testing at the time of regular services or by appointment. It is not usual for people to suddenly turn up at a garage and say, "Please test my car now." This is hardly the type of thing that will happen with many of the main agents. In most cases one has to make an appointment with them for any type of repair.

Testing stations were told, in a special notice dated December, 1967, that two means of under-vehicle inspection would in future be required. The Ministry has ruled that this requires one means to be of a type acceptable for vehicle testing—generally a pit at least 12 feet long or a hoist of the platform (not wheel free) type. The second means must be suitable for the normal work of the garage. In other words it must not be of a token nature merely to meet the letter of the requirements. It is not claimed that this requirement will eliminate the particular shortcoming, but it is one of a series of measures designed to uplift testing standards and should certainly make this shortcoming less frequent.

Testing stations were given until 15th July, 1968—that is, six months—to meet this new requirement, and were warned that any who did not would have to leave the scheme. Apparently, some sup- pliers of vehicle hoists were slow to respond to the increase in demand occasioned by this measure, and to go some way to meet delays in delivery the due date was extended to 15th October, but garages still not meeting the new requirement by that date were withdrawn from the scheme.

Some of these garages will want to be re-appointed when the extra equipment becomes available, and we are prepared to consider with all possible expedition applications from such garages where they took steps in good time to place orders for new equipment. But any garage which took no action before 15th July, 1968, will have to wait for reappointment until the embargo on new applications is lifted. This embargo will be in force at least until the end of March next year.

We did, however, agree with the trade associations that, exceptionally, exemption from the new standards might be given in cases where the withdrawal of a testing station would cause severe inconvenience to the public. This was where the inability of a garage to find the necessary finance for additional equipment was coupled with its remote or inaccessible location.

Clearly, there are not many of these remote or inaccessible locations in the country, but we consider it is in the public interest that every testing station should be equipped to the new standards, and we wanted the garages to get on with this rather than spend time seeking to establish whether they could claim exemption. We did not think there could be many cases justifying exemption and, in the event, only 13 exemptions have been granted.

The hon. Gentleman basically suggests that when we sent out the circular last December, we should have said: "If you expect trouble in raising finance, or if your garage is in a remote or inaccessible position where the public will be inconvenienced, you can apply for exemption." This is clearly a question of saving lives on the highway. If, as has been suggested, we had inserted such a paragraph in the circular, we would have had hundreds of applications for exemption which, in the event, we have not had. We would have had to deal with a great backlog, and the extra standards we desire would have taken perhaps 12 months or more to come about. In that time many lives would have been lost which have been saved by the improvement in the standards.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I am not saying that the Ministry should have spelled out what exemptions there should be; I am saying that the Ministry's circular said that it was agreed and approved by the motor trade associations, and that this proved to be untrue. That is the point.

Mr. Brown

That is not so. I have here a note of the meeting held at St. Christopher House on Friday, 17th November, 1967, with the officers of the Ministry and the Motor Agents' Association. I quote from the note of the meeting: It was agreed that garages would be required to provide a minimum of two pits or hoists or one pit and a hoist, one of these being of an acceptable type. It was acknowledged that exceptional cases would arise in remote areas where conditions regarding equipment would not be met or the cost justified and in such cases a social convenience clause would have to be included in the contract. That is from the record of the meeting. It is not fair to say that this was not agreed. Normally if notes are taken at a meeting the notes are exchanged.

Mr. Bell was in no worse position than many other authorised examiners whose authorisations have been withdrawn because they do not meet the new equipment standard, in most cases because they have not yet been able to obtain delivery of a vehicle hoist.

Some hoist manufacturers seem unwilling or unable to confirm delivery dates and we felt that we could not allow the position to continue indefinitely where a small minority of testing stations were not equipped to the new standards. To do so would make a mockery of the Minister's serious concern at the standards of vehicle testing, which must concern us all, and of the stated intention to do something quickly to remedy the position.

Mr. Bell received the special notice about the additional equipment on or about 12th January last. He could have placed an order for an additional hoist then or soon afterwards, but about two months later Mr. Bell decided to write to the hon. Member challenging the deci- sion to require these higher equipment standards. He did not order a hoist until some time after 10th May.

From the hon. Member's speech I understood that he said that it was some time after 10th June. He could not then meet the deadline of 15th October. The position is that Mr. Bell now has his hoist and has made application for reappointment. He was informed yesterday, by telephone, that his authorisation has been reinstated and that formal confirmation, in writing, will follow as quickly as possible.

I did not quite follow the tone of the hon. Member when he was referring to this telephone call. Is he suggesting that because we are having an Adjournment debate today I should have said to my officers in Scotland, "Do not give this man his authorisation back until I have dealt with this matter in the Adjournment debate "?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown

That seemed to be what the hon. Member implied. It is not fair or reasonable. If, on the other hand, he is implying that we gave him his authorisation yesterday because this Adjournment debate is taking place today, that is equally wrong. We have had the application in, and it is the normal thing to inform applicants as quickly as possible that they are back on the register. That is what has happened in this case.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

The hon. Member does not seem to have grasped the point about the reasons for the delay in Mr. Bell's ordering his second hoist. The reason was that it took me three solid months to get an answer from the Ministry of Transport, on behalf of Mr. Bell, as to whether or not he would be required to have this additional equipment.

Mr. Brown

That is simply not correct. I have not time to wade through the volume of correspondence that I have on the matter. I am sorry to say it, but Mr. Bell is the author of his own misery. He has had a co-author in the hon. Gentleman. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about it. Mr. Bell could have ordered his hoist far earlier than he did. If he had done so, he would not have been in the unfortunate position in which he eventually found himself.

I completely refute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this is a typical example of bureaucratic tyranny, which is the way in which I think that the hon. Gentleman described the Ministry of Transport in the local Press. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the public in taking this line. Rather, our action is part of a logical and necessary policy dictated by the appallingly low standard of work revealed by the sample check last year. Such standards, if unchecked, would simply swell the appalling road casualty figures which occur year by year.

This scheme is making a direct contribution to road safety. This is why it was necessary for the Minister to act quickly. This is why I suggest that it would have been unreasonabe to have encouraged, as the hon. Gentleman apparently did, garages to apply for exemption, because the scheme was long enough in getting off the ground. It behoved every garage which had its own good name and that of the trade at heart to act quickly, too. Many of them did so. I am in no doubt that the result has been a saving of lives; which is, after all, what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the House would be pleased if the last words in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 1968 are an expression of our gratitude to all who serve the House in any way for loyal and willing service, devotedly given, throughout the year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Four o'clock till Monday, 20th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 17th December.