HC Deb 29 May 1968 vol 765 cc1789-96

CONTROL OF THE USE OF LARGE GOODS VEHICLES

Mr. G. Campbell

I beg to move Amendment No. 265, in page 94, line 34, at end insert: (4) A journey shall not be a controlled journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if there are no railway lines which could undertake any part of that journey.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

I suggest that it would be convenient for the following Amendments to be discussed at the same time: No. 266, in line 34 at end insert: (4) A journey shall not be a controlled journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if more than half of that journey cannot be undertaken by rail owing to the distances of the starting point and the destination from appropriate railway terminals.

No. 267, in line 47, at end insert: (5) A journey shall not be a controlled journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if the starting point or the destination is more than forty miles distant from the rail terminals which would have to be used for the goods in question.

No. 272, page 96, in line 23, at end insert: (11) Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the carriage by road of any article or articles which by reasons of weight or size are certified by the Railways Board as being unsuitable for transporting by rail.

Mr. Campbell

Amendment 265 seeks to exempt from the system areas in which there are no railways at all. Amendments 266 and 267 should be considered together since the former provides for the situation where more than half of a journey cannot be undertaken by rail, while the latter provides for the situation where there is a road distance of more than 40 miles from a rail terminal. This group of Amendments therefore brings to the attention of the Government situations where railways are either nonexistent or so exiguous as not to be able to provide an alternative service.

It is stated in Clause 69(3) that part of a journey must be undertaken by rail if there is to be an objection to an application for a special authorisation for services by road. We hope that the Government will confirm that neither the Freight Corporation nor the Railway Board can lodge an objection unless they can show that part of the journey which they would undertake is to be by rail.

The situations raised by the three Amendments will, for the most part, occur in development areas. As the debate on the last Amendment indicated, my hon. Friends and I believe that it would be best to release development areas from the whole paraphernalia of quantity licensing. If the Government are not prepared to do that, they should simplify the procedure for areas which are in the situation of the three Amendments, and so reduce the harm to industries and businesses arising from the irksome and unnecessary procedure which is involved.

We made some progress in Committee because there was added to the Bill a provision which will enable someone in such an area to send in a certificate when applying stating that no objection is raised by either the Freight Corporation or the Railways Board. That is a simplification of the procedure, but it still means that an applicant must go to those authorities to obtain a certificate, and this may take some time, unless the matter has been worked out, in general, beforehand. Another addition made was a change in Clause 71, which was the emergency Clause, and which now covers all cases of urgency and not just emergency. I recognise that that is an improvement in the procedure.

We still have the posititon of Ministers saying in Committee that in areas such as those described in this group of Amendments the Government are not prepared to allow exemption and that the grant of special authorisations will, in the words of the Minister of State, be "automatic". Thus, the Government's argument is that the applications will simply be sent to the licensing authorities who will automatically grant them. This is creating the sort of patchwork system which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. Dunwoody) wants to avoid, because it will divide the country into areas where the grant of special authorisations will be automatic, on demand, in some and not in others.

At successive meetings of the Standing Committee we pressed the Government for an assurance about the form of the special authorisation which could be applied for in these areas. We now want the latest views of the Government because the Minister has had three or four weeks to consider the matter since we last discussed it in Committee. We want the Government's view of what has been called a "blanket special authorisation" for businesses in areas where either the railways do not operate or there is not an effective railway service.

In the Minister's last statement in Committee he went as far as to say, when answering a question put by me, that it would be possible for an applicant to apply for very wide terms which would cover "a multitude of journeys"—those were the words he used—and that went a long way towards meeting our request. However, if the Government cannot accept this group of Amendments and if they refuse to exempt these areas from quantity licensing, we require a clear statement.

Can the Minister make it clear that, for the areas that fall within this group of Amendments, it will be in order for an application to be made and granted covering any kind of goods, to and from any part of Britain, and covering the return load for any kind of goods and for the full period of the license; that is, up to five years? That would be a blanket authorisation. We hope that the Minister will give a straight answer, "Yes" or "No", to this question. We hope it will be "Yes". The Minister has gone as far as saying that it could cover "a multitude of journeys", but unless he now answers my question in the affirmative we cannot regard it as a real blanket special authorisation.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is referring to what is now the best type of A licence available and that there would be great difficulty in obtaining such a licence under the present system from many licensing authorities?

Mr. Campbell

The purpose of the Bill is, among other things, to abolish A and B licensing and the Government have introduced a new system divided into two parts, one quality licensing, with which we have been dealing, and the other quantity licensing, with which we are now dealing and which we believe is unnecessary if the quality part is efficient.

Mr. Huckfield indicated assent.

Mr. Campbell

I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman shares our view.

Mr. Huckfield

Only on this point.

Mr. Campbell

If there were a form of blanket authorisation in the terms I have suggested, it would mean that many businesses would avoid having to think out well in advance all the possible services and journeys which they might have to undertake for months ahead and for which they would need to apply. If the grant of special authorisations is to be automatic, we should preclude the need for continual applications being made.

Some businesses cannot foresee exactly what journeys and services they will need. I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion over this because one Minister —he is no longer at the Ministry of Transport—said in Committee that managements should be able to foresee weeks ahead the journeys and services they will require. That may be so in a limited number of businesses. In others the nature of the business is such that they cannot foresee exactly what transport requirements will be necessary, and they need to be ready to operate at very short notice on unforeseen journeys. We hope that the Government, in expressing their attitude to this group of Amendments, will answer in clear terms this important point about blanket authorisations.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)

I support the arguments which have been most effectively advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I apologise to the House and to the Minister for the fact that I may not be present to hear the Minister's reply. This will be for reasons outwith my control. Because of the way in which the House is being currently mismanaged as to time, I am on a Committee where I also have to represent the interests of my constituents. I apologise to the Minister and assure him that no discourtesy is intended.

I support these Amendments because it seems transparent common sense that where journeys cannot be done largely or at all by railway it is nonsense that firms should be expected to have to go through the procedure of applying for an authorisation, even if it is granted automatically. If the Minister can give an assurance in precisely the terms asked for by my hon. Friend, that will be of great assistance to people living, working and operating in areas such as these.

I would prefer that the Amendments should be accepted so that there could be no doubt or question, because we do not trust assurances from the Government, but I certainly accept that if the Minister would give a specific and categoric assurance in precisely the terms in which my hon. Friend asked, that would go some way towards meeting our anxieties.

Of the three Amendments, Amendment No. 267 appeals to me most. If that were accepted circumstances might arise by which a substantial part of my constituency would be exempted from the horrors of quantity licensing. At the moment British Railways are continuing to run a freight service to Forfar in my constituency, the passenger service having been withdrawn.

Mr. Swingler

We did that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

The present Government did that; I hope that satisfies the Minister of State.

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East) rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I have no intention of giving way. We have listened to long and, as far as I can see— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the hon. Member will not be unduly provocative—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I would not dream of being provocative.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

—in relation to other matters on this Amendment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I did not catch that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall not pursue the point.

The freight service to Forfar is at present under a sort of suspended sentence. We do not know whether it will continue at the end of the two-year period. If Amendment No. 267 were passed I would not know whether to wish that the freight service should be sustained or withdrawn because, if it were withdrawn, a substantial number of firms in my constituency would be freed from the whole paraphernalia of obtaining authorisations. If they were freed from that most of them would be delighted to settle for such a decision, even at the expense of withdrawal of the freight service which is used only to a limited extent and at limited times.

Where the railways cannot provide either complete or partial services simply because they do not have a service at all, not only should the authorisation be automatic but it should not even be required.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I have already refused to give way to one hon. Member. I do not think that I should make exceptions.

If the Government are prepared to assure us that under the circumstances of the areas covered by these Amendments the granting of special authorisations would be automatic, I cannot see why they cannot go one step further and accept the Amendments.

Mr. James Davidson

Points on Amendments Nos. 265, 266 and 267 have been adequately made, so I shall speak more particularly on Amendment 272, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). That Amendment provides that Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the carriage by road of any article or articles which by reasons of weight or size are certified by the Railways Board as being unsuitable for transporting by rail. I hope that when the Minister answers the debate he will take the opportunity, which he did not take earlier, of replying to the questions I put to him at the end of the debate on the previous Amendment. They are also relevant to this group of Amendments.

To give an example of the type of item we have in mind in Amendment No. 272, the paper mills industry, about which I know something, often has to transport large and unwieldy rolls of paper which are altogether unsuitable to go on the railways. They are too wide to go sideways on a truck and if they are put lengthways they do not adequately fill a truck. For this type of article there should be exemption. I should like the Minister to say whether this type of goods could be excluded from the provisions of quantity licensing because they are totally unsuitable for transport by rail.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Is the hon. Member suggesting that British Railways or the National Freight Corporation would seek traffic which would be too high or too broad for railway loading bases and that this would be physically impossible?

Mr. Davidson

I am not suggesting that, but that it would be unsuitable and uneconomic to load these goods on to railway trucks.

Proceedings on consideration of the Bill having continued for five and a half hours after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past One o'clock, p.m.