HC Deb 07 November 1968 vol 772 cc1213-22

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

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

The subject I wish to raise this evening is an old one. It is the question of to speak about the growing practice of deliberately evading payment of the road fund licence. I will not go into all the facts and figures which I could produce to show that there are thousands of vehicles, private, commercial, large and small, that are being reported for this evasion. In many thousands of cases, no action is taken, although the G.L.C. and other licensing authorities are now catching up.

I have frequently asked the police to take action when I have seen them between 1.30 and 2 o'clock going in and out of their stations in and around London and passing hundreds of vehicles without attempting to report them. Only this week an inspector told me that this offence is so prevalent that if it is reported it takes a long time for the G.L.C. to do anything, and there are often no records of registration. The police are getting tired of this situation.

On 3rd October at 2.30 p.m., I noticed an Austin Mini with no licence pull into a garage. I told the driver that he was committing an offence to have the car on the road. Aggressively, he demanded, "What's it got to do with you?" I said, "As a taxpayer and ratepayer, I do not think it is right that you should be driving on the road illegally and not paying tax." The garage attendant who had not heard the earlier exchange, came along and asked, "What have we got, a fight between the police and a Member of Parliament?". I had not disclosed who I was.

I then said to the driver of the vehicle, which had the registration No. 529 WKT, "You are not a police officer, are you?". to which he replied, "Oh, yes." I said, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself." He said, "Who are you?" I replied, "I am a Member of Parliament. "His attitude changed and he said, "I have only just bought the car." I said," It does not make any difference, you are not supposed to be on the road with an untaxed vehicle, and you are the one who should be enforcing the law." He did not say that he had just licensed it or had just applied for a licence; he said that he had only just bought the car. On the previous four or five occasions when I had reported similar offences no action had been taken. The policemen concerned had asked me not to report them as they were afraid for their jobs and families, so I did not do so. In this instance I decided to report the matter, and I went to the local police station. I did not divulge who I was, but when I made the general complaint the attitude was that they could not care less. It was only when I asked them to put in a written report saying what action would be taken and divulged who I was that there was any attempt to say that something should be done.

On Thursday, 3rd October, I telephoned the G.L.C. to discover if the vehicle was licensed. The G.L.C.'s Chief Enforcement Officer ascertained that it was an Essex registration and not a London one. Later that day, he telephoned in my absence to report that the vehicle was not taxed on that day. He was asked to ring me back so that I could get it from him verbally. He did so, and then I asked him to put it in writing, following which I wrote to the Home Secretary and to the Superintendent of Police.

On 10th October, a week later, I received a letter from the Chief Enforcement Officer at County Hall, in which he said: With regard to vehicle 529 WKJ, as advised by telephone last week, the file of documents is now held by Essex County Council and shows that the last licence expired on 30th June, 1968. The registered owner is a resident of Grays, Essex. We telephoned yesterday "— that would be the 9th— to ascertain whether any application for re-licensing the vehicle had been received by them, but none had up to that date. Subsequently, I received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner, New Scotland Yard. It was dated 21st October, and it reached me on 23rd October. In what I say, I do not mean that the Assistant Commissioner is whitewashing the offence. However, in my opinion, he allowed himself to be fobbed off and permitted it to be whitewashed on the basis of the information given to him. He said in his letter: Inquiry has been made, and it has been confirmed that the police officer who was driving the car bought it from a garage on 13th August and straight away took it to a mechanic to be examined. If ever anyone has listened to fairy stories, he should hear this: The mechanic found a number of faults on the car, worked on it to put them right, and completed the repair work on 2nd October. On that day, the officer sent off the registration book, test certificate and insurance certificate with a cheque to the Essex County Council, Chelmsford, and asked that the car should be licensed from 1st August to cover his use of it on the 13th. He then notified the change of ownership. This information has been verified by inquiry from the mechanic…It is understood that although admittedly an Excise offence had been committed on the day you saw the car, it is not a matter in which, in the circumstances, the Greater London Council would take any action. The officer never said, as one would expect, "I have just applied for the licence." He said that he had only just bought it, yet it is admitted that it was bought on 13th August. There must have been a lot of repair work done to the vehicle for it to be in dock all that time. Then again, if a person intends to drive a car to a place where it is to be tested, he does not need a licence. If he was only taking it to be tested, why need he offer to pay back tax for the previous two months when he was not supposed to be using the car?

Strangely enough, I have discovered, since putting down Questions and disputing the matter with the police, that they find that an application came in afterwards, and the form was dated 2nd October, the day before I saw it. These forms, of course, can be obtained from the Post Office, and it is a simple matter to put down any date one chooses. I have asked to see the date of the test certificate, but I am told that they cannot supply it. I have also asked to see the date of the insurance, but that cannot be supplied.

This is one of five instances of which I know. I suggest that there is a lot of this going on in the police force. Since I have raised this matter, I have had a number of letters from the general public pointing out instances in which the police have been asked to take action but, rather strangely, have taken none, particularly when their own vehicles are concerned. One correspondent says: Letters have been sent to both Scotland Yard and the County Hall regarding this matter with no apparent effect. This letter, from Barnes, refers to a number of private cars driven by police and river police officers parked in and around a police garage. It has long been the subject of conversation that a number of their cars parked in this area while the owners are on duty do not bear tax discs. My correspondent then gives a list of vehicles. I phoned the G.L.C. today. I was told that, subject to some being in the post at the Post Office and subject to some being now in and applied, at yesterday's date not one vehicle on this list was licensed. I can give all the numbers.

I can quote other instances where I have spoken to police officers. I have another letter here from Wood Green which gives the number of the vehicle, the police officer's name and address and so on. I do not know whether the police are adopting the attitude, "As everyone is doing it, why shouldn't we?" If they are, perhaps all of us should do the same. If it is so difficult to get enforcement in this matter, I suggest that it is unfair that the ordinary law-abiding taxpayer should have to pay his road tax, insurance, road test certificate and various other taxes whilst not only many amongst the general public but many police officers are dodging it.

This probably could be done in a much better way, but time will not permit me to go into it. I want an assurance that some action will be taken to inform the police that, to my knowledge at least, half a dozen police officers, some in uniform, are driving unlicensed vehicles. Indeed, one one-occasion a police officer with a raincoat over his uniform pulled up beside me at some traffic lights. Quite by accident I saw that his car was un-taxed. I said, "You should not be doing that." He said, "Don't delay me. Don't delay me. I am on my way to give evidence in court." I said, "Wait a moment. Do not be in such a hurry," He said, "I am late." I said, "I do not care whether you are late or not." He said, "I have to go to court. I am a police officer." After a lot of argument I eventually found that his car was unlicensed. He, again, was about to get it done. He said that he had not been using it, he had only used it that day, and he was about to license it. I have the details here. However, he said that he had a wife and children and would I not reveal his name. I did not.

On another occasion I was actually in Tottenham Police Court. I went to see how the cases were going. Again, I saw a police officer in uniform come into the courtyard with an unlicensed vehicle. I spoke to a police inspector. His attitude, before he knew who I was, was, "What has it to do with you; why should you worry about it?" I said, "But it is the job of the police to see that the law is enforced." After disclosing who I was, he said that he would investigate. Strangely enough, the vehicle had only just been bought and was in process of being registered. Like the first case I mentioned, it had just been bought. But the police officer should have known that August to October is not just bought. The evidence that I have from the G.L.C. shows that 4th October was the first date that he had registered change of ownership.

What is happening is very serious and dangerous. Many people are not paying taxes because they cannot get a certificate of roadworthiness for their vehicles. The result is that they are driving on the roads with dangerous vehicles. Because these people save money by not getting their vehicles taxed, they save the money which they would have to pay on insurance. Worse still, many people are not troubling to register their vehicles at all. This means that when there are accidents, or hit-and-run offences, the police are unable to trace the cars because they have not been registered for five, six, seven and sometimes 10 years. No action can be taken by anyone.

It is not a question of only private vehicles breaking the law. To my knowledge there is at the moment a five-ton sand and gravel lorry parked in north London. The residents of that area know that the vehicle has not been licensed for 18 months. The driver of the vehicle has five such vehicles and should be paying about £300 a year tax, but he will not pay the money because if he taxes them the authorities might catch up with him and find that he is earning £300–£400 a week tax-free by carrying rubble. The more loads he carries the more he earns.

The sort of thing to which I have been referring is going on all over the country. Unless the Home Secretary can ensure that the law is enforced, he should ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to drop the tax altogether and introduce a different system of car registration, and put the charge on to petrol or something else.

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) who, under my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is responsible for this matter. My hon. Friend was taken ill this afternoon, and I stepped in at short notice. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that I have made it my business to look very carefully into this matter.

My hon. Friend has raised a subject similar to the one he raised last July. His zeal for the revenue is well known, but this time in correspondence with the Home Office, in an interview reported by a newspaper, and in some of the things he has said tonight, he has made some quite unjustified aspersions about the police in general and I should like to deal with some aspects of this issue.

Responsibility for collecting vehicle excise taxes rests on the county and county borough councils. They are also responsible for the enforcement of that part of the law, and in this they are assisted by the police who report to them when they find apparently unlicensed vehicles being used on the road.

The House will appreciate that there are other calls on the limited police resources. It is for the chief police officer of the area to decide how to use these scarce resources, but during the 12 months to 31st October last about 167,500 cases of apparently unlicensed vehicles were reported by the Metropolitan Police to the G.L.C. This is an indication that the police take this responsibility quite seriously, and do enforce the law. It is for the licensing authority in whose area the offence is alleged to have been committed to follow up the police report and decide whether a prosecution ought to be brought.

Not every apparently unlicensed vehicle is, in fact, unlicensed, and not in every case is it right to prosecute the driver of an unlicensed vehicle. There is, for example, the possibility of the licensing authority's, to use the legal jargon, compounding for a mitigated penalty or, in non-legalistic terms, agreeing to accept a sum of money above the licence fee and not prosecuting. The House may remember that when we debated my hon. Friend's Motion last July my hon. Friend at the Ministry of Transport gave figures which showed that the number of vehicle Excise offences successfully prosecuted amounted to about one in 40 of the total number of vehicles registered. This figure was not disproportionate to the number of unlicensed, cars on the road as disclosed in spot checks and samples.

The case raised by my hon. Friend tonight has been investigated by the Commissioner of Police, who has decided that no grounds for action by him in regard to the officer have been disclosed—no grounds for action by him on the officer as an officer in the police force—but the relevant facts have been reported to the G.L.C. for such action as it may think fit, because it is the authority concerned.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concurs with the Commissioner's decision. The facts are that on 13th August the constable bought a second-hand car and immediately took it to a mechanic, who examined it. A number of faults were discovered and the car was left for the necessary repairs. The repairs were done in the mechanic's spare time and the work was not completed until about 2nd October. The vehicle was registered in the name of the constable's father, who lives in Essex.

In an application dated 2nd October, the constable applied to the Essex County Council for a vehicle licence for the car to run from 1st August, which is the date my hon. Friend gave. He took possession of the car on the same day and began to use it. The licence was issued by the Essex County Council on 4th October. This is contrary to the information possessed by my hon. Friend, but there is a reason for this.

The use of the car on 13th August and 2nd and 3rd October may have constituted offences under the Vehicle (Excise) Act, 1962. The decision whether an excise prosecution under the Act shall be undertaken rests with the G.L.C. and not with the police. Since my hon. Friend saw the car on 3rd October within the G.L.C. area and the matter was reported to the G.L.C. and it, presumably, is considering—amongst other things—whether a prosecution should be brought, I should not and cannot comment on that aspect of the case.

But I make a distinction. That is different from the police deciding to take disciplinary action within the police force.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend does not have to worry. They have already decided. The Commissioner of Police has told me that they will not prosecute.

Mr. Rees

I do not think that that is true. It would not be for the Commissioner to decide.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

He has told me that the G.L.C. has decided not to prosecute.

Mr. Rees

I have no information what the G.L.C. has decided, but it is proper for the G.L.C. to decide.

It is right to make one point. I bring to my hon. Friend's notice the case of Natrass v Gibson, reported in The Times on 25th October last. This case was heard in the High Court and the circumstances seemed to be similar to those of the case about which my hon. Friend has complained. In that case the High Court decided that an offence had been committed, but the judges were critical of the prosecution having been brought.

My hon. Friend claims that his telephone inquiries of the G.L.C. on 3rd October and the letter he received on 10th October show that if the licence was dated 4th October, it was not issued until later. There is an implied slur on the staff of the Essex County Council and I am sure that there should not be. I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in which he said that he was satisfied that there was no substance in the allegation that the Assistant Commissioner had deceived my hon. Friend.

The position, as we understand it from the Essex County Council, is that the pressure of work in the licensing section is such that although an application is dealt with quickly it may be several days before it can be associated with the file relating to the vehicle. To minimise inconvenience to members of the public the procedure adopted is to deal with applications as they arrive, to issue licences straight away, and to associate the papers with the file at leisure, when the action is completed.

This means that there is a period when the two things have not been matched. That is why my hon. Friend was told on 10th October that the records did not disclose an application up to the 9th, although the licence had already been issued. It was not duplicity on the part of the officials or the Commissioner of Police. I have looked carefully into this. There is a period of time when, if somebody rings up, officials pull out a file and the fact that the licence is issued is not revealed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I accept without question that, having had the discussion with me, he went along for the licence, but I could prove to my hon. Friend that, as it said in the Press reports, this vehicle has been used between August and October; would he look at the case again?

Mr. Rees

I have already said that the car had been used, and that the matter has now gone for prosecution.

My hon. Friend asked what "straight away" meant, when he stopped the constable and asked him, "When did you get this?". I cannot explain what the constable meant. All I know is that the car was taken to the mechanic after it was bought on 13th August, and that the mechanic confirms that he had it on or about that date. The next question is: if the car only completed its test the day before the incident, what was the date of the first certificate? The M. O. T. test certificate was dated 9th March. An insurance certificate was issued on 16th September for 30 days, and when the car was used for a road test it was not legally permitted—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Not to take the car. It is legally permitted to take the car to a road testing station to have it tested.

Mr. Rees

But it did not go to a road testing station because it had been tested way back—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It will help if the hon. Gentleman addresses the Chair.

Mr. Rees

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

The other point is: was the application submitted before 3rd October? All we know is that the document was issued on 4th October, and all the evidence we have is that it was sent off on the 2nd.

Those are some of the small points which make the general situation clear. There is the general point about the police in general. My hon. Friend has made allegations about the police in different parts of North and North-East London. This one case does not prove that the police are engaging in large-scale fiddling in this respect and neither, unless my hon. Friend will give us chapter and verse, do the two or three other cases.

With regard to the case of the 5-ton lorry, I would ask my hon. Friend to let us know the facts. In general, the single case with which I have dealt is a matter for the G.L.C. and no one else. The G.L.C. knows the facts: it is the prosecuting authority.

There is no evidence that the police are lax in this respect, but I ask my hon. Friend to give us the facts, and not generalisations. I am sure that he would not have mentioned the case unless it had happened, but it is very difficult for us to deal with cases unless we have the facts.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I have the facts—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. He may interrupt before the Minister sits down, if he wants to.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.