HC Deb 10 June 1969 vol 784 cc1412-8

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 9, line 7, leave out "of duty" and insert: by reference to which duty was".

Mr. Carmichael

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

The purpose of the Amendment, which was moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords, is to put beyond doubt the intention that rebates of duty paid on surrendered vehicle licences should be calculated on the basis of the annual rate.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 10, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A": A. For the purposes of sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1962 and of any other provision of that Act and any subsequent enactment relating to the keeping of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads (including such an enactment contained in this Act and in particular section 10(3) of this Act), a person keeps such a vehicle on a public road if he causes it to be on such a road for any period, however short, when it is not in use there.

Mr. Carmichael

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

The purpose of the new Clause, which was moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords, is to define the phrase "keeping a vehicle on a public road" in the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962 and subsequent enactments, with the result that duty is chargeable on a vehicle when it is kept on a public road for any period, however short.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

I understand that the Government wish to introduce this provision because, as a result of recent cases in the courts, it has proved impossible to make certain charges stick when it has been argued that keeping a vehicle on the public highway meant, in fact, keeping it on the public highway for a very long period. I gather that it has not been possible to demonstrate precisely how long was constituted by "keeping" in this context and that the courts have not been prepared to find cases of this kind proved.

Having taken another look at the legislation, the Government have come up with the new Clause. In other words, instead of trying to find a reasonable way of dealing with the matter—a way which would have enabled the Government to make the Bill enforceable and at the same time protect the individual who keeps his vehicle on the public highway for a very short period—the Government have, in an effort to get the legislation through speedily, trodden on the rights of the individual by saying that anybody who keeps a vehicle on the public highway for even a split second shall be liable to pay the duty.

This is, to say the least, a careless way of drafting legislation. The Government should have devised a form of words which would have protected, say, the person who literally pushes a vehicle on to the highway and then immediately removes it. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that it is not intended to take action against people whose vehicles appear on the highway for such a short period, although I appreciate that even an assurance of that kind will not form part of the Bill.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

I oppose the new Clause, and I will explain why at considerable length.

By the means of an Adjournment debate, I tried to raise in the House for the second time the problems which face my constituents in the Isles of Scilly. I have failed to do so because Mr. Speaker has fairly pointed out that while this Measure was in the course of proceeding through Parliament, it was necessary for the matter to be raised on the Bill rather than in an Adjournment debate.

It may be wondered how it is possible within the rules of order for me to bring the Isles of Scilly into a discussion of this Amendment, and I shall explain how I intend to do so.

In the first place, the Amendment relates to the "keeping" and that is the crucial word … of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads …". I believe that the Amendment has been put down partially out of spite against my constituents in the Isles of Scilly, and I shall say why I believe that to be the case.

When, in another place, Lord Winter-bottom moved this Amendment, he stated: The difficulty with the word 'keeping' is that it implies keeping for an unspecified period of time, and this was made explicit by a ruling in the course of a Divisional Court hearing in 1962 of an appeal against conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle. It is becoming difficult to bring prosecutions and will increasingly become so if the Amendment is not agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th March, 1969; Vol. 300, col. 1041.] The Government have produced this Amendment because in certain circumstances it is not at present possible successfully to prosecute a vehicle owner who has kept a vehicle on a public road.

During the Report stage, I said: The yield"— from taxing vehicles in the Isles of Scilly: is likely to be very small, for an important reason. Section 6(6) of the Vehicle (Excise) Act, 1962, exempts vehicles from road fund licence which are intended to be used on public roads only in passing from land in a person's occupation to other land in his occupation. More importantly, Section 24 defines a public road as, 'a road which is repairable at public expense.' On the mainland it is the presumption of law that where a road is being maintained by the inhabitants it is a highway maintained at public expense, but in the Isles of Scilly the land is almost wholly owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, a Crown body established under its own management Acts, and nine-tenths of the roads in the Isles of Scilly may not rank as public roads' at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1189.] An official of the Ministry of Transport wrote to the Clerk of the Council of the Isles of Scilly describing the position there. In the second paragraph, he said, quite accurately: As I see it, the position may be summed up as follows: there seems to be no dispute that the roads in Hugh Town are public roads, and, accordingly, any vehicle used or kept on those roads must be licensed, if it not exempt under the provisions of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962. If the other roads cannot be shown to be public roads, then any vehicle used only on those roads would not need to be licensed. 12.30 a.m.

Nine-tenths of the roads in the islands are possibly not public roads, although this is a matter which in due course will no doubt be elucidated by access to counsel and further discussions with the Ministry. If they are public roads, vehicle licensing will apply for the first time to a large number of my constituents in the Isles of Scilly unless this Amendment is rejected. If it is not, vehicles will not be able to be kept in Hugh Town, which is the main town in the islands and where the only public roads on the islands exist. In Section 6(6)(b) of the 1962 Act—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member will link what he is saying with the Amendment we are discussing, I hope.

Mr. Nott

Certainly; I was trying to do so. I was trying to point out that we are dealing here with the definition of vehicles kept on public roads. In the Vehicles Licensing Act, 1962, to which this Amendment refers, it is quite clear that if a county council is satisfied that a mechanically propelled vehicle is intended to be used on public roads for distances not exceeding in the aggregate six miles in any calendar week, the vehicle may not be eligible for licensing.

Here we have a part of the United Kingdom where nine-tenths of the roads may not be public roads, for certain legal reasons and because they have been built by the local inhabitants with their own labour and wholly at their own expense. On the remaining one-tenth of the roads it is most unlikely any inhabitant of the islands will use them for more than six miles in any calendar week. Therefore, if this Amendment is carried, many of my constituents in the islands will not be able to avoid, quite legally, paying taxation because their vehicles may not be kept in Hugh Town.

I make a final appeal to the Minister. This is the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity to raise this matter. I understand the wish of the Minister and his Department to arrive at a neat blanket coverage of the whole United Kingdom for license duty, but nine-tenths of these roads were built by the inhabitants and no public money was involved. Only a small fraction of the roads in the islands may be classified as public roads, and if the Amendment is carried the inhabitants will not be able to keep their cars in Hugh Town. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member who interrupted wishes to make a comment he should come into the House to do so.

Mr. Speaker

Order. No hon. Member may make an intervention when outside the House.

Mr. Nott

I hope the Ministry will use its discretion, if it has any, to allow these inhabitants to use their own roads without paying the licence fee. I hope the Minister will try to understand the unique situation in this part of the United Kingdom where the cost of living is infinitely higher than elsewhere. In the Scottish Highlands the main services are heavily subsidised, but there is no subsidy to St. Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. The cost of many items is up to 50 per cent. more than on the mainland.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the economy of Scilly on the Amendment.

Mr. Nott

I shall come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I said earlier that I had sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, but was understandably told by you that I could not raise this point while the Bill was going through the House. So I am relating my remarks to the Amendment—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman but, with all the sympathy in the world, he must keep in order.

Mr. Nott

Could the Minister tell me why the Amendment has to go through in this form? If it must, is he still able to exercise his discretion in some way to ensure that the islanders are not unfairly being forced to pay a tax? Why cannot his Department recognise the unique situation of this part of the United Kingdom and the disgraceful manner in which it is being treated?

Mr. Carmichael

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.

There are two ways of looking at the problem the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has raised. One is the way in which he looked at it, which is that the islanders are being treated unfairly in being asked to pay the tax. We should pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in raising this tonight, and the sincere way in which he did so. The other way is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who pointed out on Report that the islanders have always needed to pay road tax, but because of an administrative difficulty, the Isles of Scilly being neither a county nor a county borough, not coming within a county or county borough, they have been excused. They have been allowed this concession because of the accident of the law for a fairly long time.

This is not just a question of making a neat and tidy solution giving coverage over the whole country. Now that under the Bill the Minister instead of the county councils or county boroughs will be responsible for the collection of tax there is no way of legally excluding the Isles of Scilly.

Therefore, while I have every sympathy for anyone who has been in the position of the islanders for such a long time, there appears to me to be no way of excusing them from paying the tax. The amount of public roads on the islands does not really enter into the matter. The question of the six miles per week applies to specially-licensed vehicles travelling perhaps between different parts of a farm, or between one works and another over a very short distance. Tax in respect of such vehicles will be paid at the rate applicable to agricultural vehicles, some types of public works vehicles or contractors' plant.

I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming. The matter was discussed at great length in Committee and on Report, and I do not see any possibility of our reaching agreement, because of the historic nature of the case and the fact that the Bill merely catches up with a discrepancy under the previous Act.

The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked for an assurance that a person who merely brought his vehicle on to the road would not be liable under this new provision. It is not for me to give such an assurance. That is a matter for the courts. The difficulty is that the word "keeping" implies keeping for a period of time. This was made explicit in a 1962 finding by a Divisional Court hearing of an appeal against a conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle on the road. The court interpreted the word "keeping" in that case in a way detrimental to the Minister and the intention of the Act.

I am sure that the courts, in their wisdom, will be anxious, as always, to interpret correctly when assessing cases of persons merely parking vehicles on the roads, but, obviously, I cannot define this matter for them. I cannot even envisage a situation in which it would be possible to define the intention of the individual taking his vehicle on to the road.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

Back to
Forward to