Clause 1

HC Deb 13 April 1973 vol 854 cc1661-80

CONTROL OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in page 3, line 36, leave out from 'make' to end of line 39 and insert: 'such provision for the control of heavy commercial vehicles in Greater London as is appropriate for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London'. I need not detain the House long on the amendment, although that does not detract from its importance. Hon. Members who are conversant with the proceedings in Committee, and those who take an interest from a more distant vantage point, will recall that there was considerable discussion in Committee about the position of the Greater London Council vis-a-vis other local authorities, particularly the new local authorities created under legislation passed last year.

It was acknowledged that there was a difference, which warranted a difference of treatment in the clause, relating to the position of the GLC from line 36 onwards—that is, in subsection (6) and the relevant paragraphs. The argument was entirely valid. That was why I, as principal sponsor of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary both undertook to produce a suitable amendment on Report which would take care of the difference.

The essence of the argument is that the Greater London Council, already possessing different and extra powers and responsibilities above those of other existing local authorities regarding traffic management in its area, would need to have slightly varying treatment in the Bill in order not to be placed in an embarrassing position. I pay tribute to the words uttered in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) which led us to that decision.

The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the GLC is not bound too tightly by an apparent obligation, which is exactly the same as the obligations of other local authorities, but has the necessary power—as it already has, but it will be strengthened and reinforced by the amendment—to draw up its own schemes for traffic management in parts of or the whole of the Greater London area as and when it deems that to be necessary and which, in the words of the amendment, are appropriate for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London. I hope that the House will find the amendment acceptable. It goes all the way to meeting some of the anxieties of hon. Members who represent Greater London constituencies and who felt that confusion could be caused if the original text of the Bill were maintained.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South-West)

As I spoke at perhaps inordinate length on this subject in Committee, I intervene only briefly to say that the objections which were raised are certainly removed by the wording of the amendment. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for finding this wording, which meets the situation perfectly and is, I understand, acceptable to the Greater London Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert— '(7) After section 104(1) of that Act (general interpretation provisions) there shall be inserted the following subsection:— (1A) In this Act ' Heavy Commercial Vehicle' means any vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not, which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of goods and has a weight as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, save that the weight so specified shall not be less than 3 tons unladen. In making the aforementioned regulations the Secretary of State may determine different weights for different categories of vehicles in relation to such cases as may be specified in the regulations. (1B) In the application of subsection (1A) above to a vehicle drawing one or more trailers the drawing vehicle and the trailer or trailers shall be treated as one vehicle"'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this we are to take the following amendments: No. 3, in line 7, leave out ' subsection (1B)' and insert 'subsections (1B), (1C) and (1D)'.

No. 4, in page 4, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert— '(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) above in either or both of the following ways, namely—

1. (a) by substituting for the reference to unladen weight a reference to such other description of weight as may be specified in the regulations; or
2. (b) by substituting for the reference to three tons a reference to such other weight as may be so specified.

(1C) Different regulations may be made under subsection (1B) above for the purpose of different provisions of this Act and as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances and as respects different times of the day or night and as respects roads in different localities. (1D) Regulations under subsection (1B) above shall not so amend subsection (1A) above that there is any case in which a vehicle whose unladen weight does not exceed three tons is a heavy commercial vehicle for any of the purposes of this Act'. No. 5, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'and (IB)' and insert '(IB), (1C) and (1D)'.

No. 10, in Clause 2, page 4, line 35, leave out ' subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4), (4A) and (4B)'.

No. 12, in line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 5, and insert— '(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (3) above in either or both by the following ways, namely—

1. (a) by substituting for the reference to unladen weight a reference to such other description of weight as may be specified in the regulations; or
2. (b)by substituting for the reference to three tons a reference to such other weight as may be so specified.

(4A) Different regulations may be made under subsection (4) above as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances and as respects different times of the day or night and as respects different localities. (4B) Regulations under subsection (4) above shall not so amend subsection (3) above that there is any case in which a vehicle whose unladen weight does not exceed three tons is a heavy commercial vehicle for any of the purposes of this section'. No. 13, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'and (4)', and insert' (4), (4A) and (4B)'.

Mr. Huckfield

The basic effect of the amendment is to put far more power into the Secretary of State's hands to fix the cut-off limit for which the provisions of the Bill shall and shall not apply. The main reason for seeking to do this is that I, and I think some other hon. Members, were not too happy about the cut-off point of 3 tons unladen which had been fixed as the so-called denial of access point by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).

As a result of a meeting of minds, we had some agreement in Committee over the need at least to re-examine the cutoff point of 3 tons unladen.

We have already had reference to the Greater London Council without having had any reference to something which happened in London, and, indeed, all over the country, last night, and which I should think would certainly affect the spirit and intentions of certain local authorities. As it is the spirit and intentions of certain local authorities to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East and I have referred several times, I believe that the sentiments which were expressed by the electorate last night may have a more direct effect in affecting the spirit and intentions of the Bill.

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Birmingham, Handsworth)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Huckfield

To a fellow West Midlands Metropolitan Council member I will give way.

Mr. Chapman

I am grateful to the. hon. Gentleman. As he has mentioned yesterday's council elections, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is sponsoring the Bill, will the hon. Gentleman admit that, however unsatisfactory last night's results may be to this side, at least the Labour Party did not breach the dykes in Harrow, East?

Mr. Huckfield

For me, the most significant point was that the end of a century of rule by the Tory squirearchy in Warwickshire was achieved. I heard the election result of the hon. Member for Harrow, East on the radio when I was coming down the motorway at 1 o'clock this morning, where there was a fair amount of heavy commercial traffic.

The general point of what I tried to do in Committee was not to abolish, not to restrict, not to narrow, the intentions of the hon. Member for Harrow, East. In fact, I have been trying to show him how his proposals could be a little more workable. For a long time I have thought that the main effect of the provisions of the Bill should be on the really heavy traffic. That is, I suspect, the juggernauts, the 32-ton gross TIR lorries, about which hon. Members opposite are concerned, and the really heavy lorries, the trans-continental articulated outfits, about which most of the general public show concern.

It is also the through-passage of these vehicles on which we should concentrate. The original Bill—the hon. Member for Harrow, East will take cognisance of the fact that this is a vastly different Bill from the original one— provided that the cut-off limit below which local authorities could deny access, if they wished, would be 3 tons unladen.

I will repeat very briefly my arguments for saying that the cut-off point of 3 tons unladen is too low. The point I have always made is that the bulk of food and urban distribution vehicles are more than 3 tons unladen. By restricting ourselves to 3 tons unladen we are talking about bread vans, milk floats, and nothing much bigger. The bulk of refrigerated vehicles and small town articulated vehicles are about 5 tons unladen.

I am informed that, for example, many cities have now planned their distribution networks on the basis of 5 tons unladen. I know that Glasgow, with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are not entirely unfamiliar, planned its distribution network on the basis of being able to allow access to vehicles of about 5 tons unladen.

11.15 a.m.

What a tragic waste of money it would be for cities like Glasgow, which have undertaken substantial investment in roads on the understanding that vehicles of about 5 tons unladen—not 32 tons gross, not 22 tons gross—would be allowed access, if such vehicles were now to be denied access.

The basic difference between the 3 tons unladen in the original Bill and the 5 tons unladen, to which I have referred on several occasions, is about 230,000 vehicles. There are in Britain, according to the British Road Federation, about 637,000 vehicles of more than 1½ tons unladen. Even the proposal I made in Committee to have the cut-off point at 5 tons unladen would exclude at least 207,000 of the vehicles included in that total of 637,000.

In other words, I, too, want to see the really big lorries of more than 16 tons gross, more than 22 tons gross, more than 32 tons gross, excluded. A cut-off point at 5 tons unladen which I propose would certainly exclude those.

The trouble is that if we stick too rigidly to the hon. Gentleman's 3 tons unladen I greatly fear for what city centre life will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) is our Front Bench spokesman on this Bill. Fears have been expressed frequently that Leicester in its centre will die off because of the development of out-of-town shopping centres.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman)—at least, I think that it is still Handsworth this morning—referred to the need to get things like pianos into Harrods. I am not saying that the whole of this argument must revolve round ge-ting pianos into Harrods. However, shops in city centres—food shops and consumer durable shops, particularly— have to be serviced, and access must be granted to them.

If we stick rather rigidly to the 3 tons unladen cut-off point, we shall force many such shops to move out of places like Kensington and St. John's Wood and become out-of-town shopping centres on the M4. I do not want to see such shops having to move out of town because of the too-rigid application of a cut-off point of 3 tons unladen. That is why in Committee I proposed a far more flexible weight limit.

I am in favour of sensible transshipment at the centre boundary point. In my constituency, in what is still called the urban district of Bedworth, the Department of the Environment proposes to create a lorry park. Such a lorry park would presumably be the centre for the trans-shipment from the M6 variety of 32 tons gross to the Coventry or Nun-eaton variety of 5 tons unladen.

The difference between my amendment and the main amendment and consequential amendments of the hon. Gentleman is this. My amendment says that the Secretary of State will have to prescribe limits before local authorities are allowed to apply their interpretation. The hon. Gentleman's amendment says that local authorities will be able to make their own interpretation unless the Secretary of State intervenes. In other words, it is a difference in emphasis. My main amendment would empower the Secretary of State to make the definition. The hon. Gentleman wishes to leave the power to interpret to local authorities, unless the Secretary of State intervenes. However, I think that there is still some significant difference in the main intention of our two amendments.

I do not want to destroy some of the atmosphere of harmony and peaceful coexistence which prevailed in the Standing Committee, but I think it relevant to remind the hon. Member for Harrow, East of some of the assurances which he then gave. For example, on 7th March he said: Therefore. I suggest that the experts might get together again"— and he added that he wanted to see. whether it might be possible on Report to retain the overall definition of 3 tons unladen … I can see the reason for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Minister wishing to retain 3 tons unladen as the basic definition determining what is a heavy commercial vehicle, but the hon. Gentleman went on to say that he wanted to consider whether it was possible.

to build into the proposals a sub-definition of a minimum cut-off of 5 tons unladen and upwards and perhaps an alternative to cover those circum stances about which the hon. Gentleman"— referring to me— was anxious". With respect, there is quite a bit of difference between the specific tone of that assurance given in Committee and the rather more general form which the hon. Gentleman's amendment now takes. As I remember it, the tone of what he said in Committee was quite specific and directly concentrated on 5 tons unladen. We have come quite a way from the specific tone and concentration which the hon. Gentleman then expressed. I realise that he said it in Lent, but we are still in Lent, and to speak firmly of 5 tons unladen and then to move from that to giving the Secretary of State only a permissive and general power to intervene is to make a big jump which I am not sure that I can accept.

I am concerned also about what the Minister was moved to say in Committee. I am not sure how good he is at eating his own words, but he then said that he was prepared to offer his facilities and to enter into these discussions with my hon. Friend and the other interested parties to try to get this right while meeting the legitimate and reasonable views of the distributive trade, especially as regards foodstuffs".— [OFFICIAL RUPORT, Standing Committee C, 7th March 1973; c. 107–9.] The Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed)—my constituency neighbour, as it happens—was very conciliatory, consultative and flexible in Committee. The trouble is that when the interests with whom he had sought consultation went to his Department, the attitude then was quite cut and dried, and home and dry. I understand that almost a blank wall confronted them when they went to the Department for those so-called meaningful discussions.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I must refute that. I took part personally in the discussions with the various trade interests before the debate took place and I took note of what was said, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries. My officials subsequently had discussions with the trade interests. I refute that the situation was cut and dried. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will seek to show that that is so, and I shall certainly back him up. My hon. Friend's amendment goes a long way, and it is not fair of the hon. Gentleman to make those comments. He may hold that view, but I refute it.

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful for that intervention, and I know that those concerned in the goods and distributive trades will note it. However, although I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, I must add that I have heard from other sources that the attitude expressed in the negotiations was hardly as the hon. Gentleman has just described it. However, as I say, I hope that the representatives from the food and distributive trades who have been in discussions at the hon. Gentleman's Department will note the flexibility which he has now proclaimed.

I can only conclude that the atmosphere in which the apparent concession was made in Committee has changed somewhat. Both the hon. Member for Harrow, East and the Minister were only too keen to help in Committee. They could see the problem in relation to distribution costs which I was putting to them. They could see the problem raised by the possibility of Harrods, for example, becoming an out-of-town shopping centre, and they recognised many other problems to which I referred. But, having seen the legitimate arguments which I put about distribution costs— perhaps because that was before the local elections yesterday—now, after the results in Greater London and a few other places, they have become rather obdurate.

If we leave the matter as the hon. Member for Harrow, East proposes, with the main onus or emphasis on local authorities to put their interpretation on 3 tons unladen unless the Secretary of State intervenes, we shall run into all sorts of practical difficulties. Whole systems and sections of distribution will find it difficult to continue on their present basis, because a local authority may suddenly jump in and say "Within this well defined area there shall be nothing over 3 tons unladen".

That could necessitate the re-scheduling of an entire distribution network. It could necessitate an entirely new vehicle-purchasing programme for many distribution fleets. If we have a strict interpre- tation of 3 tons unladen as opposed to 5 tons unladen, food and distribution costs could increase by at least 5 per cent. That is a reliable calculation which has been researched and gone into thoroughly by quite a few big food distribution chains.

I want the hon. Member for Harrow, East and the Minister to take full note of that possibility of food costs rising by 5 per cent. With the butter mountain, about which we all know, and the other disadvantages of the common agricultural policy yet to come, and the 30 per cent. increase in food prices which has occurred since this Government took office, one can only hope that we shall not have another increase in food costs of at least 5 per cent.—and when we say "at least 5 per cent." we know that that is the minimum.

That will be a direct consequence of the Bill, so I want the Minister to tell us what kind of advice it is intended to give local authorities in the circulars which the Department will send out. Everyone knows that when we pass Acts of Parliament that is not an end of the matter, and the Department sends out circulars to local authorities. Will the hon. Member for Harrow, East and the Minister tell me, for example, whether the circulars will point out that the bulk of food distribution to various centres in this country is done in vehicles of 5 tons unladen weight? Will they mention that the bulk of refrigerated vehicles are of about 5 tons unladen weight? If the Minister and his hon. Friend do as much of their own shopping as I do, they will have noticed that there is a fair amount of frozen and deep frozen goods in the shops, and the bulk of these refrigerated goods comes in vehicles of 5 tons unladen weight. Therefore, not only the distribution systems but packaging, pricing and goodness knows what ought to be referred to in the circulars to local authorities.

I still regard my amendment as the best way to go about it. The Secretary of State ought to interpret before the local authorities get their chance to interpret. I still believe that the Secretary of State will be able to take far more cognisance of the various matters which have been raised in the debate, and he ought to prescribe the limits first. I very much hope that the House will at least take full note of the sentiments which lie behind the amendment.

Mr. Dykes

I imagine that I shall reflect the feeling of many hon. Members when I express some surprise at the terms of the comments made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). After our discussion in Committee and the undertakings given by the Undersecretary of State and myself, I think it surprising, to say the least, that the hon. Gentleman should couch his observations in that way.

One of the impressive features of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 2 is its close approximation to the words of my Amendment No. 4, the official amendment, if I may so describe it. I proposed to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a felicitous choice of words and on his technical skill in drafting an amendment to meet the points which we discussed in Committee.

11.30 a.m.

However, I express my disappointment that the hon. Member has responded in the way that he has because I think that he has made a fundamental mistake in interpreting what we have proposed in Amendment No. 4, which is similar in a striking way to his amendment and to the terms of the Committee discussion. I wish primarily to take up that point.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to my comments as reported in column 107 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 7th March, made at the last Committee sitting, when we discussed this very important subject— perhaps the most important subject in the Bill. I suppose that it all depends on how one reads these matters out loud, but the hon. Member stated that I had said that it might be possible … to build into the proposals a sub-definition of a minimum cutoff of 5 tons unladen and upwards and perhaps an alternative to cover those circumstances about which the hon. Gentleman was anxious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 7th March 1973; c. 107.] The hon. Member used the word "and" instead of "or", which amounts to a considerable change, both textually and in terms of the real sense of the undertaking.

As far as I can see—I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with me—the undertakings given by me and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have been entirely met. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is anxious about. I took the point which he made in Committee. It is valid to say that rigid adherence to the weight of 3 tons unladen would be wholly wrong, for many reasons, but perhaps principally because we cannot in detail in any legislative structure anticipate the precise traffic conditions applicable to many different areas in the country, not only now—that is bad enough—but in three years' time when the proposals have to be formulated.

Therefore, if the hon. Member for Nuneaton looks carefully at the terms of Amendment No. 4 and the related subsidiary amendments he will see that what we have proposed and what is, I understand, supported entirely by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary goes even further than the amendment he has proposed. However, I again congratulate him on the felicitous coincidence of the words. I do not suggest that the hon. Member has a special hot line to the Department of the Environment, but it is astonishing that his proposal is almost the same as amendments, which have been drafted by Government draftsmen.

Mr. Huckfield

I assure the hon. Gentleman that hot lines do not exist between the Department and myself; but, with or without my glasses on, what I have said and the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee come to the same thing. The hon. Gentleman misses one of the central points that I tried to make. I recognise his point about having more flexibility, but I was trying to establish who would lay down that flexibility. The hon. Gentleman's amendment suggests that the Secretary of State may prescribe more flexibility. I should like the Secretary of State to prescribe more flexibility before the local authorities get their chance to have a nibble.

Mr. Dykes

I do not deny that this matter is extremely relevant, but I would deny that the hon. Gentleman is right in putting forward the precise form of words in his amendment. That is why I used the word "almost" just now.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the distinction between whether the local authorities should, in their discretionary way, initiate the weight definitions and whether the Secretary of State should do it and in what order. For that reason, as well as for one or two others, I believe that hon. Members should resist the form of words proposed by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. He rightly said—I feel obliged to reiterate it—that his proposal means that the Secretary of State will have to make regulations involving the normal consultation procedure under Section 107 of the 1967 Act before there could be an effective definition of "heavy commercial vehicle".

What we wish to do—I believe that, in doing it, we have fully met the points raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee—is to balance the two critical factors in this part of Clause 1. We say that the technical definition of "heavy commercial vehicle" is all vehicles over 3 tons unladen. Having, I think rightly, established the coherent and tangible definition of a heavy commercial vehicle, we go on to say that it will be up to the local authorities, in drawing up their proposals, to establish their own definitions in terms of weights and categories. That is an important point because there is a weight differentiation possibility in the official amendment and there is a differentiation scope for different classes and categories of vehicle. The maximum flexibility is thereby achieved.

It is important to deal with the matter in this way. I do not say that in any partisan way, in the narrow sense of that word. I think that the words I have selected meet all the valid considerations and balance all the factors. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the 3-ton unladen weight definition, is far too rigid, surely he must accept that a 5-ton unladen weight definition would be far too rigid for all purposes of this Bill. That is why I proposed to praise the hon. Gentleman on his amendment and to say that it is gratifying to see how a "knight of the road"—the phrase used in Committee—has manifestly and robustly resisted the ever-present temptation, instead of being a "knight", to become a pawn of some of the more panicky elements who wish to hog-tie the Bill in terms of the weight definition. However, I still propose to praise the hon. Gentleman because he has chosen a suitable form of words, subject to the slight changes effected by our amendments.

Taking the powers of local authorities vis-àa-vis those of the Secretary of State, it is important again to point out that the essential principle of the Bill is that the local authorities will be responsible for all the orders and moves in this matter. The new local authorities and the Greater London Council will be the freight and transportation and traffic management authorities for their areas. It would be unwise for the House to agree with an idea which would unnecessarily and excessively increase the dominant power of the Secretary of State visà-vis the local authorities. It will be up to the local authorities, which best know the conditions in their areas, to say "These are our proposals based on our survey for 1st January 1977; these are the ideas which we wish to submit to the Government for their consideration." That is better than the Government issuing a ukase or edict saying "We, the men in Whitehall, know best what is suitable for your area. You must accept the imposition of this weight definition on you."

The hon. Member for Nuneaton might be entirely right in believing that, when any of the detailed orders made as a result of surveys are produced, the weight definition adopted by all local authorities could be 5 tons unladen or 16 tons gross, or even more. We must balance all these matters with the potential and scope of our road system and all the other considerations, such as the fundamental characteristics of our in-town distribution systems.

The Bill does not make value judgments or dictate the precise way in which these matters should be worked out. That is the job of the local authorities, subject to the reserve powers of the Secretary of State to say that what they have suggested is reasonable or unreasonable. The regulation-making power proposed by the hon. Member for Nuneaton is less flexible and does not go as far as the proposals in Amendment No. 4. Although it would allow different weight limits to be applied to different categories of vehicle in different cases, it is not clear from the wording that it would allow different weight limits to be applied to different provisions of the Bill.

I hope, as was so regularly demonstrated in Committee, that there will be a meeting of minds. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did in Committee in this area. He acted in the essentially valuable way of a Committee member, without any party political tag being attached to the discussions, and, as the result of his anxieties, the Bill is improved.

We are discussing the difference, marginal in one sense but important in another, between one amendment and another set of amendments which largely go together so that the argument is bound to be limited. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his amendment so that the official amendment may be accepted. I do not say that what the hon. Gentleman has proposed is invalid, but its nuances could be confusing and his anxieties are unfounded. I am sure that those who support the central concept of the technical weight definition plus greater flexibility for local authorities would not wish to see any upheaval in our patterns of transport. The official amendment is the best way of meeting the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman and those who support his view.

I should not worry if the weight definitions were considerably higher than 5 tons unladen or 16 tons gross but we, as legislators, cannot take upon ourselves the vast burden of the detailed examinations and surveys that need to be tailor-made to fit the local conditions. For that reason I hope that the hon. Gentleman will re-examine the wording of his amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Nottingham, South)

I wish to mention two local problems, one in my constituency in West Bridgford and the other in Rosemary Hill Road in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd).

The people who live in Rosemary Hill Road are heartily sick of the noise and fumes caused by heavy lorries for which the road is totally unsuited. The traffic is at an unacceptable level. The people have put up with it for far too long and demand action. For those reasons I support the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), and his amendment, which deals with several points about which the public are genuinely concerned.

The new local authorities will have the obligation of making a survey of their areas and submitting proposals to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will have powers of intervention where, for example, a local authority refuses to act.

I support the general tone and purpose of the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend upon the moderate and reasonable way in which he has introduced it. In the argument between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) I am persuaded that my hon. Friend is justified in leaving discretion and flexibility with the local authorities and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) on paying due deference to the perspicacity and knowledge of the new Nottingham County Council and the new West Midlands Metropolitan County—which are both Labour-controlled.

The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has made some relevant comments about my intentions. I am not sure how, within the rules of the House, I may hear from the Under-Secretary of State about the advice that may be contained in the circulars which his Department will send out. That might help to settle one or two unresolved issues.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Speed

The speed with which the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) rose anticipated my rising to make one or two comments.

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), not least in his criticisms of the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, which is much less flexible than that of my hon. Friend. The wording does not make clear that different weight limits could be applied to different provisions of the Bill, which is an essential part of the flexibility we need. My hon. Friend said that it is highly desirable that there should ab initio be heavy vehicle definitions, otherwise many problems will arise. I go along with that view.

The flexibility which is provided in new subsection (1C) allows different limits to be specified in different circumstances for the use of different powers given in the Bill in different areas. It might be desirable that for urban areas a different weight limit from the limit applicable in national parks should become the standard practice. We all know the great problems caused by heavy vehicles in national parks. I have received a vast number of letters from hon. Members about our comparatively modest proposals for improving the A66 to take traffic going through the Lake District National Park.

The preservation of flexibility can be achieved in the way my hon. Friend proposes, with the local authorities taking the first steps. The flexible powers provided by the amendment will allow for higher weight limits to be specified for traffic regulation orders where access is substantially denied without affecting the weight limit applied or the powers in Clause 2 to prevent parking on pavements and verges. The proposals are extremely flexible and allow an infinite number of permutations.

There is perhaps an even more fundamental difference between the two amendments. Both amendments genuinely seek to meet the legitimate fears of the transport distribution industry, but from a practical point of view the local authorities should determine these matters for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.

Secondly, I find it a little odd that the hon. Member for Nuneaton—in view of yesterday's local election results, as a result of which councils will now be Labour-controlled, including metropolitan counties and the GLC—appears not to have much confidence in what those Labour-controlled councils will do in the next three or four years. I believe that it should be for councils, whether they be Conservative or Labour-controlled, to decide these matters. The electorate yesterday voted them in, and the new counties will have wide transportation powers. This was why in Committee I sought to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East that we should do away with the advisory council and put the whole matter in the hands of local authorities. That suggesttion was supported in all parts of the Committee. Therefore, it is odd that the hon. Member for Nuneaton should now be saying that this should be a matter for the Secretary of State rather than for local authorities.

I was asked about departmental circulars. We must remember that the Bill will have to go through another place before it returns to this House, and I have no doubt that noble Lords have their own definite ideas about the Bill and what should be done with heavy lorries. There have recently been a number of interesting debates in the other place on this topic. Therefore, I cannot anticipate in what final form the Bill will be enacted. Advice and guidance will be given to local authorities, and I hope that the authorities will be sensible and objective in meeting the legitimate needs of people concerned about the environment, the needs of transport and the transport distribution industry and, indeed, of commerce in general.

We are involved in a large-scale experiment in Swindon on this topic which is supported by the transport industry, commerce and everybody concerned. No doubt the results of that experiment will be useful in the advice which we can give to local authorities in carrying out this legislation. I shall not give chapter and verse, but I have noted the point about circulars, and when in due course advice is given it will consider environmental matters and also the economic needs of transport distribution and will take full account of the Swindon experiment.

We live in changing times in terms of traffic environment, transport distribution, and so on, and there is no perfect answer. We need flexibility to cope with the problems. I think we all agree on this matter. We in the Department are grateful for the help which we are being given by the transport and distribution industries in seeking ways to solve the problem. I hope that the Committee will understand that I cannot go any further on that topic at present.

I am convinced that my hon. Friend's amendment will meet the legitimate fears which were expressed in Committee. I believe that in the first instance this is a matter for local authorities, with fallback powers if local authorities are silly, stupid or unduly repressive in the way they interpret the legislation, and there must in such a case be power in the hands of the Secretary of State. Therefore, I ask Committee to accept my hon. Friend's amendment because I believe that it will make the Bill even more effective since it takes account of the very real problems which were mentioned in Committee.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I do not wish to argue that because the West Midlands Metropolitan County and other large areas are now in Labour hands they should be deprived of any power, nor do I wish to argue for or against any provision in the Bill on the basis of one night's election results. The House would be foolish if it were to argue on that basis. Incidentally, I do not see how the Tories can ever possibly hope again to control the West Midlands Metropolitan County, or indeed the Greater London Council, when we bear in mind the progress which Labour will make in Labour-controlled authorities.

I wish to argue not on the basis of the election results but on the basis of the shape which this legislation should take.

I note what the Under-Secretary of State said about meaningful consultations with his Department. I hope that they will be more meaningful than they have been in the past. I also note the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the need for local authorities to consider the needs of food distribution. Both the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Harrow, East obviously have taken cognisance of the points I made both in Committee and in my remarks earlier this morning. I hope that they have grasped the fact that one cannot undertake all town centre deliveries in milk floats and bread vans. Therefore, if they have taken on board that important point my amendment has not been in vain.

I hope that when the departmental circulars appear, whenever that may be, they will draw attention to the fact that these deliveries cannot all be carried in vehicles of under 3 tons unladen weight. If we are to preserve city centres, there will have to be access for refrigerated vehicles and vehicles larger than three tons unladen weight.

In the hope that these points have been taken fully into account, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 4, line 7, leave out 'subsection (1B)' and insert 'subsections (1B), (1C) and (1D)'

No. 4, in page 4, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert: '(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) above in either or both of the following ways, namely—

1. (a)by substituting for the reference to unladen weight a reference to such other description of weight as may be specified in the regulations; or
2. (b) by substituting for the reference to three tons a reference to such other weight as may be so specified.

(1C) Different regulations may be made under subsection (1B) above for the purpose of different provisions of this Act and as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances and as respects different times of the day or night and as respects roads in different localities. (1D) Regulations under subsection (1B) above shall not so amend subsection (1A) above that there is any case in which a vehicle whose unladen weight does not exceed three tons is a heavy commercial vehicle for any of the purposes of this Act'.

No. 5, in line 20, leave out ' and (1B)' and insert '(1B), (1C) and (1D)'.—[Mr. Dykes.