HC Deb 20 July 1973 vol 860 cc1082-4

Lords Amendment: No. 4 in page 6, line 11, leave out:

"direct the driver to remove the vehicle" and insert:

"by direction in writing require the person in charge of the vehicle to remove it"

Mr. Dykes

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

I need not take up the time of the House on this suggestion from their Lordships. I say merely that again it arose out of a discussion in the other place prompted by the Department and the experts advising on the Bill as a whole.

The amendment is considered desirable for two reasons. First, the wording is needed to bring into line this provision with Section 57(9) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which at present provides for a notice to be given to the person in charge of a vehicle, and not to the driver. Therefore, this is a very important difference in wording, even if it may seem a very slight one to any hon. Member considering it today. Normally, the driver would be the person in charge. This move to bring matters into line is essential.

The other reason why the amendment is desirable is that their Lordships felt strongly that the provisions should be the same for the direction to be provided in writing as it is in the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act which was passed last year.

I commend the amendment to the House for those reasons, and I hope that hon. Members will find it acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 6, line 25, at end insert: (2) For subsection (9) of the said section 57 there shall be substituted the following subsection— " (9) A person who— (a) drives a goods vehicle on a road, or causes or permits a goods vehicle to be so driven, in contravention of a prohibition under this section; or".

Mr. Dykes

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

I think that the House might feel that it is reasonable for me not to dwell at length on the amendment, which is admittedly a little more than merely technical, but to deal with a subsidiary although relatively important part of the Bill.

Again, I am grateful to the Department, as their Lordships were, for this suggestion. I hope that the House will find it agreeable if I merely point out that the reason for the amendment is that primarily the only offence provided for in Section 57(9) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 are those of driving a goods vehicle in contravention of a prohibition or causing or permitting it to be driven. This addition in the amendment is correctly regarded as necessary and, indeed, indispensable. Otherwise we could get into difficulties. It is also necessary to make failure to comply with a direction to remove a vehicle to a specified place an offence. Otherwise, there would be an obvious gap.

I remind the House that this is a separately mentioned offence in the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act. Therefore, it is again necessary to tie up, as it were, all the legislative loose ends. The provisions in the clause as a whole are, by and large, modelled on that Act. That Act, albeit still in its early stages, has proved very useful in a specific and narrow sphere.

The inclusion in column 2, Part I, of Schedule 4 to the Road Traffic Act 1972 will mean that the maximum penalty for the offence will be £50. This is in line with the existing penalty for driving a vehicle in contravention of a prohibition or again causing or permitting it to be driven. In practice, it will generally be to the benefit of the person in charge of a vehicle so prohibited to comply with a direction which would enable him to remove the vehicle to a place where it can conveniently be off-loaded.

Whilst perhaps the explanation that I have given may sound a little too legal for most of my hon. Friends, apart from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and one or two others, I hope that it is regarded by hon. Members on both sides as being clear.

I should add that in those circumstances it is necessary to provide for the possibility of non-compliance. If not, the power could in certain circumstances be literally unenforceable.

I think that most hon. Members will accept that the amendment concerns a very small matter relative to the rest of the Bill. Their Lordships rightly pointed this out at the suggestion and with the encouragement of the Department. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

I wonder whether I might conclude at this juncture by widening my remarks to express my grateful thanks, the thanks of all the other sponsors of the Bill and those of the sponsor of the Bill in the Lords, for the encouragement that we have received in taking the Bill through all its stages. It could not have been done without the tremendous help that we received from the Department and Ministers concerned.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his presence today. I know that he will agree with what I have said about the work and effort put in by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for transport industries who has been of great support to me.

I will not prolong my remarks. The encouragement that we have had from hon. Members on both sides of the House for what is regarded as a welcome and in many ways overdue measure, the support that we have had from outside and the enthusiastic reception which those in another place gave to these provisions, have been of great assistance to my fellow sponsors and myself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Back to