HC Deb 31 July 1978 vol 955 cc167-79

Lords amendment: no. 26, in page 22, line 6, at end insert— ("Provided that the goods vehicle examiner or the constable in uniform before requiring any person in charge of a goods vehicle to proceed to a place more than one mile from where the requirement is made, shall first be satisfied that there are good reasons to believe that the vehicle is not in a fit and serviceable condition.")

Mr. Horam

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

While superficially reasonable and attractive, the amendment would, if adopted, substantially reduce the effectiveness of the wider powers of control over unroadworthy lorries that the Government are seeking, and would in practice offer greater immunity against the risks of detection of those whose vehicles fail to comply with the law.

The background is that the Government recognise the prime role that lorries will play for many years to come in moving freight around this country. We said as much in the White Paper on transport policy. It follows that our continuing and heavy reliance upon goods vehicles makes it all the more important that we act to deal with the vibration, noise, pollution and—by no means least—the danger on the roads that they can create. It is a very sobering thought that every day of the year an average of four people are killed and another 25 are seriously injured in accidents involving goods vehicles, and the vast majority of them are neither the drivers nor occupants of the lorries concerned.

Annual checks on the mechanical condition of lorries have a vital part to play in ensuring that lorries are adequately maintained and that the risks involved are kept to a minimum. Nevertheless, the fact that as many as one in five of the vehicles presented for the prescribed tests at testing stations still fail to pass them shows how far there is to go in improving standards and how important it is that our system of annual tests is backed by arrangements for effective spot inspections.

The Department's examiners carry out these spot inspections at operators' premises, at the roadside and occasionally at testing stations following the diversion of vehicles. Although not widely used—only 7,327 vehicles were diverted in 1976–77—the power to divert vehicles to testing stations is an important weapon in our armoury of controls. It enables our examiners to carry out inspections when for one reason or another a proper roadside inspection is not feasible.

Under the law as it stands, however, a vehicle cannot be diverted to a testing station by more than a mile. As a result, the number of places on the highways where checkpoints can be set up is very restricted and the proper enforcement of controls—in particular over those potentially dangerous vehicles whose owners are most anxious to avoid detection—is substantially reduced. By extending the limit to five miles, the Government aim to widen the choice of sites and improve enforcement of the law without involving either the deployment of greater resources for enforcement or any substantial increase in the number of vehicles diverted.

I know that there is concern that longer diversions will cause delays and that drivers of diverted vehicles may feel themselves at risk of exceeding their permitted hours, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The arrangements we are making to deal with this are broadly similar to those that apply when a vehicle is diverted to a weighbridge. Under these arrangements, our examiners will be asked to treat sympathetically requests by drivers for their log books to be marked to show the time when they are diverted to testing stations and the time when the subsequent inspections there are completed. This will provide evidence for the enforcement authorities, which have agreed that circumstances beyond the control of drivers will be taken into account in deciding whether there has been any infringement of the rules on drivers' hours.

Clearly, the legal and licensing authorities have a certain discretion, and it is not possible to bind them by what I am saying about the law. I believe, however, that our arrangement, coupled with Lords amendment no. 9 dealing with the defences against infringement of EEC rules—which we agreed earlier—should in practice remove any real basis for concern.

What has worried some of our critics is that longer diversions will involve hauliers in expense and difficulties. For their part, the Government recognise that some costs and inconvenience are inevitable, just as they are under the law as it stands. What we do not accept is that they will be onerous for the individual operator, still less for the industry as a whole, particularly when they are set against the deaths, injuries, sorrow and misery that accidents can entail.

On Report I assured the House that the new powers of diversion would be used with discretion and that the guiding principle would be to require extended diversions only where this was necessary because of conditions of weather or visibility or because of the nature of the examination thought necessary. Moreover, I undertook that the House would be the first to be told if ever it were proposed to depart from that principle. Essentially, similar sentiments have been conveyed to the Lords by Baroness Stedman.

A draft of the guidance note to be issued to examiners on the use of the new power has now been prepared and copies have been placed in the Library. It puts flesh on the principles that I specified on Report. It also makes it perfectly clear that vehicles will not be sent an extended diversions on a purely random basis but, in accordance with the principles I specified, will be sent only where a roadside check on the vehicle will not suffice. Hon. Members will note in particular paragraph 8, which deals with the arrangements I have already described for annotating the log books of drivers whose vehicles are diverted.

The circumstances in which a diversion may prove necessary in the interests of road safety are so varied that detailed guidance of this kind is the only sensible way to proceed. To seek to encompass in a brief formula in the statute the conditions under which the Powers should be used inevitably runs the risk of so fettering the discretion of our examiners that the powers become practically valueless. This is our fear. This is precisely the trap into which the Lords amendment falls.

By requiring that a constable or examiner must be reasonably satisfied as to the fitness or otherwise of a vehicle before diverting it, the amendment, in effect, requires him to carry out a fairly careful inspection at the roadside. If he fails to do so and the vehicle is subsequently found not to be defective, he will clearly be at risk of proceedings. Yet cold, wet, foggy or icy conditions or the lack of technical equipment available at a testing station may rule out an adequate roadside inspection. These may, however, be the very conditions in which a defective vehicle poses the greatest risk to other road users and to the general public.

The Government believe that the most effective way forward is to legislate in the way provided for in the Bill. We have given undertakings as to the use of the powers and have made available a draft of the guidance to be given to our examiners. To amend schedule 3 in the manner proposed by the Lords could not fail to reduce the effectiveness of the provisions and negate this attempt to improve road safety.

Mr. Fry

It is a pity that in his opening remarks the Minister was somewhat scathing about the record of commercial vehicles. Rather more accidents take place per kilometre movement involving private cars than there are accidents involving lorries. Certainly the number of cars which fail the MoT test—a far less sophisticated affair than that for lorries—is in excess of the number of lorries failing the test. It is only fair to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks in context.

Those who have been following the Transport Bill through all its stages will be aware of the concern felt by the road haulage industry over the provisions of clause 8 and schedule 3, increasing from one to five miles the distance by which commercial vehicles can be diverted. I hope the Minister will agree that as originally proposed considerable extra difficulties would have been imposed on the industry, which already feels itself to be hard pressed. This is not the occasion to debate at length the problems of the industry, operating either on its own account or for hire and reward. Simply listing some of the problems which it has experienced in the past two or three years will serve to show why it was concerned over what appeared to be another problem.

Not only have operators the difficulties of the drivers' hours that are being imposed on them. They have the problem of the extra fuel duty, some of which was removed from private cars but not from commercial vehicles. They have the problems of inflation on the price of new vehicles, virtually making it impossible for many small hauliers to replace their vehicles. They have had the wages policies imposed by the central Government, and when they have had their arms twisted by the unions some of them have been blacklisted because they gave in to their demands.

They have also been inundated by a mass of paperwork, shortly to be increased again over the regulation on drivers' hours. They have also had the vexed question of the tachograph, with the Government being unable to make up their minds whether to dance the European waltz on his issue. Last but not least, they have suffered very considerably from the industrial recession, which has meant a loss of traffic and severe competition, particularly at the margin. We are therefore not talking about an industry which has had an easy time. One needs to mention these things in order to put the debate into its proper context.

When the Bill was originally drafted, many people saw it as yet another difficulty from a Government who had hitherto shown remarkably little understanding of the problems of the road haulage industry. Throughout the Bill's various stages, the Opposition have effectively presented the industry's case and, together with the representations of the trade associations, have made the Department think again. I am glad to think that we have now arrived at a somewhat happier position than we were in on Second Reading.

At long last the Government have to some extent come to understand the difficulties of the industry. In dealing with the industry, however, they have made difficulties for themselves. In Committee various assurances and undertakings were given, but it has taken a rather long time for those undertakings to be put into concrete form. Originally an amendment was hammered out between the industry and officials of the Department, only to be dropped at a later stage. The one advantage of that amendment was that it would have given a safeguard to the industry within the provisions of the Bill rather than a series of notes of guidance which are not mentioned in the Bill. That would have been an important safeguard.

Following further negotiations behind the scenes, we understood that the notes of guidance to examiners would be issued. There again, however, there appears to have been an unfortunate delay in producing even the draft notes of guidance. It was not until the middle of July, when the Bill was in Committee in the Lords, that the notes of guidance suddenly and miraculously appeared.

It was not surprising that my noble Friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth felt it necessary to table this amendment, because he felt, rightly, that up to that moment the matter had not been properly attended to. Whether we should press the amendment or accept the Government's request to disagree with it depends on two separate points. The first is whether there should be any specific reference in the Bill to the degree of protection that operators whose vehicles are likely to be diverted are to receive. There is, I think, general agreement that those operators need some such protection. Many of us think that it should be embodied in the Bill.

The other point relates to the notes of guidance. Are these notes of guidance, which are in draft form, to remain substantially unchanged? Are they to be agreed with the main representatives of the haulage industry? On these two questions will depend the acceptability of the notes of guidance.

For example, on the question of whether the guidance notes are satisfactory, it is only recently that one has been able to obtain a copy. It was difficult to discuss the matter and try to understand the Government's point of view without having the notes before us. It is only in the last two or three days that I have been able to read them. None the less, having read them very carefully, I believe that it is very important to pick out one or two things which detract from them, or at least, require further explanation.

10.15 p.m.

I refer the Under-Secretary to page 2 of the notes—paragraph 6(1)(b), lines 3, 4 and 5, giving the reasons for diversion, showing that the examination cannot be adequately carried out either at the point of checking or someplace nearer than the proposed destination of the diversion. These words have caused a little confusion. After that, the notes go on to say: the need for a roller brake test or metered smoke test are examples of the sort of factors which justify diversion to a testing station. It was this reference to a metered smoke test which caused some confusion in the other place. It was quite clearly pointed out by Lord Lucas of Chilworth that there was no need for a metred smoke test to take place anywhere else than at the roadside. The instrument is portable.

Secondly and more devastatingly, Lord Lucas pointed out that that test was not particularly apt in any case. He was rather surprised that the notes that the Government have prepared actually contained a reference to this smoke test. Surely the industrty, therefore, is entitled to ask whether the Department is now accepting the use of this meter as a standard procedure. Lord Lucas did not receive an answer to his question. I hope that I shall be luckier this evening. Because this specific test was inserted into the notes, many people have been confused. My personal view is that it would have been better to leave that passage out of the notes because they were reasonably clear beforehand.

In addition, there is a feeling that the Government and the Department do not always fully take note of the latest developments over portable weighing devices, for example. One of the reasons for diversion is that the essential task cannot be done at the roadside. The reason why the industry rejects and resents unnecessary diversion is that very often this adds to the overheads and the problems of the scheduling of deliveries. Therefore, any device that will assist a higher degree of control at the roadside should surely be welcomed by Government, the public and the haulage industry alike.

I have been supplied with some very interesting information about a new weighing control system—a static system known as the 8023 type 10T. It is somewhat surprising that here we have the Government indulging in further legislation, diverting vehicles further and further from the road but, knowing about this system, apparently have not yet, five years after having been first informed, gone into any kind of evaluation of it. I know that this is a technical point, but we are dealing with technical matters controlling the safety of road vehicles. If the Department expects to have the full understanding and co-operation of the industry, it should keep abreast of technical developments and try to understand and minimise the delays that may result from over-anxious and overenthusiastic action.

My third point refers to a matter to which the Under-Secretary has referred. I should like to read note 8 from the Department's guidance: Finally, in view of the significance for drivers' hours of the time spent in diversions, examiners are asked to treat sympathetically requests for endorsement of log books to show the time of diversion and the time when the eventual inspection has been completed. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said on this point. There is concern at the fact that drivers can find themselves very much out of their way and delayed for a considerable period of time. With the EEC regulations about to come into force, those drivers felt themselves vulnerable.

I note what the Minister said earlier, but I hope he will confirm that the notes which he has supplied on Lords amendment no. 9 clearly apply in this context. I remind him of what note 2 says: The clause provides that a person shall not be liable to be convicted for contravention of the rules if, as the driver, his contravention was due to unavoidable delay in completing a journey due to unforeseen circumstances. I hope that that fully covers the occasion when a driver is diverted and cannot foresee the diversion. I hope that in those circumstances there is no question of that driver being prosecuted. It is important to establish this. If the Minister can confirm it, I am sure that many members of the Transport and General Workers' Union will be very pleased.

There is another point—namely, that there shall be no contravention of the rules if, when an employer is charged with causing or permitting his driver to breach the rules, the breach arises because the driver has carried out periods of driving or duty otherwise than in his employment of which the employer was not aware or could not reasonably have become aware. One hopes that that argument applies.

I should like to sum up the attitude of the Opposition to this amendment. We feel that in the circumstances the Government have at long last arrived at the right point. Subject to satisfactory answers to the points which I have rut forward, and subject to an assurance that the draft will remain substantially as it is and that it has the agreement of the industry, we feel that it will not be necessary to press the amendment to a vote However, we believe that it was essential to table this amendment to enable the Government fully to explain their point of view. We should like to have seen something undertaken within the provisions of the Bill, but, as the Minister knows, we are reasonable men and we intend to delay the Bill no further. Along with the industry we shall be vigilant to see that the notes of guidance put into practice what the Government have said and that they reinforce the tone of the assurances which they have given.

Mr. John Ellis

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was rather less than fair. He presented the Conservative Party as the white knight dashing around in this increasing jungle of legislation.

The hon. Member began his speech by giving the House a synopsis of the kind of legislation which; road hauliers—I think that he was talking of his friends in the private sector rather than those in the nationalised industry—have had to endure. If, however, he persists in making these speeches, he should be reminded, as he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that the share of guilt for the increasing complexity of legislation must be shared by the two Front Bench spokesmen since they are both in favour of the Common Market and are equally guilty. For the hon. Gentleman to present his party as the only saviour which will keep us from excessive legislation takes a bit of stomaching.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's view about the Government's change of heart was unfair to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman gave no credence to any view but his own. I invite him to re-read the report of our Committee proceedings, because some of us, including myself, said that this was unacceptable. The Under-Secretary made some telling points and almost convinced himself at one point that we needed legislation to check on the safety of lorries, and he put up a good case for being even tougher.

The nub of the argument is that in legislation on the checking of vehicles we must seek to do anything we can to prevent accidents. These large lorries take some stopping and can do immense damage. We must make sure that our accident record is as good as possible while not visiting on the good the need to be diverted and messed about. We must also ensure that drivers who, having done a fair day's work, have to have their vehicles checked and found to be safe do not then have to travel many miles before being able to get their heads down in readiness for the next day's work. We have sufficient expertise to carry out comprehensive tests in convenient laybys without diverting vehicles.

The Minister has proposed a compromise. The hon. Member for Wellingborough spoke about the assurances that he would have to be given before he would agree not to press the amendment, but I bet that his mind is already made up. His friends in the road transport industry should note that, while the hon. Gentleman speaks in these strident tones, there are only three Conservative Members in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a lot of hot air.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary listened to the representations from both sides of the Committee. We did not have to twist his arm, because he recognised the relevance of our arguments and came up with the proposal that, when the examinations are made, notes of guidance will have been given and people whose vehicles fall into the category of perhaps or perhaps not having something wrong with them will not be pursued without good reason. There is no question of the notes of guidance being withdrawn. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that they will be issued. It would have been more gracious of the hon. Member for Wellingborough if he had not adopted such a hectoring tone but had thanked the Under-Secretary for the care that he has taken.

We shall have to wait to see how many cases are being diverted and how many proceedings will ensue. It is as well that someone should say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that certainly those of us with close connections with the industry through the Transport and General Workers' Union do not want to see dangerous vehicles on our roads. We want to see the improving standard of road vehicles maintained.

We believe that it is technologically impossible to do roadside checks without causing enormous difficulties. The Minister's proposal is a fair compromise. I thank him for the care he has taken and I regret that the hon. Member for Wellingborough did not have the grace to do the same.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Horam

I am almost overwhelmed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) at the end of a long and occasionally difficult relationship through 20 sittings on the Bill. We have come to a harmonious understanding late in the day, but I am grateful that that has happened. I know of my hon. Friend's real concern for lorry drivers. He is a fellow member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. He has spoken on numerous occasions on these matters and I am glad that in the end we have been able to satisfy him.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) sought a specific assurance on the guidance that we are putting in our notes. I shall make a more thorough check with the police. I understand that on an informal basis the police will be happy with the arrangements that are being made. Until I obtain a formal agreement from them, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact assurance that he seeks, I undertake to obtain a formal agreement as soon as possible.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about consultation and made some fair remarks about emitted smoke and portable weighbridges. We shall take into account what he said during the debate. There will be full consulation with the industry. That has not yet taken place. The industry has not seen the notes that the hon. Gentleman has seen. The notes are not in their final form, and we shall take into account all that the industry may say. We wish to reach a harmonious conclusion with the industry.

It is in the industry's best interests that sensible measures should be adopted. If the public are not satisfied that we have done our best, even more draconian measures may be forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 22, line 47, at end insert— ("Provided that such fees shall not exceed those prescribed for annual testing.")

Mr. Horam

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

The Government have made clear throughout that the level of fees that we have in mind to prescribe for payment when a lorry is required to be brought to a testing station for clearance of a prohibition on its use would be in line with those charged when a goods vehicle is presented for its annual test. We had hoped to overcome our differences in the Lords by bringing forward a Government amendment having a similar effect to their own. Unfortunately, however, we ran into legal objections and it did not prove possible in the time available to find a formula to bridge the gap.

Essentially the problem is to avoid casting doubt on the principle that a fee for any service, unlike a tax or penalty, is quantified by reference to the cost of providing the service—I am sure that that will find an echo in Opposition and Government ranks—and at the same time to overcome the difficulty that not all goods vehicles that can be subject to prohibition notices are subject to the annual heavy goods vehicle test. Some of them do not undergo the test. Nevertheless, the Government are sympathetic towards those who are concerned that the fees should not contain a penal element and I am pleased to say that what I believe to be an acceptable solution has now been found.

In effect, the second Government amendment places on the Secretary of State a clear obligation to have regard to the level of fees charged for the annual testing of goods vehicles yet at the same time leaves it open to Parliament to object and, if necessary, debate the fees actually prescribed when a statutory instrument is laid. To the best of our belief, the amendment rules out there being a penal level of fees that is unrelated to cost being imposed on the industry. That reflects our intention that the cost of the examination should be reflected, no more and no less.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps I should have said that the two Government amendments in lieu are being discussed with the Lords amendment with which the Government have moved to disagree.

Mr. Fry

It is pleasant to be talking about the final amendments in a degree of concord with the Under-Secretary of State. We have not benefited tonight from the match-making efforts of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Nevertheless, I think we can say that on this amendment we have reached a happy conclusion. The noble Lord who moved this amendment in the other place had a few words with me about it. He felt that if we could get this kind of assurance he would be perfectly happy. Therefore, I pay respect to the Minister for having brought this minor matter to a conclusion and, indeed, on this somewhat lengthier Transport Bill than many of us expected when we set out on it some months ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 22, line 46, after "and", insert— (a) In page 22, line 47, at end insert— (b) the Secretary of State shall ensure that the scales and rates prescribed for the purposes of this subsection are reasonably comparable with the fees charged under section 45(6) of this Act in respect of the periodic examination of goods vehicles".—[Mr. Horam.]

Lords amendment no. 28 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Norman Fowler, Mr. Horam, Mr. Marks, Mr. Moate and Mr. Snape; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Horam.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.