§ Mr. FryI beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 21, line 31, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
1. In section 56 (Power to inspect goods vehicles to secure proper maintenance), for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—'(4) A goods vehicle examiner or a constable in uniform may at any time require any person in charge of a stationary vehicle on a road to proceed with the vehicle for the purpose of having it inspected to any place where an inspection can be carried out not being more than 1 mile from the place where the requirement is made or not being more than 5 miles from that place if the goods vehicle examiner certifies that in his opinion by reason of the nature of the examination which he considers should be carried out or conditions of weather or visibility it is not practicable to carry out or complete the inspection there or at any nearer place suitable for that purpose'.".It is a pity that we have arrived at this important amendment at such a late hour. In view of the somewhat bizarre behaviour of the Government on the clause concerning excess fares, I believe that we should examine the background to this amendment.When we discussed in Committee the subject of the diversion of goods vehicles, the Minister did not give any clear assurance but said that he would re-examine the matter. We felt that the industry and the Department could get together and work out a form of words to reduce the amount of damage to the industry. I shall not weary the House by listing all the problems faced by the haulage industry or emphasising how those problems could be aggravated by the Bill. There is a realisation that the industry could be damaged. Indeed, if that were not true I do not think that the Minister would have taken such a conciliatory line.
I understand that discussions took place between the Freight Transport Association, which is a highly responsible and respectable haulage organisation, and the Department of Transport. After considerable discussion, a form of words was 734 evolved. The wording took special note of the fact that inspectors might have to endure adverse weather conditions. Therefore, the wording embraced such a situation. Such was the harmony and understanding that the Freight Transport Association and the industry felt that they could accept the revised wording, although from the industry's point of view it was far from ideal.
So far, all was amity, sweetness and light. But it appears that for some reason—I shall be interested to learn what it was—the Minister decided that he could not accept the wording which had been hammered out by his Department. I must inform the Minister that the industry is very disappointed indeed. If it had felt that it had no hope, it might have adopted a different line, but to be led up the garden path with wording which the Government were not prepared to accept was a cause of considerable annoyance.
I appreciate that at this stage of the proceedings it is impossible to push through an amendment, but we shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply and I am sure that in another place there are enough friends of the haulage industry who will return to the attack on this point.
§ Mr. Ron ThomasI was not on the Committee and I am not as familiar as other hon. Members with Schedule 3.
Many tankers carry dangerous substances. There have been several incidents in my constituency. In one a leaky valve on a tanker resulted in a cloud of acid gas being blown across a residential area. Will the schedule, amended or not, ensure that if a police constable thinks that a tanker is defective—not only in respect of brakes or steering but in respect of valves—he can prevent its going further without repairs? The major chemical firms in my constituency make periodic checks, but there are cowboy firms. That is what causes apprehension in my constituency. If the schedule does not deal with that problem, can it be amended so that it does?
§ Mr. John EllisI have never been enchanted with this proposed change. I was fascinated to hear from the hon. Member for Welling borough (Mr. Fry) what has gone on behind the scenes. It would be best to leave to the Minister to answer the technical questions of my 735 hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), but I agree with my hon. Friend on the advisability of any measure to control dangerous vehicles, whether they carry chemicals or not. Sample testing is a good idea.
The difficulty is over the proposal to divert vehicles not just one mile but up to five miles for testing. Probably the amendment, which is only a partial palliative, will be resisted. I still fear that a driver nearing the end of his hours, with only two or three miles to go, might be diverted five miles to a testing station—and his vehicle might be all right after all. One suggestion is that his firm should send out another driver but the firm might be 200 miles away.
We should be able to perfect machines to do comprehensive testing in a layby. One reason for diversion is to send lorries to places where they can be correctly weighed—public weighbridges, for example, rather than testing stations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about the technical improvements that have taken place so that we do not have to follow this time-wasting formula.
5.0 a.m.
I have said that I believe in a certain amount of random testing. On the whole that is a good thing, but in circumstances where so much inconvenience can be caused I look to my hon. Friend for an assurance that vehicles will be diverted only when someone has fairly certain reason to believe that something is wrong. Even if the amendment were incorporated in the Bill, some of my fears would remain. I therefore hope that the Minister will give pretty rigorous instructions about how this provision will be applied.
§ Mr. HoramMy hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) raised the problem of defective lorries, particularly in the context of those carrying dangerous loads. He should be aware that this whole part of the Bill is designed to "civilise" the heavy lorry. This is only a small improvement in this particular Bill. There are others in the general package. But this part of the programme deals with the problems of excess weight and badly maintained vehicles.
736 My hon. Friend asked whether a policeman could stop a lorry from carrying on if he saw it to be defective. The answer is basically "Yes". My hon. Friend should be reassured on that point. He should also be reassured that we are taking vigorous steps to deal with the genuine public concern with regard to the subject that he has raised.
With regard to the amendment, the particular possibility which we carefully considered was that of making a diversion of more than one mile contingent upon the examiner or constable in question certifying that the nature of the examination made it expedient as the weather made it necessary. That was the proposition about which we consulted the industry. It was also discussed in Committee. However, we have come to the conclusion that to introduce a system of certification would be an unnecessary additional administrative stage to add to the costs of the system and the paperwork which we would all wish to avoid. It would be a mistake to seek to tie down in statute form the detailed way in which powers of this kind are exercised. It is also fair to say that, while we consulted the industry, there were also questions of the legal form in which to put the proposition under discussion.
Nevertheless, it is accepted that there is natural concern within the industry that diversions of more than one mile should not be ordered on a purely random basis and without sufficient reason. We therefore propose to issue guidance to examiners on the circumstances in which they should use the power of extended diversions. The undertaking is given that this guidance will incorporate the principle of diverting vehicles more than one mile only if justified by the nature of the examination or conditions of weather and visibility.
If it should ever be proposed to depart from that principle, the House would be the first to be told. In effect, we are putting into practice, by the instructions we shall issue to our examiners, the principle which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) wished to have included in the law, but I think that this is a more practical way of going about it.
I agree that it will deal only partially with the other matter raised by my hon. 737 Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) about unnecessary diversions towards the end of an eight-hour or nine-hour period of driving, but I think that it will help to a degree in that problem as well.
§ Mr. FryThe Minister has obviously tried to make a helpful reply, and it is right that the industry should study it and decide whether it wants to make any further representations. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.