Schedule 4 (Hansard, 26 October 1982)

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

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after "give", leave out "special".
Many of the amendments that were moved formally arose because of a commitment by the Minister to consider points made by the Opposition either in Committee or on Report. We appreciate her consideration.
I shall confine myself to the narrow point on the use of the word "special". Lords amendment No. 98 deals with the environmental conditions that may be attached to a licence and states that, where an authority intends to apply such conditions, the applicant must be heard and the authority must give special consideration. However, a word such as "special" is likely to lead to widespread litigation and could frustrate the aims of the Bill, which are to impose satisfactory environmental conditions on operating centres and licensees.
The problem with the use of such a word is that we must abide by the words in the Bill and not by what the Minister says. Lord Avon, on being questioned about the meaning of "special", said that it meant "careful and sympathetic". However, in Chambers' dictionary the word is said to mean particular, peculiar, distinctive, exceptional, additional to the ordinary, detailed and intimate". "Sympathetic" is said to mean Acting or done in sympathy, induced by sympathy, congenial and compassionate. There is nothing wrong with that except that it is not in the Bill. The definition of "careful" is given as "full of care, heedful".
As we know from bitter experience in the case of Bromley v. GLC, all the courts will do is define the meaning of the word in the Bill. If the word "special" were left out, the Lords amendment would read: the authority shall give consideration to those representations". In Chambers Dictionary, consideration is defined as "careful thought". That is all an applicant is entitled to get.
970 It could be proved whether careful thought had been given, but it would be extremely difficult to prove that special consideration had been given.
The Minister has so far managed to bat throughout the day without giving way on anything. I suggest that the Opposition amendment is one that she could accept in all reasonableness.

§ Mrs. Chalker
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) tempts me frequently, but I do not give in.
The Bill extends the power of licensing authorities to attach a condition of licence to include conditions aimed at minimising bad effects on the environment. We are all agreed on that. It has never been part of our intention that responsible road haulage companies and jobs should be threatened as a result of new measures. We have stressed throughout the discussions on the Bill that in striking the right balance between environment and business considerations a licensing authority will have to form a special and reasonable judgment in each case if it attaches any conditions to a licence. We recognise that there is a genuine concern that the conditions attached to a licence could be so onerous as to prejudice the running of a business.
The Lords amendment is designed to make clear our intention that the new provisions must be operated fairly in these cases and that full account must be taken of the rights of existing legitimate operators. It provides that in cases where there is no material change in the operations to be covered, the licensing authority must grant a licence unless parking arrangements are unsatisfactory. He will not be able to attach any conditions to the licence without giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations about the effects on his business. He will have to give any such representations special consideration.
I accept that "special" is not a technical term but it must be construed in its ordinary sense. It is used in other legislation—even in road traffic legislation—without causing difficulties. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the special reasons for not disqualifying drivers in section 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. There are other instance where it applies. I do not think that it would open up the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The licensing authority will of course have to take into account all the matters that are put to it, as it would always do, but where there is no change in the operations to be covered we want it to consider particularly carefully matters concerning the effect of any environmental conditions proposed on the operation of the business and, indeed, on jobs.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment and support the Lords amendment.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
The Minister has drawn our attention to the Road Traffic Act 1972 and to the special reasons for not disqualifying a driver. I would suggest to her that "special reasons" can be so defined and explained, but "special consideration" is another matter. How does one show that one has given specially careful thought to something? Does it require a five, 10 or 15-minute discussion? I suspect that the hon. Lady has been tempted not by me but by her Department and has fallen for the blandishments of officials who have told her that the Lords amendment is acceptable.
I have no desire to argue with their Lordships at this hour of the night that they should accept an amendment 971 to their amendment, but the hon. Lady will find in time that the purpose of the amendment, and the operator's conditions, which we fully accept, could be undermined and be costly in litigation. However, the hon. Lady has tempted me and I shall fall for the temptation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 100 to 102 and 105.

§ Mrs. Chalker
These are technical amendments which I hope will be accepted. They fulfil undertakings given previously.

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

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 126 and 129.

§ Mrs. Chalker
These amendments aim primarily to leave intact the requirements concerning suitability of operating centres inserted in the 1968 Act by the Road Traffic Act 1974. These are not entirely superseded by the new provisions. The licensing authorities have found them useful in some circumstances. It is sensible that they should remain.

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

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 130.

§ Mrs. Chalker
It will, I believe, be found that all the remaining Lords amendments from Lord amendment No. 106 to the end of the Bill have either been discussed already or are technical amendments. I suggest that Lords amendment No. 106 and remaining amendments to the end of the Bill should be taken en bloc formally.