§ 4.31 p.m.
§ House again in Committee.
§ Clause 3:
§ Licences required for goods vehicles of Commission.
§ 3—(1) Section fifty-nine (Application of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to Commission) of the principal Act shall cease to have effect and section one (Licensing of goods vehicles) of the Act of 1933 shall apply to the Commission in the same manner and to the same extent as it applies to other persons using goods vehicles on roads for the carriage of goods and sections two to twenty-one of the 886 said Act of 1933 shall apply to the Commission and be binding on them, to the same extent as those sections apply to and are binding on other persons using goods vehicles on roads for the carriage of goods:
§ Provided that an A licence shall be deemed to have been granted by the licensing authority under the powers of the Act of 1933 to the Commission on the second day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty for each goods vehicle owned by the Commission at that date for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
§
LORD TEYNHAM moved, in sub-section (1) to omit all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "apply," where that word first occurs, and to insert:
(1) Section fifty-nine of the principal Act (which provides that a licence under the Act of 1933 shall not be required for any goods vehicle of the Commission) shall cease to have effect in respect of the vehicles to which this section applies and section one (licensing of goods vehicles) of the Act of 1933 shall in relation to those vehicles
§ The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, may I suggest that this Amendment and the two following ones, which are really consequential upon it, should be considered together? In moving this Amendment, I should again like to make it clear that it was the intention of this Bill to ensure that the short-distance hauliers should have fair treatment in their short-distance areas, and that, at the same time, the Transport Commission should be protected in the monopoly field of long distance. As the Bill is drawn, it provides that licences shall be required for all goods vehicles owned by the Transport Commission, irrespective of whether they are operating in the sixty miles' limit or in their own monopoly field. This Amendment is designed to provide that licences shall be required for Transport Commission vehicles only when operating in the short-distance area. We agree that it would be wrong for the Transport Com-mission in their own monopoly area to be required to obtain a licence for their vehicles from the licensing authority. This Amendment has been set down to put the matter right.
§ We are not entirely wedded to the wording of the Amendment, and should His Majesty's Government feel that another form of wording would better meet the case, we hope that they will consider putting something down at the Report stage. I would point out that 887 the Amendment at page 2, line 36, which we are also considering, covers vehicles used for the carriage of excluded traffic such as liquids in bulk or ordinary furniture removal. We think it right that the Transport Commission should require from the licensing authority licences for vehicles which are used in this traffic, because they are, in fact, in direct competition with the excluded traffics carried on by the independent hauliers and which, of course, also come under the licensing authority. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out from the beginning of line 21 to ("apply") in line 24, and insert the said new subsection.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI now run the risk of being accused by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, of being helpful. I should like to ask him whether his explanation of this Amendment is correct. Perhaps it is I who am wrong, but I consider his Amendment means exactly the opposite of what he has said. Am I not right in suggesting that the effect of the third Amendment is to say to which vehicles this section applies? Now it applies to all vehicles operating within a sixty-miles' radius, and all vehicles carrying the excluded traffics. So if the noble Lord's second Amendment is carried, do we not, in effect, get this?:
Provided that an A licence shall be deemed to have been granted by the licensing authority under the powers of the Act of 1933 to the Commission on the second day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty for each goods vehicle to which this section applies.That is what the noble Lord's second Amendment would effect. What the noble Lord has done is the very thing which he does not want to do. He has ensured that for all vehicles of the Commission which are operated within a sixty-miles' radius and for those carrying excluded traffics there shall be deemed to have been granted on November 2, 1950, A licences by the licensing authority. Therefore, it means that all the Commission's vehicles operating within the sixty miles now have a licence. That is my interpretation. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me if I am right.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANI should like to say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we are advised that the drafting of this clause does carry out the intention which my 888 noble friend. Lord Teynham, has just expressed. If for any reason the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, thinks that another form of drafting would carry out the intention better than the present drafting, perhaps he will tell us, and we shall be only too glad to meet him. In the meantime, our contention is that the Bill as drafted does carry out the intention which my noble friend, Lord Teynham, expressed in moving the Amendment.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am trying only to be helpful. If the noble Viscount is correct, very well, but my interpretation, as I have said, is that this Amendment does exactly the opposite to what Lord Teynham has said it is desired to do. Lord Teynham said that this Amendment seeks to give to the vehicles of the Commission outside the sixty miles' radius the right to run without any licence at all. I think the noble Lord will see that what he has done is just the reverse. The effect of this Amendment is to say that all the Commission's vehicles within the sixty miles' radius shall be free of the necessity of applying for a licence. If. however, the noble Lord is satisfied with his drafting and says that I am wrong, then I accept the position.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEIt seems to me that there is a direct conflict of opinion on the technical drafting of this part of the Bill. We who desire to have this Amendment inserted have our advisers; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has his advisers. He has confidence in his advisers and we have confidence in ours. When the noble Lord says that he wants to be helpful, I am sure he means it. Let us. for the moment, put aside the issue as to what is and what is not right in the drafting, and get to the intention of the Amendment, which is that the Commission's vehicles running within the sixty miles' radius shall have to be licensed. The noble Lord wants to be helpful. Will he tell us that—leaving aside this dispute as to drafting—if we get together before a later stage of this Bill and endeavour to compose something that gives a clear interpretation of what we are seeking in this Amendment, we can have not only his co-operation but his support?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful for what the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has just said. 889 I have been wondering which noble Lord opposite would suddenly wake up to the fact that the whole Bill is absolutely unworkable. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is the one to have this dawn of enlightenment thrust upon him.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEWill you answer?
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("' vehicle ") to end of line 36 and insert (" to which this section applies ").—(Lord Teynham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
(2) The goods vehicles of the Commission to which this section applies are—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Commission to make and keep register of Road Haulage Vehicles]:
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONThis is really a drafting Amendment, and is consequential upon the proposed transfer to the licensing authority of the power to grant licences and permits. Under this Bill the licensing authority will have power over the granting of permits, as well as over licences, and the clause requires the Commission to keep a register of both licences and permits for each of the areas involved. Therefore the limitation at the beginning of Clause 4 of the Bill is not required. I do not want to weary your Lordships further, but I would reiterate what has already been 890 said, I think on other occasions—that is, that before the nationalisation Act came into force, the licensing authority had all the facts that it required for the carrying out of its function. Since the nationalisation Act was passed, however, it no longer has all the information. This Bill restores to the authority all the information required to carry out its functions under this Bill. This particular Amendment to Clause 4 ensures that that in-formation will be complete. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 42.— (Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD GIFFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, said that this clause seeks to impose on the Commission the duty to make a register of permits and licences; actually it is to keep a register of vehicles. On that point I think the noble Lord slipped up. We think it desirable that this list of vehicles should be kept by the Commission, and the purpose of this Amendment to leave out the first few words of the clause is to make it clear that it is to facilitate not only applications for licences, but also applications for permits, and for anything else that may transpire. The difficulty caused by the fact that the Commission do not keep a list of vehicles has already arisen in one or two cases before the Transport Appeal Tribunal. There was the particular case of Charles Stenner, where statements were made by the Appeal Tribunal that it was very unfortunate that they could not get the true picture in their minds because the Transport Commission did not supply proper particulars of the vehicles which were on the particular routes concerned. I therefore beg to support this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAMI should like to say one word on the Amendment, in giving it my support. The point is that under subsection (1) of Clause 4, as at present drawn, the first three lines might be deemed to indicate that the licensing authority would require a register to be kept only for the purpose of issuing licences; in fact they also require a register for the purpose of modifying or revoking "A" and "B" licences to operate outside the sixty mile limit. This 891 Amendment would facilitate the work of the licensing authority, and I commend it to your Lordships.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Short title and extent]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("1950") and insert ("1951").—(Lord Teynham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("and shall be construed as one with the principal Act"). —(Lord Teynham.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ The Schedule:
§
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("Act");
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("Act").—(Lord Teynham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.