HL Deb 17 February 1955 vol 191 cc177-202

3.5 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 6:

Amendment of safety provisions of 23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 53

6.—(1) The grounds on which a licence under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, may be revoked or suspended under subsection (1) of section thirteen of that Act (which provides for the revocation or suspension of such a licence on the ground that any of the conditions of the licence have not been complied with) shall include the ground that the holder of the licence or any servant or agent of his has, in relation to an authorised vehicle, been convicted of contravening or failing to comply with any statutory provision (however expressed) relating to— (a) the maintenance of vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, or

(4) In this section the expression "authorised vehicle" means, in relation to a licence under the said Act of 1933, a vehicle authorised to be used thereunder, whether or not it is for the time being in use for a purpose for which such a licence is required.

LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), after "vehicle," where that word first occurs, to insert: belonging to the holder of the licence or in his possession under a hire-purchase agreement, The noble Lord said: This clause deals with various reasons for which the holder of a commercial vehicle licence may have his licence withdrawn or suspended. Amongst other reasons mentioned is a previous conviction as servant or agent for an offence named in the clause to do with an authorised vehicle—that is, a commercially licensed vehicle. Unfortunately, this also covers the case where a servant or agent has been convicted whilst in previous employment, the present licence holder not knowing that there has been such a conviction and being in no position to find out about it. My Amendment is designed to put this point right. It restricts the loss or suspension of licence to the employer to those cases where the servant or agent has been convicted for an offence to do with a vehicle owned by the present employer, the licence holder, or which he operates under hire purchase agreement. It seems clear to me that the wording of the clause as it stands is so unfair that it cannot be the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the position I have indicated should arise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 15, after ("vehicle") insert the said words.—(Lord Derwent.)

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this Amendment. I hope he will not mind my saying that I did not understand it from the Amendment which he put down. I do not think the Amendment will achieve the object which he has in view. So far as I can see, he confines the cases of possible convictions to which he has made reference to vehicles belonging to the holder or in his possession under hire purchase. I had taken that to mean that he did not want to include vehicles which were hired or possibly loaned to him. I now understand what the noble Lord has in mind, although I feel bound to say that somebody who deliberately takes on a man with a known bad record of driving vehicles might not be without at least some measure of responsibility.

I am quite prepared to look at this matter to see whether we can make it clear that the offences here referred to, or the circumstances in which they are referred to, can properly arise only in regard to occasions when the driver is in the employ of the holder of the licence. I am bound to admit that it is a thin case, and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me because, if he observes the proviso, he will see these words: Provided that the licensing authority shall not revoke or suspend a licence … unless he is satisfied, after holding a public inquiry if the holder of the licence requests him so to do … I think that in the course of that public inquiry it would become abundantly clear that, for offences committed not in the present employer's employ, it would be unfair that any suspension should take place. I think it is a very remote contingency but I readily accept that there is a possible interpretation which should be investigated. If, on those conditions, the noble Lord could withdraw this Amendment, I should be grateful.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, would the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in the consideration of this matter which he has promised, take these two factors into account? First, an endorsement upon a driving licence can be obliterated from the driving licence in two years although the record is still there. Therefore, a man can present his new employer with a perfectly clean licence unless the employer is not only himself going to subject every prospective applicant for employment to a categorical examination but is also going to apply to the police for his past record. Secondly, I beg that at a public inquiry a man's past will not be raked up—whether or not he has been convicted of so many prosecutions—in such a way as to jeopardise his chance of future employment. I ask the noble Earl to take those factors into consideration because they sprang to my mind immediately upon hearing the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, move his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I readily accept what the noble Lord has said. It is a perfectly proper point. The purpose of the public inquiry is to examine two points: the frequency of such convictions with various vehicles in the control of the holder of the licence or, alternatively, the wilful disregard of these most important considerations, which the noble Lord will see in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1)—whether the licensing authority consider that they have been wilfully or frequently violated. In that sense, the previous record of the conduct of the business is bound in some measure to come under examination, but I agree with the noble Lord that it would be most undesirable that an individual should have his long record thrown open to public examination.

EARL HOWE

I hope it will not be forgotten by the House that the present law relating to heavy vehicles is simply disregarded by everybody on the road. The Road Research Board have given the figure that 94 per cent. of the drivers of heavy vehicles which are subject to the 20 m.p.h. limit, as it is to-day, completely disregard it. On the whole, from the point of view of the country, it is probably a good thing they do, but it might at any moment be possible for the police to start operations to try to enforce a law which I think even the Government agree is really unworkable. I suggest that that might be borne in mind, because drivers might easily, as we all know, exceed the 20 m.p.h. limit, thereby ipso facto breaking the law. As the law relating to heavy vehicles is in such a complete mess at the moment, it seems to me that this Amendment requires careful consideration. I was glad to hear what the noble Earl said. His generally sympathetic attitude towards the Amendment is to be welcomed, but, as it stands, the law relating to heavy commercial vehicles, as those of us who know anything about it (including, I know, the Government) realise, is quite unworkable.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making; we come to it later. Here, two stages are involved. There is conviction in individual cases, and subsequently, if that should happen frequently, there may be suspension of the licence, which is, of course, a very serious matter and certainly would not be undertaken by the licensing authority unless they were well satisfied that it was fully justified—in other words, that the person concerned was not suitable to be charged with the responsibility for a licence. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.

LORD DERWENT

The only difference between us is that I believe the danger to the licence holder could be more real and more serious than my noble friend is prepared to agree. But, as I understand it, he is going to look at this point again and I presume he wishes to meet the point behind my Amendment. I take it that if he is able to do so, he will introduce a Government Amendment on the next stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DERWENT moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) In the case of a goods vehicle used in connection with any business it shall not be necessary for the driver or the holder of a licence to keep or cause to be kept the records prescribed by these regulations if and so long as there accompanies the vehicle on all journeys a certificate in the form set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act and the vehicle is being driven by the driver named in the said certificate and he is driving in accordance with and within the particulars set out in the said certificate; nothing in the immediately preceding sub-paragraph of this paragraph of this regulation shall—

  1. (i) exempt any person from keeping or causing to be kept the records prescribed by these regulations if any goods vehicle used in connection with any business is so used on a journey any part of which lies outside a radius of 25 miles from the place where the vehicle is usually kept;
  2. (ii) exempt any person from keeping or causing to be kept the records prescribed by these regulations if any goods vehicle used in connection with any business is used on a journey, or at any time any part of which is not in accordance with and within the particulars set out in the said certificate;
where any goods vehicle is used in connection with any business on a journey any part of which is otherwise than in accordance with and within the particulars set out in the said certificate, every driver shall keep and every holder of a licence shall cause to be kept the records prescribed by the other paragraphs of these regulations in respect of the whole of that journey, and there shall be added to the schedule to those regulations Form 5 being a certificate in accordance with the additional paragraph to the regulations contained in this subsection.

The noble Lord said: Under the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations, 1935, all commercial vehicles not driven by the owner must have a log book, which has to be kept up to date, showing the journeys, hours of work, and that type of detail—a most proper and necessary regulation in the case of all long-distance driving. But there is one class of vehicle for which a log book has become something of a farce, and where the regulation creates a great deal of unnecessary work and wastes a lot of paper. I refer to local delivery vehicles, such as bakers' vans, butchers' vans and so on. In this class of vehicle the log book has an entry at the top of the page, and for subsequent dates has the word "ditto" written against it; it is a class of vehicle the log books of which are practically never looked at. These log books are entirely unnecessary as a day-to-day record and as a rule serve no useful purpose, because the vehicles concerned do much the same round and much the same work day after day.

The point of my Amendment, which is a long one, is simply this: that for this type of vehicle power should be given for the granting of a certificate. The specimen certificate I have in mind is dealt with in a later Amendment, following the Third Schedule. It would include the name of the owner, the name of the driver, the place where the vehicle is usually kept, the hours of work, the actual hours of the man's break in work, and absolutely essential details of that kind. The certificate would be all that was required for most days of the year, and would apply as long as the terms of the certificate were strictly adhered to and as long as the vehicle was in use within a 25-miles radius of its garage. On the odd days in the year when the terms of the certificate were not complied with, there would be an obligation to put the variations to the certificate down in the log book for that day. For example, the hours of work for a grocer's van might be from nine till five, with a break from one till two. Christmas Eve might be a difficult day and there might be late deliveries. The certificate would not then apply, and there would have to be an entry in the log book.

The advantage of this system is, that if an inspector stops one of these local delivery vans and demands the certificate, he has only to read through what are the hours of work, where the van is kept, and so on, and he can see at once whether the van is working within the terms of the certificate. If it is not working within the terms of the certificate, then he looks at the log book. If the log book is not properly kept upon a variation from the certificate, then an offence has been committed. This system would save a tremendous amount of work; it would make things much easier for an inspector who stopped a vehicle of that kind, and it would save a great deal of paper. I suggest to my noble friend that this is a proper, practical way of running a check over local delivery vans. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The purpose of this Amendment is to prescribe the nature of the records which must be kept where a vehicle travels not more than twenty-five miles from its base. These records are, of course, concerned with hours of work, journeys, loads and other matters. I must emphasise that we attach considerable importance to these records as an essential means of control of the conditions of work; and on that account we regard them as an essential element in assisting safety on the roads. It is true that at the present time we are asking that the same records should be kept for delivery vans as for long-distance vehicles and others. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that there is a case for simplifying some of the C licence records in respect of vehicles which travel only a short distance. The noble Lord's suggestion excluded such things as the load, the nature of the journey, or the area, and the last occasion on which the man worked. Those are, however, factors which might have to be taken into consideration. I must make it quite clear, however, that the considerations I have mentioned do not apply in the ordinary way to A and B licences, and it would also be undesirable for simplification to take place in the case of long-distance C licences.

I hope that what I am saying will meet the noble Lord's point in this matter. As a matter of fact, I rather doubt whether the twenty-five miles basis would be the correct way of dealing with this matter. But if we were able to do anything, it would be only in regard to a limited class of vehicles; and we should certainly not do anything until we had consulted the organisations of both the employees and the employers engaged in this work. I will see whether we can do something on this point, but I must point out that I think it is unnecessary for an Act of Parliament to specify the precise form in which these returns should be made. I think it would be rather inconvenient to stereotype it to that extent. I should also point out that there is a defect in the drafting of the Amendment, because in line 4, and again a little later on, it refers to "these regulations," and it is not clear what regulations are referred to. I believe that they are regulations made under Section 16 of the 1933 Act, but it would have to be made quite clear what reference was being made. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment. We will see whether we can meet the point.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for raising this matter, and to the noble Earl for the sound and conciliatory manner in which he has met the point. There is a point for consideration, but I am at one with him in saying that it has to be carefully considered. I would ask him to bear in mind, with regard to a C licence, that if the proprietor or the owner drives the van concerned, he does not have to keep a record when it is not carrying goods; it is only when the employee drives it that a record has to be kept. Let us look at the position of the village butcher. He may drive his van for some part of the day, and his assistant may drive it for the other part of the day. One has to keep a record of journeys and loads; the other does not. When the driver is self-employed he does not have to keep any records.

I am at one with the noble Lord in thinking that it would be highly dangerous to bring A and B licences into this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, agrees. I feel, however, that there is a problem with C licences, because many C licence holders are one-man businesses. Then there is the man who has one assistant who drives the van; and there is, of course, the C licence where a number of people drive the van, so that it never has any settled driver. It would mean putting a heavy burden on these relatively small businesses, and (though I hesitate to put this into the mouth of the noble Lord), if inspectors were to turn up at perhaps 75 per cent. of such businesses they would find the records unintelligible. If the records could be made simple, so that they can be easily kept, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, would be very grateful.

LORD DERWENT

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for saying that he will look into this matter, but may I just stress one point before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment. I believe that a certificate rather than the present log-book system, is very important in regard to hours of work. The certificate, I suggest, should state break-hours during the day, and, unless the owner is driving that vehicle during those hours, that vehicle must not be on the road without some special mention of the fact in the log-book. That is one of the reasons why I believe a certificate is better with this type of vehicle than a logbook. However, in view of what my noble friend has said I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.23 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (4): Provided that a dual purpose vehicle (which expression shall have the meaning assigned to it in subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act) shall be deemed not to be an authorised vehicle whilst for the time being adapted for the carriage of passengers and in use for a purpose for which a licence under the said Act of 1933 is not required.

The noble Lord said: I now come to an Amendment which in my view is a very important one. I ask your Lordships to allow me, in the course of my argument upon this Amendment, to refer also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 99. This is a highly technical matter and I ask the indulgence of your Lordships. I will do my best to explain it as simply as I can—that is, if I really know it myself. This Amendment deals with the utility vehicle, station wagon, estate car, call it what you will; but for the purpose of this Bill I prefer to call it a utility vehicle. I ant forced to go into a little past history on this subject because I have a past in connection with it.

Technically, any vehicle up to three tons unladen weight is, according to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a motor car. The motor car, as we know it, is a motor car constructed solely for the carriage of passengers, not exceeding seven excluding the driver. All the others are commercial vehicles or goods-carrying vehicles constructed solely for the carriage of goods or burdens. That was all right until 1934 when the enterprising motor industry conceived the idea of the dual purpose vehicle. Immediately that came on to the market it had so ready a sale that at this date there are about 80,000 of them in use in this country. I should think the large majority of noble Lords have one of their own; I see many outside your Lordships' House on occasion. As their numbers grew, confusion became worse confounded. What was this vehicle? Was it a passenger vehicle, and therefore a motor car, or was it a goods-carrying vehicle and therefore subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit, as are all goods-carrying vehicles? Nobody could solve that problem, for the vehicle could be used for both purposes.

The position arose that, throughout this country, chief constables took one of two views. In some areas they regarded it as a commercial vehicle, and if anyone drove one of these utility vehicles at a speed over 30 miles an hour they made an appearance before the bench. In another county or area the chief constable perhaps did not bother, and therefore such drivers were immune. This position continued for fifteen years and I must admit it cost many people a lot of money in fines. There was always some doubt whether or not fines should be imposed, but technically I imagine that the police were correct. In 1950 the Minister of Transport was persuaded to make an attempt to rectify this anomalous position, and in your Lordships' House on October 24, 1950, I introduced, and asked your Lordships to pass, the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1950. To make clear what this regulation did, I will read from the explanatory note, because that is intelligible while the regulation, like every other regulation, is not. It says: The present Regulations exempt from the speed limit so prescribed certain goods vehicles fitted with pneumatic tyres and not exceeding three tons in weight unladen when not drawing trailers. The speed limit of thirty miles an hour which has hitherto applied to all such vehicles will in future apply to such vehicles only if they are authorised to be used under carrier's licences,"— these are the words I ask your Lordships to note— or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions contained in Section 1 (7) of the Read and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

Those exemptions in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are numerous. I will not read them to your Lordships but they cover ambulances, fire engines, local authority vehicles and so on. These dual purpose vehicles were brought under the carrier's licence. If an owner of one of these utility vehicles used the vehicle for passengers and for the carriage of his own goods only, he did not need a C licence. If he carried goods in the course of a business or profession, or for hire or reward, he fell into the category of a C licence holder just as if he had been using a van or commercial vehicle—that is, a proper goods-carrying vehicle, van or lorry—and he was restricted to a speed of 30 miles an hour.

Now he could use this utility vehicle for passengers only and he was immune; the vehicle was a motor car in the full and accepted sense of the term. If he carried some person other than himself it was still a motor car. But as soon as he put in any goods he brought himself within the requirement to hold a C licence, and was subject to the 30 mile an hour speed limit. I just want to quote what I said upon the occasion to which I have just referred. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 168, Col. 1253]: We have attempted to overcome this difficulty by using, if I may put it in this language, the carriers' licence formula. As your Lordships know, a goods vehicle, carrying goods for hire or reward, or for or in connection with a trade or business, must have an A, B or C licence. These are known as carriers' licences. We have now come to the conclusion that we will make another division, and any goods-carrying vehicle that does not require a carriers' licence will in future be exempt from the speed limit which applies to commercial vehicles. Therefore, a utility vehicle which is constructed to carry goods and passengers, so long as the goods carried in that vehicle are not carried for hire or reward or in connection with a trade or busineses, will in future, if your Lordships agree to this Motion, be exempt from the thirty mile an hour speed limit.

May I pause there. We thought that everything was going to be plain sailing. So it was until there was a case which is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum regarding Clause 6. This was the case of Blenkin v. Bell, in 1952. That was in connection with a utility vehicle. It went before a Divisional Court presided over by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice held that this regulation and the law as it stood at the time did precisely what it was intended it should do but with the plus effect of saying that while a utility vehicle carried goods for hire or reward, or goods of any description, it came within the carrier's licence category. When it had not those goods in it, it was not subject to the conditions of a carrier's licence. That went—because of that particular judgment—for every commercial vehicle up to three tons unladen weight.

Later there was the case of Woolley v. Moore, which concerned an ordinary goods-carrying van. And there was the same dictum that any C licence vehicle was subject to the provisions of the C licence—that is, the restriction to the 30 miles an hour speed limit and the keeping of records—only when it was engaged in the actual function for which a C licence was so required. That had many results. Any commercial vehicle up to three tons unladen weight was able to go about the country at any speed the driver liked outside the 30 mile an hour speed limit, the same as a motor car. That was never intended; it is just abject nonsense—I am not saying that the judgment was nonsense, but the effect of it was. I am not concerned with the judgment. There have been expressions of opinion questioning it, but I expect there are always expressions of opinion questioning any judgment in any court of law. I am concerned only with the effect.

This clause seeks to bring the position back to where we thought it was when the regulation was issued. In my submission, it means that if you have a utility vehicle to-day and you use it only for the carriage of passengers, you are in the same position as you were before—that is to say, you will not be subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit. If you use that utility vehicle for the carrying of your own personal luggage you will, as before, not be subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit. What this clause now does is to say that if you do license it in order to carry some goods in the course of your business, profession, occupation or trade, not only must you have a C licence but the condition of that C licence regarding the keeping of records applies, whether the vehicle is carrying goods or whether it is not. It means that if you want to carry goods in your utility vehicle you must have a C licence, and when you are not carrying goods and are using that vehicle as a passenger carrying vehicle wholly and solely, because it has a C licence you are still subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit; and unless you, the owner, are driving it, it is also subject to record-keeping in precisely the same way as is a commercial vehicle. At this point I breathe a sigh of relief, because I see that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is nodding his head. So I take it that I have not made much of a mistake up to now.

What the Amendment now seeks to do is to improve the position as it was at the status quo. It seeks to say that although you may need a C licence for a utility vehicle when it is carrying goods, it is not to be subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit when it is not carrying goods. But the Amendment restricts this freedom to a utility vehicle. The definition of such a vehicle which I hope your Lordships will accept is the meaning assigned to it in subsection (1) of Clause 24 of the Bill. It now becomes apparent that there are still further anomalies. I want, if your Lordships will allow me, to quote just another two or three words from what I said in 1950 when I proposed the approval of the regulation which I have mentioned. After the remarks I have already quoted I went on to say this: I do not pretend that this will not raise some anomalies—it is bound to; but it was a question of a choice of evils. I may be asked about a doctor carrying a case of instruments in a utility vehicle which is not constructed solely for the carrying of passengers, or a veterinary surgeon, or, for that matter, a sweep. Will such a case be exempt? As I am advised, the answer is No, it will not, because that is carrying goods in connection with a trade or business in a goods vehicle. I must add this proviso—and I am now speaking subject to correction. The courts, I understand, have never yet been called upon to decide whether the professional instruments of a doctor or a veterinary surgeon are goods carried for or in connection with a trade or business. In case any noble Lord is prepared to make the experiment, I should advise him not to do so.

I want to address obliquely my next few remarks to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who spoke to your Lordships the other day lucidly, and for me plainly, on the question of the Negative Resolution procedure. The regulation I have just read out requires an Affirmative Resolution. The Ministry of Transport did not wait for the courts to decide whether a doctor's case of instruments was goods. On September 5, 1951 (and this is an interesting date for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor), a regulation was made. It was laid before Parliament on September 8 and came into operation on September 19. At that time, Parliament was in Recess and everybody's mind was on the General Elections. This regulation went through on the Negative Resolution procedure, and escaped even the vigilance of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. So these things can slip through; and this one did.

This is the paradoxical position we have now arrived at as a result of this regulation, which I shall read to your Lordships. It is Goods Vehicles. The Road and Rail Traffic Act (Exemption) Regulation, 1951. It tries to get the doctor, dentist and other professional people out of the dilemma and this is how it does it. These regulations re-enact with amendments the Road and Rail Traffic Act (Exemption) Regulations, 1930, as amended, by granting exemption in certain cases from the regulation under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, that goods vehicles shall not be used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward or in connection with trade or business except under a carrier's licence. The principal changes are that exemption is now granted to the following additional cases—this is made under the last paragraph of Section 1 (7) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933: (n) to the use of a motor vehicle by a medical practitioner, state registered nurse, state certified midwife, dentist or veterinary surgeon for the carriage of medicines or of any instruments or apparatus necessary for his or her use in carrying on his or her profession as a medical practitioner, nurse, midwife, dentist or veterinary surgeon as the case may be, provided"— and I call special attention to this point— that no other goods are carried in the vehicle. So, for the first time, it is laid down in Statute that the doctor's little black bag is goods. I expect the draftsmen thought that they had done what had to be done, and that the doctor, dentist and all the others, were now able to carry their instruments in the course of their professional duties, and that they would not have either to keep records or conform to the 30 miles an hour limit.

I must now take your Lordships back to the previous regulation and read the last two or three lines again. This regulation exempted utility vehicles from the operation of the 30 miles an hour limit. It stated: The speed limit of 30 miles per hour which has hitherto applied to all such vehicles will in future apply to such vehicles only if they are authorised to be used under carrier's licences,— and these are the operative words— or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions contained in Section 1 (7) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. They become exempt vehicles under the first regulation I have read and do not have to keep records; but under the second regulation they have to conform to the 30 miles an hour limit. It means that a doctor who has a utility vehicle and who puts his little black bag in the back when going to an emergency case can travel at only 30 miles an hour. What a peculiar state we have got into! But the anomaly does not stop there. If the doctor owns a motor car instead of a utility vehicle, he can carry his instruments in it and be immune from the speed limit. No one could have foreseen this at the time the regulation was passed, as it went through during Recess and did not have the benefit of Parliamentary scrutiny and Parliamentary debate. I am going to give another example to show what a farcical position we have arrived at. If a commercial traveller puts his samples in the back of his ordinary motor car, he is within the law; but if, for private reasons, he owns a utility vehicle and puts his samples in the back of it, he must have a C licence and travel at not more than 30 miles an hour. As your Lordships will see, I have included the commercial traveller in my Amendment.

This is a simple question. It all stems from the 1930 Act. It took us fifteen years to get the first regulations, and since 1930 we have been trying to legislate for one of the most virile industries in this country—the motor industry, which has done a job of work for the country by its ingenuity and enterprise second to none—with an archaic Act which we passed in the days when traction engines and solid-wheeled vehicles were very much in evidence. I have sought to get over this difficulty by formulating a definition of the utility vehicle, as your Lordships will see from Amendment No. 99. I have based that definition on the Customs and Excise definition for the purpose of purchase tax. This is not a case of tax dodging or anything like that, because a utility vehicle pays precisely the same excise tax and precisely the same purchase tax as a motor car. I am trying only to bring up to date a regulation which, if this carefully-thought-out Amendment is not carried, will be a grave blow to the motor industry. Production of utility vehicles, from the Husky to the Rolls and Bentley (I have put the limit at two tons in my Amendment, to take care of the whole range of these vehicles), is now about 30,000 a year, to meet a popular demand. It is the British answer to the German and the American utility vehicles. Surely we cannot, at this stage of development of one of our greatest industries, shackle it to something that is archaic. We have the definition of a motor car, and we have in the regulations the definitions of a goods-carrying vehicle; now we must have a regulation defining what is a dual purpose or utility vehicle.

I have been rather long in moving this Amendment, but this is a highly technical subject and I have done my best to explain it lucidly to your Lordships. In Amendment No. 34 I try to say that a dual purpose vehicle, though it may now have a C licence, shall not be subject to a 30 miles an hour limit when it is not carrying goods. In Amendment No. 36 I propose to rectify the position of doctors, midwives, dentists and such people, including commercial travellers; and I have put in paragraph (c) to give the Minister power to make further regulations if he so desires. I think one could continue this matter indefinitely. Would the engineer with a bag of tools come under this provision? He must come under it, because the regulation defines all these things as "goods." By Amendment No. 99 I try to give your Lordships a practical definition of what constitutes a dual purpose vehicle. I thank your Lordships for your patience, and I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF ROTHES

Before attempting to address your Lordships on any of these Amendments, I must declare an interest, inasmuch as I am connected with the road passenger transport industry, although I do not think that on this particular Amendment that fact has any bearing. I should like to support a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, and from a particular point of view. The clarification of dual purpose vehicle is an important point from many aspects, but in particular, I think, from this one; that if it is not clearly understood what you may and may not use a dual purpose vehicle for, that will affect the popularity of, and the demand for, this vehicle; and that, in turn, will affect the volume of the output of the manufacturers of this vehicle. If, however, this point were clarified, the demand would, I believe, substantially increase, and that would enable manufacturers substantially to reduce their costs. As all your Lordships are aware, the motor industry at this moment is playing a most important part in the export trade; and you are equally aware that we vitally need increased exports. If, therefore, by clarifying the purposes for which a dual purpose vehicle may be used it were possible to increase its popularity, I think that would help the motor trade to get the exports which we all want so badly.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has singled out the medical profession and ancillary helpers as rather startling instances of the difficulties which might arise under existing regulations or under the terms of this Bill. It is obvious from the Bill that we are dealing with life and death matters, and it is legitimate that the medical profession should take some notice. At the same time, I must say that it is difficult enough already for the ordinary surgeon or midwife to know the real position. I cannot see that the present Bill, or the exposition of the noble Lord, makes the position much clearer: in fact, one is left like a client who has a judgment against him in the Court of Appeal, feeling that the only resort left to him is to appeal to the Lords—and we have to adjudicate on this.

Is the doctor travelling with what the noble Lord calls his "little black bag" to be regarded as travelling with his luggage, or carrying his own goods? Noble Lords must realise from the pharmaceutical costs to-day that a "little black bag" no longer meets the situation. The noble Lord mentioned in his argument the doctor's "little black bag": but what about the civil servant's brief-case? The contents are the tools of his trade. If he puts them in a utility vehicle, is he still further to delay the decision of a Ministry by travelling at 30 m.p.h.? Surely, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, on behalf of the Government, will do something to clarify the position in regard to the utility vehicle when being used, not for carrying goods and not only for carrying the driver's or owner's own goods, but for carrying the tools of his trade. I hope the noble Earl will realise that, from the point of view of ensuring that the regulations and the Bill are understood by people whose minds are full of different things, it should be made clear what regulations apply to their activities. It would be a great pity if a Bill which is designed to preserve life and to delay death should delay the surgeon when going on a life-saving mission because he has got to obey some regulations which may result in there being no other alternative but death. I am sorry to terminate my remarks on the word "death," but that is inevitable; and difficulty and trouble is inevitable under this Bill unless it is clarified.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that this was a highly technical subject, and if I may humbly say so, I thought that his exposition of it was exceedingly able; in fact, he has given me not a little trouble, with the assistance that I have, to try to understand the nature of this problem. I can find no fault with the statement of the case which the noble Lord has made, but I must emphasise that there are two things which are quite different. First of all, there is what we are actually doing in this clause; and secondly, there is what the noble Lord proposes—and they are quite different things.

Let me remind your Lordships of what we are doing in the clause. When the speed limit was abolished in 1930, cars were divided into two categories: those for carrying persons and their effects, and those for carrying goods. We are concerned here only with vehicles which carry goods or burdens of any description. By and large, for vehicles over three tons the limit is 20 m.p.h., and for those under three tons it is 30 m.p.h. That was how the law stood until the cases which the noble Lord has mentioned, Blenkin v. Bell and the other case. The effect of the Court's decision is this. When vehicles are running empty the conditions of the licence do not apply, which means—we have been advised so—that not only does the speed limit not apply, but also that none of the other conditions, such as maintenance of the vehicle, the keeping of records and the keeping of driving hours, applies.

I think your Lordships will agree that in those circumstances we had no option but to bring in amended legislation to make it quite clear that, in regard to the ordinary carrier's licence, the conditions should apply. And that is what we have done here. I do not think I need explain it. We have done it in a somewhat complicated manner, but I need not weary your Lordships with it. You will see paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 6, which apply whether or not goods are being carried. I want to emphasise that what we are doing here applies only to licence holders. It does not, so far as we are concerned, apply to anything else. That is the only alteration which we make in the law.

The noble Lord has brought up another question, and that is the dual purpose car, generally known as a "utility." Under the definition of the 1933 Act, that was, and is, a goods vehicle, although, as we all know, a large number of them are used for private purposes. The noble Lord has explained that, but for the regulations of 1950, all these cars would be controlled by a 30 m.p.h. limit. That is no longer the case, because these regulations apply only to C licensed vehicles and to specific exempted vehicles. Other dual purpose vehicles are not subjected, of course, in any way tó the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. That, in effect, means that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit applies, apart from C licensed vehicles, to farm vehicles with an F licence and Crown vehicles generally, such as military vehicles, and to doctors' vehicles, and vehicles used by nurses, veterinary surgeons and people in trade and industry, although these do not require a C licence.

The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the number of dual-purpose vehicles which are not subject either to licensing or to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. The noble Lord does it in this way—by saying that an authorised vehicle, when it is adapted for the carriage of passengers and not in use for the purpose for which the licence is required, will be deemed not to be an authorised vehicle. There is a little difficulty there about the drafting, but I think the intention of the noble Lord is perfectly clear. If that is the case, under the regulations of 1950 it comes into the category which is not covered by the 30 m.p.h. speed limit.

My first objection to the idea is that it means that the same vehicle, if it can be adapted, will sometimes be within the 30 m.p.h. speed limit and sometimes not. I think that would be a matter for some confusion, which would be a pity. The noble Lord then goes on to describe the dual-purpose vehicle, and I will say a word or two about that description in a minute. In his Amendment No. 36, the noble Lord says that where a dual purpose vehicle as already described is used for certain purposes—doctors, the carrying of samples, and things of that sort—it will not be regarded as a goods vehicle and, therefore, will not require a C licence and will not be subject to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I think I should make the point straight away that in both these spheres the Minister has power to act by regulation. This matter is one of such complexity that I think it is better discussed round a table. Also, these regulations may require amendment from time to time. With the evolution of the motor' car, it is quite possible that other changes may take place which will make amendment necessary. What I am prepared to say straight away is that if anyone can produce a water-tight description of a dual-purpose vehicle, we shall be happy to consider putting it into the Statute or using it in other ways.

I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, and the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said about the clarification which we should like in this matter. That clarification requires two factors. In the first place, the dual purpose vehicle must be defined in such a way that the ordinary light goods vehicle does not come within the definition and cannot be readily designed or adapted to come within it. In the second place, I think it is necessary that one should be able to tell fairly well at a glance whether a vehicle is or is not subject to the speed limit; otherwise, it seems to me, the task of the police will be very difficult. The definition in Amendment No. 99, I say at once, is a most ingenious definition. I do not think the noble Lord is right in saying that it is the Customs and Excise definition.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

It is based on it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should say that the Customs and Excise definition causes a great difficulty. It is much easier, of course, to examine the vehicle for Excise purposes than it is to recognise it when it is on the road. If your Lordships would look at Amendment No. 99 you will see this in (b): as to the rear of the driver's seat roofed accommodation"— I suppose that could be of canvas or tarpaulin— fitted with side windows or is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows. I suppose that means something in the way of a piece of perspex. I do not know whether it is sufficient to have just a hole, but it is obviously fairly simple to come within the terms of that. Then if we go on to paragraph (d), it says: as, in that part of it which is to the rear of the driver's seat, seating, which may be collapsible, for at least two passengers sitting side by side … If you have two tip seats side by side behind the driver's seat, which could be put in perhaps for £2 or £3, that will immediately convert almost any lorry into a dual purpose vehicle. It is for that reason that I must advise your Lordships that this definition will not hold water. Frankly, I should welcome it if it did, because it would greatly simplify the matter.

There are, of course, as the noble Lord has said, a good many exemptions which have been made under the 1951 regulation. We are aware of the anomalies. The noble Lord was quite frank about it when he moved the regulations in 1950: he said that there were anomalies there. But if we are going to change the law we must go to a better position where the anomalies are less marked. That, I think, is fundamental. It is no good moving from one anomalous position to another. It will not clarify the position at all if we do that. I think we must bear in mind that, though there must be confusion, we are not aware of any great hardship arising from this, and we do not feel justified in seeking to remove a few anomalies if, at the same time, we abandon effective control over a large and increasing number of light goods vehicles which are extensively used in trade. I should like to say to the noble Lord that we have regulatory powers to deal with this matter. The Minister can alter the classes of vehicles—they can go into the C licence group—or he can alter their permitted speed. We think it would be a much more effective way of getting the result and a more adaptable way which could be changed from time to time, if necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because I do not think it would clarify the situation, which all your Lordships are most anxious to clarify, if possible.

LORD DERWENT

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that there is one point about which I am rather disquieted. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend that it may be better to put this matter right by regulation, but many of us who are interested in this subject would like to have some assurance that the Minister will try to meet the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made, and will, in fact, make the regulation. Speaking for myself, unless my noble friend gives some assurance of that kind I shall be profoundly dissatisfied.

4.12 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his most courteous reply. If we have a battle, then it will be a perfectly friendly one. I must say, and I say it with no discourtesy to him, that all he said from that Dispatch Box to me had a very familiar ring. I heard all those excuses given for our waiting fifteen years for the first regulation. From a lifetime's experience in the motor industry, I could shoot holes in any regulation on the construction and use of motor vehicles in this country. One talks about being able to evade. Commercial vehicles are licensed by unladen weight. There is not one commercial vehicle in a thousand on the roads of this country that is the same weight today as it was when it originally got its excise licence. I am sorry for the noble Earl in a matter such as this, because it is highly technical. The noble Earl says he shot holes in my definition, although he admitted it was an ingenious one. It has satisfied the Customs and Excise; and if you can satisfy the Customs and Excise on a definition where revenue from tax is concerned, believe me, you have a miracle on your hands. They are perfectly satisfied.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I said they were.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

When the manufacturer of any vehicle in this country produces a vehicle that requires a tax exemption certificate—for instance, if he wants to evade the purchase tax on one of these utility vehicles—he has to obtain the Customs and Excise inspector's certificate of exemption before he is allowed to put the vehicle on the road. What the noble Earl's advisers have put into his mouth they tried to put into mine every day when I was battling to get this first exemption of the utility vehicle from the 30 miles an hour limit. Frankly, I am not prepared to go on throttling a great industry of this country by the whim of producing regulations. It is something from which we have all suffered. The noble Earl has not said one thing about the burden of my complaint. It is as a result of regulation cancelling regulation that the medical practitioner, the midwife and the dentist cannot now travel at over 30 miles per hour. I read the regulations to your Lordships. You ask me to give up this Amendment when we now have a Road Traffic Bill on our hands. I doubt if many of your Lordships will be alive when we get the next Bill; this is the golden opportunity.

Of course, there will be anomalies—I admitted it before. I do not care what regulation the noble Earl brings forward, if I have a mind to I can shoot more holes into it than he has shot in my Amendment, because I have the technical knowledge. Of course you will never get a cast-iron regulation to conform with a design of the motor industry. Why should you? Regulations! It was a regulation of the horse-power tax days that nearly put this motor industry out of business.

I am sorry, but I feel so strongly about this matter that, whatever anomalies are involved in my Amendment—and I fail to see one-hundredth that the noble Earl can—I am not prepared to allow this industry, the 80,000 people who have these vehicles and the 30,000 who are going to buy them every year, to suffer under this disadvantage. As this is the opportunity of putting matters right, I shall ask your Lordships to express your opinion in the Division Lobby.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the 1951 regulation subjected the medical profession to that limit. What I did think it did was to release them from the obligation of having a C licence.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

No; it is not so as regards the 30 miles an hour limit.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

That is the position.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

No, it is not. May I read the regulation to the noble Earl?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I have read it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I appeal to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to allow me to read the regulation? It is the regulation of 1950 exempting the utility vehicle from the 30 miles an hour limit. This is what it says: The speed limit of 30 miles per hour which has hitherto applied to all such vehicles will in future apply to such vehicles only if they are authorised to be used under carrier's licence"— that is, the A, B, or C licence— or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions contained in section 1 (7) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 …"— this is the exemption— or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions … The "specific exemption," as I read it to you, is the use of a motor vehicle by a medical practitioner, state registered nurse, et cetera when they are carrying medicines, instruments or apparatus necessary for his or her use … provided that no other goods"— so "instruments" are goods— are carried in the vehicle. They are exempt; they become an exempted vehicle. If they were not an exempted vehicle, they would be an authorised vehicle. When we have here: would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemption, it means that they would have to be authorised because they are carrying goods, and the limit then is thirty miles per hour.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

May I say a word of explanation? I understood from the noble Earl that he was prepared to clarify the situation. I was hoping that points like these would not come to a Division—in which, indeed, I should not take part—because I understood that we might have a shorter and clearer exposition at a later stage of the Bill. I also want to take this opportunity of saying, that whatever may be the interpretation of regulations or licences and what-not (which I find it extremely difficult to follow) where it has been made clear that the breach was necessary in the service of others my profession has always been treated extremely generously and sympathetically, in magistrates' courts and right up to the highest court, whenever any objection has been taken to speed on the road or any other breach of regulations.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, for what he says about this matter and I appreciate the strength and feeling behind what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. I think it is fair to recognise that if there had been a simple classification in 1950 the noble

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord opposite would have put it into the regulations, and if there were a simple classification now we should do it to-day. What I will undertake to do is to represent as strongly as I can to the Minister that some of the anomalies to which the noble Lord has referred should be ironed out. I do not say that that will get rid of them all, but I will represent as strongly as I can that that course should be adopted. I do not pretend that that will not leave other anomalies, because I think that is inevitable. I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will accept that offer, because I am afraid that I cannot do more.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS
Camden, M. Amulree, L. Jessel, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Brabazon of Tara, L. Kenswood, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Kershaw, L.
Albemarle, E. Chorley, L. Killearn, L.
Gosford, E. Derwent, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Howe, E. Douglas of Barloch, L. Mathers, L.
Jowitt, E. Gifford, L. Ogmore, L.
Listowel, E. Gisborough, L. Sempill, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Glyn, L. Strabolgi, L.
Malmesbury, E. Hampton, L. Strathcarron, L.
Rothes, E. Henderson, L. Waleran, L.
Hindlip, L. Winster, L.
Stansgate, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) St. Aldwyn, E. Belstead, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.) Selkirk, E. Brassey of Apethorpe, L.
Shaftesbury, E. Carrington, L.
Sutherland, D. Cranworth, L.
Leathers, V. Digby, L.
Beauchamp, E. Soulbury, V. Dovercourt, L.
De La Warr, E. Swinton, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Dundee, E. Trenchard, V. Goddard, L.
Ferrers, E. Woolton, V. Hawke, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Leconfield, L.
Home, E. Aberdare, L. Mancroft, L.
Munster, E. Amherst of Hackney, L. Wolverton, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]
Back to
Forward to