LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 23 October 1968)

§ LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 61 to which the Commons have disagreed. I suggest that it would be convenient to the House to consider also the Amendments listed as Nos. 62 to 65 since they form a coherent group. Perhaps I should remind the House that the effect of the four Amendments, Nos. 61 and 63 and the two consequential Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, made here in Committee, is to remove from Clause 67 the original provision that a licensing authority may, for its administrative convenience, grant an operator's licence for a shorter period than the normal five years duration and substitute a provision that in these circumstances the licence may be granted for a longer period. The Amendments carried in another place, in place of these Amendments, would change this arrangement to one which would allow the grant of a licence for the licensing authority's administrative convenience for a period longer or shorter than the normal five years. The Government consider that the proposals from another place represent a reasonable compromise on the question of what discretion the licensing authority should have in this matter.

When we debated the point in Committee there was no disagreement on the general proposition that the licensing authority must have the facility to spread his work load where necessary in order to make the best administrative arrangements for the efficient use of staff and other resources. As I pointed out, this becomes particularly important when one considers the transitional period from carriers' licensing to operators' licensing. Within a very short time virtually all existing licence holders will be issued with operators' licences under the terms of Clause 93. If all these licences were of the normal 5-year duration, they would all be due for renewal within a short space of time five years later, thus placing a disproportionate peak load on the licensing authorities and their staffs and probably leading to delays, which would inconvenience operators. The Government's original view was that this could best be avoided by giving the licensing authorities the same discretion as they have under the 1960 Act to shorten the 1505 duration of licences for administrative reasons.

Noble Lords opposite argued that the same end could be achieved by allowing the licensing authorities to lengthen the licence and that that arrangement would be more convenient for operators themselves. While understanding the motive underlying this argument, the Government cannot agree with it. Although normally licensing authorities will have little, if any, cause to alter the duration of licences for administrative reasons, they will have to do so in a large number of cases during the initial transitional period to avoid later peaks of work. This means that very many operators will need licences for periods other than five years. It would be unacceptable on safety grounds if the only variation could be to extend the period. It was therefore proposed in another place to allow the licensing authorities to have discretion in this matter. They will know the particular administrative problems of their area and will be able to decide how best to overcome them. It is this proposal accepted by another place which I now commend to the House by asking the House not to insist on Amendments Nos. 61 and 63.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining the combined effect of these Amendments. I recognise that these substantially concede the point which we were striving for here. It will give flexibility to the licensing authorities to make the period longer or shorter according to their discretion and—this is most important—they must be able to phase the period of licensing in order to get the licences coming in in succession. We were concerned that the licensing authorities and at that time the Government themselves should not study 1506 solely their own administrative convenience but should also study the costs of the operators. Therefore our Amendment required that if there was to be a period different from five years, it should be longer. But I am not opposed in principle to its being shorter on occasion. I hope that in using their discretion the licensing authorities will be inclined, where other factors are suitable, to be generous, simply to avoid excessive costs in the matter. But we accept the general principle and for that reason we accept the Amendments.