HL Deb 16 December 1975 vol 366 cc1416-26

7.9 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1972 as to drivers' licences and the minimum age of drivers]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("and shall be treated, in so far as it amends sections 85, 107 and 110 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as having had effect since the beginning of 1976 for authorising the grant of driving licences authorising the driving of motor vehicles of any class since that time by reference to the classes of vehicles and the ages specified in section 96 of that Act as substituted by subsection (1) above and for the interpretation of such licences, and any regulations made by virtue of those amendments may have effect accordingly.")

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 17 as well as to Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 1, together with the Amendments to Schedule 2 on page 11, lines 28, 39 and 46, and page 12, line 28, are the Amendments which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Melchett on Second Reading when he said that the Government would table Amendments to meet the situation that the Bill could not now be enacted before 1st January 1976, as we had hoped at the time when it was drafted.

Clause 1 of the Bill and the related Schedule provisions are necessary to line up our domestic driving licence law with the minimum driving age provisions of the EEC Regulation 543/69 which comes into domestic effect within the United Kingdom on 1st January 1976. Driving licences have been printed in terms consistent with proposed new minimum ages and vehicle categories, but until the Bill is enacted these licences, although they will be expressed as valid from 1st January 1976 onwards, will not reflect the existing minimum age provisions of Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to the extent that that section has not been superseded by the EEC regulation: that is, in relation to the vehicles to which the regulation does not apply. Hence it is necessary to validate these licences as proposed in Amendment No. 1.

To turn to Amendment No. 17, this also was an Amendment that was referred to at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Melchett. It complements Clause 1(2) on page 2, line 25, by removing the risk of prosecution for an under-21 year old driver who may have driven a vehicle of the kind covered by his post-1st January 1976 new style licence but for which the minimum age prescribed under the present Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 will not be changed until the Bill is enacted. Without this provision, such a driver could in law have been liable to prosecution under Section 4, driving under age, under Section 84, driving unlicensed, or under Section 99, driving while disqualified. My noble friend explained at Second Reading that such a driver might hold one of the new style licences which will be expressed in the terms envisaged by the Bill.

So far as goods vehicle licences are concerned, this licence would show a limit of 7.5 metric tons permissible maximum weight for a driver between 18 and 21. Such a driver, relying on his licence, might find himself driving a vehicle which, although within this limit, was over 3 tons unlade and therefore at risk of prosecution if the vehicle was one in respect of which the EEC regulation had not superseded the provisions of Section 4 of the 1972 Act. The validity of his licence is secured by the Amendment to Clause 1(2), but it is also necessary to remove the liability to prosecution from an under-21 year old driver in circumstances of this kind. The Amendment is designed to do this, provided of course that he holds the new style licence and is driving within its terms.

May I go on to say that my honourable friend in another place was very grateful for the good wishes extended by your Lordships to him at Second Reading before his visit to Brussels. The meeting of the EEC Transport Council in Brussels considered the United Kingdom's request for a deferment of the application, for national traffic, of EEC Regulation 543/69, which deals principally with drivers' hours. Support was received from many quarters. At that time the Council was unable to reach agreement, but the issue is still alive and the Commission have agreed to review our request with a view to making proposals early in the New Year. My honourable friend in another place was grateful for your Lordships' support.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

May I thank the noble Baroness for having explained this Amendment so fully to us. I believe I have the pleasure to be the first person to congratulate the noble Baroness on her immersion in a sudden death in the Committee stage of a Bill that is going through this House. If she continues to explain matters as well and as nicely as she has just done, I am sure that she will have a most happy transport career in this House. The noble Baroness is joining a very select club. She is the direct inheritor of a distinguished line of Peers in her Party who have taken an interest in this subject. We are not particularly political but I hope that we are practical. There is a certain amount of common sense to be found in this House. There is also a certain amount of Chancellor of the Exchequer chopping and a certain amount of railways lobby versus road lobby, versus canal lobby, versus coastal channel lobby, versus air lobby. But by and large we all take an interest in what is the easiest, most convenient and cheapest possible method of transportation for either persons or freight.

As we are dealing with road traffic, let me quickly come back to order and say that I am very satisfied with the explanation of the first Amendment which has been given by the noble Baroness.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Amendment of Transport Act 1968 about drivers' hours]:

7.17 p.m.

Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, leave out lines 12 to 16.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friend. In doing so, I should like to offer my sincere congratulations, together with my noble friend, to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on her recent appointment. As my noble friend said, this is her first Bill and I hope that she will be sympathetic to what I am going to say.

With your Lordships' permission, I should like to deal with all of these Amendments together in order to save time. They have one single objective. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading of this Bill I questioned the need to seek power to amend provisions to which Community regulations do not apply. In reply to this the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, indicated that existing powers would not enable the Secretary of State to make the kind of structural changes in Part VI of the 1968 Transport Act that are necessary to ensure a uniform system of rules in the United Kingdom. In other words, he declared the Government's intention to impose further restrictions on those transport operators who were fortunate enough to be exempted from the intolerable effect of the European hours regulation.

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Government to integrate EEC Regulation 543/69 into British law, but now we find in it an intention to use regulations as a means of making structural changes to a British Act of Parliament; in other words, to use secondary legislation to amend the Act where primary legislation is called for. This is a questionable tactic.

Turning to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, these are relatively unimportant but they put the emphasis where it belongs. I refer to pargaraphs (a) and (b) on page 3 of the Bill. The present paragraph (b) relates to provisions to which the Community regulations are applicable, and it is right that it should come before the present paragraph (a) which deals specifically with situations in which the Community provisions do not apply. These Amendments seek to put the horse where it belongs—before the cart.

The important Amendment is Amendment No. 5 on the Marshalled List which seeks to ensure that before making alterations to laws affecting only the internal operation of our transport services, the Government bring their proposals openly before Parliament to seek its approval. The need for the Affirmative Resolution procedure is clearly recognised in subsection (3) of Section 101 of the 1968 Act. This requires an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament if the limits specified in Section 96 of the Act are to be amended.

What ulterior motive have the Government for departing from this well-established and honourable procedure? It has been recognised on all sides of your Lordships' House that the Community regulations on drivers' hours as they stand at present would do immeasurable damage to the ability of the British road transport industry to serve the nation. It is particularly because the subject matter is of such importance that I ask your Lordships to ensure that Amendments lying within the jurisdiction of the British Parliament should be subject to proper scrutiny.

As I have said, there are transport undertakings whose operations are mainly exempt from the catastrophic provisions of Regulation 543, and it is accepted that this regulation is being largely ignored in other Member States. Despite this, we are forewarned of the Government's intention to impose Community provisions on those operators who already comply with our own British law: a law which has proved completely satisfactory in operation. This is what I believe in Brussels is called "harmonisation", which seems to me to mean having the worst of all worlds.

In these conditions it is a matter of concern that the Government should seek to reduce the power of Parliament to scrutinise the domestic laws of this country. While accepting that changes in the British law may be desirable to ensure a reasonably unified system, comprehensible to drivers, operators and enforcement officers, the importance of the matter is such that these changes ought, as envisaged in the principal Act, to be debated in the British Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

I should like to reinforce what my noble friend has just said. I do this with hesitation because it is embarrassing to come on the first day of a new Minister's life on a Bill in Committee and oppose a Government measure with Amendments. However we do this with sincerity because we really believe that slightly more is involved in this than possibly the Government have themselves seen. I must apologise because I was unable to be present at Second Reading and I am forever grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell, who is happily, here, for the part that he played in so nobly leading the Second Reading.

In that Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at column 797 of Hansard of 4th December 1975, made it quite clear that the Government were really implementing these powers for EEC purposes—Regulation 543. If it were just that, which initially we thought it was, we should have been totally happy. But we have been worried by friends in the industry and in another place who have asked questions which we are unable to answer, as to why the Government appear to be taking more powers than they previously had in dealing with these regulations.

We have before us the state where a Negative Resolution can incorporate many sensible regulations, it may be concerning hours or concerning other things, all of which would be agreed with, but one of the points in the Negative Resolution could be included in something which was of very great political importance, business importance, or industrial importance to this country. On principle we feel strongly about this. I do not want to impute bad thoughts to the Government, but it has always been thought by this country that government should be seen to be done properly, as well as being done properly. In other words, people like to know that it is done, openly and not secretly. If it is done openly why are we going back on what was in the Transport Act 1968, which required Ministers, when they made changes, to come forward with an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses? Admittedly they have to be debated, but normally they go through with fairly minimal discussion and any person (or Party) who is worried is able to put his questions or amendment to that order and the Government have to answer.

If it is a Negative Resolution matter it merely lies on the Table for 40 Parliamentary days and it has to be flung out in totoor not at all. One has to pray against it; discussion is curtailed. I have in the other House an honourable friend, Mr. Marcus Fox. He is not a Minister so I cannot quote him, but only a few days ago (I think it was on the 10th December) he complained bitterly in another place on exactly this point. I do not think the Government had intended the position to be as bad as he thought it was, but we do not like things not being able to be discussed. Because of this I ask the noble Baroness to consider the meaning of these Amendments, and if she can accept them I shall be very grateful.

We already have certain restructuring powers, but these go far wider than were provided for in the 1968 Act. All I am asking basically is that we should put them to the same scrutiny by Parliament as operated in 1968. I was personally involved in the Driving Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicle) Modification Order of 1971. I am not asking for anything which we have not done before. When the present Government were in Opposition they treated our orders very fairly, and I am sure the Government will find that we shall treat their orders very fairly. I do not want to continue further at this late hour after a long debate, so in order to try to help the noble Baroness I shall sit down.

Baroness STEDMAN

As I understand it, the burden of complaint of the noble Lords opposite is that they would prefer to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure. As a matter of interest, none of the organisations representing the road freight sector have indicated their support for such Amendments and it is estimated that their vehicles represent about 95 percent. of those affected by the EEC regulations. The Government are also concerned that they should not burden the Parliamentary timetable more than is necessary. But I have been impressed by the strength of feeling and the views that have been put to me by noble Lords opposite. I accept that we want this measure on the Statute book as soon as possible. Therefore I can give my assurance that the Government will introduce the Affirmative Resolution procedure. But I must advise noble Lords opposite that I have been told that the drafting of the Amendment is not acceptable in its present form, and if provision for the Affirmative Resolution procedure is to be made it should be done by way of amendment to Section 101 (3) of the Transport Act of 1968 and not by way of a proviso to Section 95 (1). The draft Amendments as they stand would produce an inconsistency in Part VI of the 1968 Act, but I give my assurance that the necessary Amendments to give effect to what the noble Lords are seeking will be tabled in another place.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

Far be it for me to praise Ministers opposite, but I must say that in a maiden innings the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has done extremely well; she has managed to hit six. To be able to satisfy the Opposition so happily is a notable achievement and I thank her from my heart. I think this was a reasonable request, but we are always surprised to receive reasonable answers, and it is wonderful when such things occur. Miracles do happen and are happening. I must congratulate the noble Baroness on her debut, and I hope my noble friends will feel as I do.

Baroness STEDMAN

I cannot guarantee that it will always happen!

Lord TEVIOT

I also must follow my noble friend in thanking the noble Baroness. She has been sympathetic, and I think I might be able to answer the one point she raised about the freight side. This part of the Bill does not really affect them, but it does affect the passenger side much more, dealing with the exempt services which do not come under EEC provisions. With that, I agree that the Government probably can produce a much better Amendment and far more suitable words. One looks forward to reading their intentions in the Commons, and on that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Consequential and Other Amendments]:

7.32 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10:

Page 5, line 42, after ("on") insert ("the right to or").

Page 7, line 15, leave out ("not falling within") and insert ("on which a maximum gross weight is not marked as mentioned in ").

Page 7, line 41, leave out ("not falling within") and insert ("on which a maximum train weight is not marked as mentioned in ").

Page 8, line 9, leave out ("passengers") and insert ("persons ").

Page 8, line 9, at end insert— ("5A. In section 111(1) of the principal Act, for the words "be employed in driving" there shall be substituted the words "for a person to cause or permit the holder of such a licence to drive.")

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Amendment No. 6 is a technical Amendment. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule extends the power to make the regulations so that they may take account of the effect which changes in vehicle classification may have on licences current at the time of the change, or on the rules for granting licences. Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that such regulations may include provisions to preserve the entitlements or the right to the licence as well as preserving the effect of a licence actually held.

With regard to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, these are both drafting Amendments relating to notional gross weights in relation to a motor vehicle or trailer, or notional relevant maximum train weights in relation to articulated vehicles. Amendment No. 9 is also a drafting Amendment which clarifies the definition of a small passenger vehicle and brings it into line with the description of the class of passenger vehicle exempted from the scope of the EEC Regulation 543/69, by Article 4(1) thereof. Amendment No. 10 is a companion to the provisions in Schedule 1, paragraphs 1, 6 and 8, which substitute the reference to "cause or permit" for "employ". I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Saving Provisions]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 11: Page 10, line 35, after ("but") insert ("in sub-paragraph (1)").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 is also a drafting Amendment and provides that the word "licence" is construed as including a Northern Ireland licence in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, but not in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), where such a construction is neither appropriate nor intended.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14: Page 11, line 28, after ("course of") insert ("any 12 consecutive months since the beginning of") Page 11, line 39, leave out ("during ") and insert ("since the beginning of ") Page 11, line 46, leave out ("in") and insert ("since the beginning of").

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. These are among those that were foreshadowed by my noble friend Lord Melchett in the course of the Second Reading debate, to take account of the fact that the Bill will not be enacted by 1st January 1976 as we originally hoped. These Amendments make appropriate changes in the transitory provisions safeguarding the position of drivers who are affected by the change in the threshold of the heavy goods vehicles drivers' licensing scheme from 3 tons unladen weight to 7.5 metric tons permissible maximum weight.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16: Page 12, line 11, leave out ("less than 3 tons") and insert ("3 tons or less "). Page 12, line 21, after ("72 ") insert ("and 74").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 15 is a drafting Amendment which corrects a small error in the definition of "qualifying weight "which is relevant to the transitory provision of this Schedule. Amendment No. 16 again is purely a drafting Amendment to correct the necessary reference in the Bill to Northern Ireland legislation concerning heavy goods vehicle licensing. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN

I spoke to this Amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved:

Page 12, line 28, at end insert— ("4. Notwithstanding section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (repeals not to affect accrued liabilities and proceedings there for), no person shall be convicted (whether in proceedings instituted before or in proceedings instituted after the passing of this Act) of an offence under section 4 of any provision of Part III of the principal Act by reason of his having at any time since the beginning of 1976 driven a motor vehicle of any class on a road under the age which by or under the said section 4 is the minimum age for driving a motor vehicle of that class if at that time he was the holder of a driving licence issued before the passing of this Act authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class and had attained the minimum age specified in the licence for driving that class of vehicle.")—(Baroness Stedman.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.