LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 2 November 1994)

§ Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 47A.

Your Lordships inserted into the Bill at Committee stage an amendment that would require the traffic commissioner to refuse a PSV operator's licence unless he is satisfied that the licence-holder's activities will have no adverse effect on local environmental conditions. In the light of the amendment, the Government have had another look at the whole question of environmental controls on PSV operator licences. There is, of course, a difference between the HGV and PSV licensing regimes in that respect; and there are very good reasons for that fact.

The environmental aspects of the legislation on HGV operator licensing are necessarily very detailed and limited primarily to operating centres. The amendment that we are discussing in respect of PSVs, on the other hand, goes very much further than the controls on HGV operating centres. It does not go into any detail, and is extremely wide. In addition to the suitability of operating centres themselves, it might encompass the routes buses take or the vehicles that they use—matters that no traffic commissioner can be satisfied of at the time of an application. We believe that there are adequate controls on the environmental aspects of bus and coach operations and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.

§ Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that explanation. Before making one substantive remark, perhaps I may make a general comment. The other place debated these matters at nearly half-past three this morning. It has been immensely difficult; indeed, it is only in the last minute or two that any record of the proceedings in the other place has become available. I have only just glanced at the report. I believe that on some occasions such a situation might be of enormous importance. I thought that I ought to place on record my concern that we are asked to respond to what 843 was said in the Commons when, as far as I know, I am the only person—with the possible exception of the noble Viscount —who has a copy of the proceedings that took place in another place. That is simply disrespectful to your Lordships. Moreover, it is not compatible with efficient government. I felt that I should place my concern on the record.

Your Lordships' original amendment was sensible. However, the Government's response seems to me to be quite absurd. Nevertheless, I have no wish to divide the House and provoke a clash with the other place and a constitutional crisis on the matter. Like so much else in the Bill we must now, in despair, let it go; but we do not look forward to the consequences.