Clause
56Vehicles
modified to run on fuel stored under
pressure Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Paterson: I will not detain the Committee for too long.
Clause 56 seems to be a sensible measure, and anyone who has seen the
old films of the R101 and the Hindenburg blowing up will know that
these fuels are of an extraordinarily explosive
nature. A constituent
of mine, Mr. Bill Smith, converts vehicles in a process known as
retro-conversion. Since 2000, he has converted regular motor cars,
usually fuelled by petrol, to run on a form of liquid petroleum gas. I
have discussed the process with him, and he makes the valid point that
if a person decides to change his or her gas boiler at home, he or she
must call in a Corgi-accredited engineer. I am sure, Sir Nicholas, that
you are a qualified engineer. If you wanted to convert your petrol car
to run on LPG, you could go on the internet tonight, buy the necessary
bits, stick them in, and the car would run—possibly safely,
possibly not. Apart from a voluntary code of practice laid down by the
LP Gas Association, covering the installation, there is absolutely no
recognised procedure to check the conversion. It is, therefore, a
completely unregulated activity, dealing
with increasingly used fuels that are of an explosive nature. It seems
sensible that these fuels be regulated as is suggested in clause
56. Mr. Smith made
another germane point to me: the current MOT test requires the vehicle
to pass an emission test only for the fuel that it is running on when
presented for the test. If it is LPG, its required emission performance
is much lower than that of a car with the original petrol system. It
seems sensible—it could be covered by the regulations under
subsection (4)—for the Minister to consider checking when an MOT
test is carried out that it is carried out for both fuels if a vehicle
has been retro-converted. Apart from that, the proposal is sensible and
the Conservative party supports
it.
Dr.
Ladyman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that
it is a sensible measure. I was pretty horrified, as I think he was, to
discover that a car could be modified so as not to be inspected and
could go out on a public road. We need to move rapidly on that and to
ensure that modified cars are inspected. As he says, we must ensure
that the annual MOT test takes into account the fact that such cars
have been modified. I am not entirely certain what the answer to the
hon. Gentleman’s question is, but I shall undertake to check
that the MOT includes that in the future, and that the change gives us
the necessary powers to ensure that it takes
place. Question put
and agreed
to. Clause 56
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
57Powers
to regulate transport of radioactive
material Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Paterson: Briefly, the clause is a sensible technical
change, and we support
it. Question put
and agreed
to. Clause 57
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
58Private
hire vehicles in
London Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond: We are making good progress, and I shall not
detain the Committee for too long. We have heard the Minister argue
several times that parts of the Bill are not necessary because their
impact is already apparent or because they would be detrimental. I
argue that clause 58 is unnecessary.
As the Minister knows, the
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 was introduced to regulate
private hire vehicles or minicabs in London. The problem with that Act
has been the three words “to the public”. A number of
private hire vehicle operators and drivers who provide their services
on a contract basis say that
those vehicles are not available to the public and therefore should not
be covered by the Act. That seems relatively appropriate. They are not
saying that their whole fleet should not be covered by the Act or that
their drivers should not be Criminal Records Bureau checked. They are
merely saying that those vehicles hired on a contract
basis—usually to local authorities to provide special transport
for those in particular need or for schools or educational
establishments—should not be
covered. Private hire
vehicle operators provide a valuable public service. Their cars are not
available strictly to the public, but they are in use for the public
benefit. The 1998 Act works extremely well. The clause is unnecessary,
and I hope that the Government will think again about why they feel the
need for
it.
Dr.
Ladyman: One’s parents often say, “Be
careful what you wish for.” On Second Reading, colleagues on the
Opposition Front Bench asked me to consider why we are making this
provision in London. I met one of the hon. Gentleman’s
colleagues and a constituent of his to discuss a particular issue
related to the one that we are discussing. I granted him his wish and
considered the issue, and the more I looked at it, the more I came to
see why this level of regulation is required in London. I equally came
to see that the problem may be not that we are moving to a system of
regulation in London but that we do not have the same powers of
regulation everywhere else in the country. It is possible that your
constituents and mine outside London, Sir Nicholas, are not getting the
protection that they deserve.
I have started to put in place
discussions inside the Department and with local authorities on whether
we need at some point in the future to improve the way in which we
regulate services outside London. However, that will be in the future.
I cannot see any excuse for our not moving as rapidly as possible to
deal with the problem inside London. It was intended for it to be dealt
with by the 1998 Act, but unfortunately the lawyers subsequently
decided that that Act was insufficiently clear. The amendment simply
makes it clear, so that the 1998 Act works in the way in which it was
intended to work and can accordingly be enforced. I have to accept that
there is an anomaly between London and elsewhere at which we need to
start looking sometime in the future, but that is not an excuse for not
dealing with the problem in
London.
Stephen
Hammond: I am at a loss to understand what extra
regulation is needed. We are considering people who are under contract
to local authorities, schools and hospitals. They will inevitably have
been CRB checked and their vehicles will be compliant with insurance
and MOT requirements. They are reputable minicab and private hire firms
not available for public service and the extra level of licensing that
the Minister wants is
unnecessary.
Dr.
Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman says that they will inevitably
be CRB checked. If it turns out that outside London they are always CRB
checked, that the check is always carried out to an enhanced level and
that the concerns raised by the Bichard inquiry have properly been dealt
with under the current legislation, we will not have a problem outside
London. We have had a
serious debate in the past 12 months on the implementation of Bichard.
The Opposition, like the whole House, have made it clear that they
regard ensuring that we live up to 100 per cent. of the recommendations
of Bichard as a very high priority, as do the Government. I certainly
do not intend to be the Minister who falls short of that mark, which is
why I feel that I have to review the situation outside London. The
amendment will help London to achieve the level of regulation that was
intended in the first place. That is why we should move ahead and agree
to the
clause. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
4.
Division
No.
15] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill. Clauses
59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 6.30
pm
Schedule
6Repeals
and
Revocations Amendment
made: No. 111, in page 126, line 25, at end
insert— Short
title and
chapter | Extent
of
repeal | Level
Crossings Act 1983
(c.16) | In section
1— (a) in
subsection (3)(b), the words “barriers or other”,
and (b) in subsection
(11), the definition of “local
authority”.'. |
—[Dr.
Ladyman.] Schedule
6, as amended, agreed
to. Clauses 61
and 62 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
63Extent Amendment
made: No. 11, in page 59, line 25, leave out ‘Section 15
extends' and insert ‘Sections 11(3)
and 15 and Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal
and disposal of vehicles) extend'.—[Dr.
Ladyman.] Clause
63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
64Short
title
Dr.
Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 59, line
32, leave out subsection (2).
Their lordships cannot spend
money so as a constitutional nicety they have a clause in the Bill
saying that there is no money to be spent. Of course, that must be
removed by the Commons, which is what the amendment does.
Amendment agreed
to. Clause 64,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
4Prohibition
on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of
vehicles ‘(1) In section 99A
of the Transport Act 1968 (c.73) (powers to prohibit driving of
vehicles in connection with contravention of provisions about drivers'
hours), after subsection (5)
insert— “(6)
Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal
of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the
immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited
under subsection (1) of this section and about their removal and
disposal.” (2) In
section 3 of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c.27)
(prohibition on driving of foreign vehicles: enforcement provisions),
after subsection (7)
insert— “(8)
Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal
of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the
immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited
under section 1 of this Act and about their removal and
disposal.” (3) In
section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (prohibition on driving
of unfit or overloaded vehicles: supplementary provisions), after
subsection (4)
insert— “(5)
Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal
of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the
immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited
under section 69 or 70 of this Act and about their removal and
disposal.”.'.—[Dr.
Ladyman.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
| 
