|
Mr. Jamieson: The clause amends sections 41 and 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It would enable the introduction of mandatory quality checks on vehicles whose fuel systems had been modified to run on fuels stored under pressure, such as LPG or compressed natural gas. It would then be an offence to keep or use on the road a vehicle that had not been modified to the required standards. The new requirements could also be enforced through the vehicle licensing regime.
The Department and the LPG industry have been concerned that, although many conversions have been good, some might not meet, first, the safety standards and, secondly, some of the air pollution standards. They might not have any real environmental benefit, in spite of the fact that the Treasury is giving substantial fiscal assistance for the purchase of LPG-powered vehicles.
We do not want too heavy a regime. About 100,000 vehicles have been converted, and more are being converted all the time. However, it is difficult to know how many have been converted, because people do not have to notify us. We want to ensure that, once vehicles have been converted, they are tested. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Christchurch advocate more regulation and more garage inspection, but he is clearly a convert to our cause on some of these matters. We want to ensure that a customer can be sure that a conversion has meets a high standard and is safe.
Mr. Knight: Why are some of the words in the clause in italics?
Mr. Jamieson: I knew the answer to that, because I asked that question. I have forgotten what answer I was given. My amnesia has left me and the answer has come back in a flash of inspiration. It is a long-standing tradition that finance issues appear in italics. We live and learn.
We are trying to stop vehicles coming on to the road that might present a danger. Although LPG is under pressure, it does not constitute a greater danger. I am not sure that today we would authorise light steel tanks that can easily be ruptured in a crash and contain a highly volatile material—petrol. The LPG tank, and certainly the CNG tank, is much stronger than a petrol tank and much less likely to rupture in a crash. It is a matter of ensuring that dangerous vehicles do not go on the road.
We have no specific control over foreign vehicles coming in, but the French and Dutch inspection systems have been much more rigorous than ours for some time. LPG vehicles are allowed on ferries but I believe that Eurotunnel does not allow them to use the tunnel, although some are asking whether that regulation can be lifted.
Mr. Chope: Are we allowed to take such vehicles into the House of Commons car park?
Mr. Jamieson: It is perfectly in order to take such vehicles into the House of Commons car park. Many ministerial cars are converted to LPG, and there is no danger. However, in the channel tunnel it was considered that there might be a danger from the release of gas. I am not sure how real that is, but the
Column Number: 269
company might want to revisit the matter in the future. A ruptured petrol tank is probably the most dangerous thing that can happen in a crash. CNG is under huge pressure and, if it escaped, it would plume upwards and outwards and be gone, whereas petrol rests on the floor and can incinerate the vehicle and people in the vicinity.
Clause 42 is a simple measure. It is welcomed by the industry and it will add a little more to safety on our roads.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Committee that the first ministerial car fuelled by LPG was commissioned and used by none other than my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Powers to regulate transport of radioactive material
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
John Thurso: I wish to ask the Minister a simple question. He will be aware that Dounreay is in my constituency and that nuclear material has been transported from Scrabster harbour to Dounreay, although it has mainly stopped now. What has brought about the need for the new powers? As I understand it, higher grade material is transported by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, or heavily protected by it. Has something happened? Has the constabulary been consulted about the issue?
Mr. Jamieson: Again, the issue is small, but important. The sensitive matter of the transportation of radioactive material is highly regulated in this country, and rightly so. Devonport dockyard in my constituency unloads some high-level nuclear material from submarines, and such issues are extremely important. People live within a few hundred yards from such activities.
The clause will amend section 2 of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991 to enable regulations to be made that permit inspectors at the radioactive materials transport division, the RMTD, to impose requirements for the provision of assistance and information when conducting an investigation. Currently, inspectors cannot insist that people operating the transport systems comply with requests for information. In most cases, the overwhelming majority of them have done so, but it has been brought to our attention that, on two occasions in recent years, a company did not co-operate with the inspectors. In fact, one company even instructed its employees not to participate in the inquiries that were being made by the inspectors. Although such cases are rare, they are extremely serious. We want to close the loophole whereby companies cannot co-operate and, thus,
Column Number: 270
inhibit inspectors doing their work properly and thoroughly. If they do not co-operate, they will face a considerable fine, which is why we have introduced such a measure.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Private hire vehicles in London
6.45 pm
Mr. Chope: The clause deals with a contentious issue among a small group of people, which is why I hope it will command the interest of the Minister, if not necessarily of every member of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal has been the subject of consultation, and paragraph 6.85 on page 142 of the regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that
''Opposition to the proposal came mainly from unlicensed companies providing contract services to local authorities. They argued that: the drivers underwent criminal record checks in order to work on the contracts; the services they provided were ''specialist'' in nature, requiring specialist vehicles; the work allowed them to utilise the services of housewives and retired people to drive just a couple of hours a day; many of the part-time drivers would leave rather than acquire licences; the work they undertook did not sit sensibly with the requirements of the PHV licensing system, eg why should a driver have to know his way around the whole of London when he drove, say, one pre-determined route every day for the whole school year; and they would suffer financially if they had to acquire licences.''
One firm that comes within the ambit of that opposition is P and J Travel, which is based in Orpington. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) is, at this moment, on his feet in the Chamber in an Adjournment debate, which shows what a diligent MP he is. Knowing that he could not be in two places at once, he asked me to articulate the concerns of P and J Travel about the unnecessarily draconian and inflexible extension of the law. It has made a constructive suggestion, asking whether the Government, if they are intent on proceeding with the change, will allow another exemption.
The Minister will know that there is already an exemption for wedding cars and funeral cars. Parliament considered such operations to be of a sufficiently specialist nature to warrant exemption. It is the contention of the director of P and J Travel, Paul Yeoell, that his is a specialist operation. It carries special needs children to and from school, often in specially adapted vehicles, and he would argue that his operation is even more specialist than those of people who provide cars for weddings and funerals. It has been said—not by him—that in some circumstances wedding and funeral cars are nothing more than glorified minicabbing operations. If the Government believe that the present situation constitutes a loophole, why do they not believe that it needs to be tightened with regard to wedding and funeral cars? Alternatively, if wedding and funeral cars are to
Column Number: 271
continue to be exempt, why cannot that exemption be extended to a specialist operation such as that of P and J Travel?
The Chairman: Order. The clause is about private hire vehicles in London. The hon. Gentleman seems to be going a little wide in his comments. I hope that he will relate them more closely to the clause.
Mr. Chope: I shall certainly limit my remarks about wedding cars and funeral cars to wedding cars and funeral cars in London, if that was not implicit in what I have been saying. The firm of which I speak is in Orpington, which is part of the Greater London area. It is in the London borough of Bromley. I will excuse you, Mr. Pike, for your lack of detailed knowledge of London. Many wish that they knew less about London than they do, especially given the way in which it is run these days. At any rate, I can confirm that Orpington is within the London borough of Bromley, which is represented by an exclusive and very competent team of right hon. and hon. Conservative Members. We do not need to go into the detail of each of their attributes.
P and J Travel operates in that London borough, for the people of Bromley, and it believes that if the clause is unamended it will have to start to lay off staff and its costs will go up. I get the feeling that some hon. Members who are less familiar with the London scene would like us to move on to the next subject. One argument against the clause is that the criminal record checks are not effective. If the checking system is ineffective, it should be tightened, rather than it being addressed through draconian legislation. The onus for checking normally lies with the contracting body, but there is a loophole because unvetted replacement drivers can be used if a vetted driver is unavailable. If there is a loophole in the criminal record check system for local authority transport, and there seems to be some doubt about that, it is identified in paragraph 6.54 of the Government's regulatory impact assessment document.
The Government might say that the argument about criminal record checks is not well founded and is fallacious. If there is a weakness in the criminal record checks system, it should be put right directly, rather than in a roundabout way, which will result in extra regulation, extra expense and, although it will not necessarily putting P and J Travel out of business, it will seriously burden it. It will also drive a number of its employees out of business, because they regard themselves not as minicab drivers but as proud servants of the public, providing a necessary service to needy children. They do not regard themselves as drivers, and do not want to have to take the tests and be subject to all the regulation of the common or garden minicab driver. That is not to insult the great mass of minicab drivers, who almost invariably vote Conservative, because they are strong and independent and wish to be free, but it is to recognise that people working for P and J Travel do not want to be subject to additional, burdensome regulation.
Column Number: 272
| 
