Skip to main content

Commons Amendment

Volume 413: debated on Tuesday 21 October 1980

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

90 Clause 67, page 47, line 1, leave out from ' Where ' to ' passengers ' in line 3 and insert a public service vehicle is being operated for the principal purpose of conveyancing'.

4.10 p.m.

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90, and perhaps I could speak to Amendment No. 96 at the same time. These amend- ments will make all public service vehicles, not just contract carriages, subject to the controls on the carriage of alcohol providing they are being operated principally for the purpose of conveying passengers to or from a designated sporting event. It would be quite wrong if an operator using a coach to take supporters to or from a match was exempted from control merely because he employed some simple procedural device to avoid falling within the legal definition of "contract carriage", such as collecting fares separately from those travelling. It is more satisfactory to rely on the purpose for which the coach is being operated as the criterion of whether controls should apply, rather than the category into which it happens to fall under the provisions of the Transport Act.

In asking this House to agree with the Commons in these amendments, I should point out that there is a minor error in Amendment No. 90 as it appears in the printed list. The amendment refers to a public service vehicle
"being operated for the principal purpose of conveyancing".
Whatever the merits of the argument that solicitors should cease to have a monopoly of conveyancing, I am sure it is not a function which this House would wish to see carried out literally on the Clapham omnibus. The word "conveyancing" should of course read "conveying". I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—( The Earl of Mansfield.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.