PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

HC Deb 16 April 1958 vol 586 cc301-12

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958. No, 473), dated 18th March, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled. I suggest that it will save time if we also discuss the second Prayer— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Public Service Vehicles and Trolley Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 472), dated 18th March, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled. I am moving this Motion because we have before us the consolidation of a very large number of Regulations concerning the condition of fitness of public service vehicles. These public service vehicles are buses and coaches in which people travel the width and breadth of the country, and they are designed mainly for the safety of those who ride in them.

Since this is a consolidation measure, to a large extent, there are certain amendments in respect of which we feel that it would be helpful to hon. Members interested if the Parliamentary Secretary gave some indication of the reason for their introduction, and their exact effect. At the same time he might inform us whether full consultations have been held with interested parties both in the industry and in relevant organisations.

The main reason for our decision to put down these Prayers was that they both incorporate certain proposals which make it possible for buses which seat twelve passengers or less to operate on the roads without being made subject to certain conditions of fitness which apply to larger vehicles. It is with these exemptions that we are mainly concerned. The Explanatory Note states what they are. Certain exemptions apply in the case of vehicles with a seating capacity for not more than twelve passengers, and the Regulations include such questions as clearance, side overhang, doors, drivers' accommodation and passengers' communication with drivers.

The Minister has contended that these changes reduce the standards of comfort of passengers but do not affect safety. We wish to obtain from him tonight a further assurance that these changes do not have any effect upon the safety of passengers. At the same time, we should like to know whether a change in the safety requirements of buses and coaches is justified in the light of the improvement of transport services in the rural areas for which the small vehicles are designed. Those are the two tests that we must apply in this matter.

In a short Adjournment debate on 3rd April, the Parliamentary Secretary stated in regard to these small rural buses that: Up to date their construction and seating arrangement would not have conformed to our regulations. We have now relaxed the regulations relating to the dimensions and the seating so that these 12-seater buses can conform with a few adaptations. We have not relaxed the safety requirements, but we have relaxed the seating arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd April, 1958; Vol. 585, c. 1466.] I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary was correct in making that statement, and that he can give us a further assurance on that point tonight. Looking through these Regulations and seeing the changes that have been made, however, certain doubts arise in my mind as to whether he was quite correct in that rather sweeping statement. For instance, in the Regulations relating to steering, the requirement is that: The steering mechanism shall be so constructed or arranged that no overlock shall be possible and that the wheels shall not in any circumstances foul any part of the vehicle. It says, further: The steering arms shall, except in the case of a vehicle with a seating capacity for not more than 12 passengers, be polished but shall not be painted or plated. Those are rather technical expressions, but so far as I understand it the drop-arm on the steering is the most important link in the steering arrangements and it is here required that that shall be polished. The reason is so that it can be seen whether there is any fatigue and deterioration or any wear so that it can be replaced before it breaks and an accident occurs. There is a requirement that The ball and socket joints of steering connections shall not be pendant. That is so that the ball socket shall not drop and cause an accident. If it is considered essential in the case of large vehicles that these safety provisions should be complied with and that passengers cannot be carried unless these conditions are fulfilled why are they not required in the case of smaller vehicles? There could still be a maximum number of twelve passengers in the small vehicles, and if anything went wrong there is the danger of fatalities and certainly of casualties.

I wish to know why it is considered that these requirements can be dispensed with in the case of the smaller vehicles which will still operate under normal road conditions. There are other exemptions, but I do not wish to take up time in referring to them, except for one numbered 17 (1), which states: …no fuel tank shall be placed under any part of any gangway or under any part of any passage leading to an emergency exit if that part of the gangway or passage is within 2 feet of any entrance or exit. That would appear reasonable. If there is any accident it would ensure that the fuel tank does not explode and endanger the passengers. Here again, the 12-seater vehicles will be exempt and it is difficult to understand why. Those are the main safety conditions which seem to me substantially different from those which apply to the larger vehicles, although there are in addition a number of smaller conditions.

The second reason why we moved this Motion is to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether he considers there is likely to be a substantial contribution to the improvement in the transport services in rural areas which we all desire as a result of permitting these smaller vehicles to be employed without complying with the normal safety requirements. If so, these exemptions may perhaps be justified. It would be interesting to have more information from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary than he gave in the Adjournment debate to which I have referred about how he thinks these small buses will contribute to improving the services.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the main difficulty of the bus operators in sparsely populated rural areas is one of cost. There is a substantial gap between the cost of operating vehicles and the revenue derived from them. We all know the reason why the revenue has fallen and costs have gone up. It is clear from the reports of various operating companies that in many cases this gap is large and the position is deteriorating continuously. But the cotnpanies may to some extent be prejudiced as they are interested parties and often concerned with propaganda for reducing the fuel tax; in other words, they may be making out the worst case possible regarding conditions.

Recently there has appeared a report by the Northumberland Community Council on rural transport in Mid-Northumberland. It analysed the conditions of operation of twelve operators, when there was a kind of social survey in the area. Of the twelve operators, only one was able to pay his way. The others lost amounts varying from l½. to 8d. per mile, a very wide gap.

It is difficult to believe that these small vehicles will be operated at such a reduced cost that that gap will be closed to any substantial extent, certainly not sufficiently to enable more services to be more regularly run in sparsely populated rural districts. The wages of the staff will be the same. Each bus will still need a driver, although an increasing number of vehicles are one-man operated. There will be some saving in fuel because of their lower power, but they will be petrol vehicles, whereas the larger vehicles run on dery and diesel oil and are more economic, because only half the fuel——

Mr. Speaker

I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue this line or argument too far. It is a little wide of the Regulations.

Mr. Davies

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of these Regulations is to enable small vehicles to be put on the road. We want to make sure that it is worth while putting them on the road. I will add very little to what I have said, but I think you would agree that I can ask the Minister what he envisages will result from the modification of these vehicles in increase of transport services in the areas where such increase is desirable.

What advantages will result from the introduction of these smaller vehicles? Can they pay? If they cannot pay, are they likely to be introduced? There is considerable difficulty in operating services of large buses, but will these small buses overcome those difficulties, one of the chief of which is concerned with peak periods, such as market days and Saturdays, when small buses may not be able to cope with the load, and so will not really act as a relief?

For all these reasons, we have moved these Prayers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance about the safety provisions, and some encouragement to hon. Members who represent rural constituencies and want to get relief in the very difficult conditions which prevail.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I beg to second the Motion.

We are anxious to get more information from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Tonight we are discussing two sets of Regulations. One seeks to tighten the Regulations for the bigger vehicles, and the other set of Regulations seeks to slacken considerably safety precautions for smaller vehicles. I understand that there has been discussion between the Ministry of Transport and the authorities concerned. I gather that in the late summer and early autumn of last year the Minister met the four associations.

I should have thought that, in connection with the operation of these small 12-seater vehicles, the Ministry is moving substantially in the dark. The only people who have experience of this kind of service are those who are operating at present. The Minister, I understand, met the four associations concerned with public passenger transport. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know that they comprise one concerned with municipal transport and three concerned with privately-owned transport and publicly-owned undertakings, of which the British Transport Commission is the principal one. Together they represent far and away the biggest proportion of publicly and privately owned public service vehicles operating on the roads of this country. I am advised that the four associations gave careful consideration to this matter and consulted a large number of individual extensive operators of transport in rural areas, where presumably the bulk of these 12-seater vehicles will be used.

My advice is that there was the strongest possible opposition from the industry generally to the introduction of this utility type of vehicle, because the capacity was limited and the standards were relaxed considerably in a communication sent out by the Ministry on 24th May, 1957. One of the reasons why the operators object to the smaller vehicles is that, despite the relaxations which have been made, the operating cost of a 12-seater vehicle as compared with the cost of the 26 or 35-seater one-man operated bus will be very little different, if at all. Operators take the view that in many cases the cost will be greater. If the operation of a 12-seater vehicle is undertaken it is probable that on the majority of routes on a market day or Saturday, and certainly on public holidays, the vehicle will not be of sufficient size to operate the service and it will be necessary to retain a second vehicle. The hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Leburn) smiles, but I suggest that people who make these points know something more about the operation of buses than he knows merely through looking through the window of a bus.

The British Transport Commission has had this matter before it and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know that on page 10 of the 1956 Report the Commission said: Consultative Committees have urged the use of smaller and cheaper buses. it has, however, been explained to them on behalf of the Commission-owned omnibus undertakings that these companies already operate some 200m. car miles a year of unremunerative services; and that it would cost more to operate smaller 12–14 seaters than the one-man operated 35 seaters which are being widely introduced. The major cost in the operation of a bus service is the labour cost and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, this will be no less on a 12-seater bus than on a 26 or 35-seater bus. There may be some slight saving in fuel, but if another vehicle has to be kept in reserve for exceptional occasions, the cost of running the smaller bus will obviously be greater. It is also thought by the operators that a vehicle of this type and specifications would be easier of abuse.

In September a discussion took place about the tightening of Regulations, and as a result of that discussion we have before us these consolidating Regulations for the bigger vehicles. In view of the fact that the operators themselves are unlikely to use these smaller vehicles, because of the difficulties which I have explained, I should at least like to know from the Minister why he persists in introducing the Regulations, when he has been advised by the four operators operating by far and away the greater proportion of the public service vehicle mileage in this country that they are unlikely to use the smaller vehicles. If that is the case, what is the purpose of making the Regulations?

10.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I welcome the chance to say a word to explain the purpose of these Regulations. I confirm that the main purpose of the Regulations is consolidation—no consolidation has taken place since 1941and at the same time to make a few small increases in standards conforming to the technical advances over the past years. I reassure the House that this will not involve operators in substantial increases in costs. It will take the standards no further than is at present common good practice. This is the first general review since 1937.

As the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) have said, the main point at issue is the proposal to relax standards for the certificate of fitness for public service vehicles for the 12-seater or less. The motive is to help rural transport in communities which are either threatened with the loss of their existing system or have already lost it.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked me to say something about the specific advantages of relaxation. I think that the principal advantage lies in capital cost. At present, the capital cost of a 12-seater which will conform to the existing Regulations for a certificate of fitness is about £1,100 to £1,200. There are very few of them in the country; only about three or four dozen are in existence. The effect of the new Regulations will be to enable the standard mass-produced miniature 12-seater bus, which is already on the market, to qualify for a certificate, with certain modifications. These modifications mainly concern such things as the re-positioning of the fuel tank and its supply pipe, which is a fairly expensive operation, and certain other smaller changes. The total cost of these modifications would be about £150 as carried out on an existing model but, of course, if manufacturers decide to manu- facture a standard model in the future with these modifications it will be a good deal less. The present list price of these miniature buses is about £650, so that there is quite a substantial reduction in the capital cost resulting from this relaxation. I believe that the difference may be sufficient in some cases to tip the scale, and just decide a would-be operator to purchase one of these vehicles where, otherwise, he would not. I will have a word or two more to say about that before I finish.

I should like to deal now with the safety factors referred to by the hon. Member for Enfield, East when he sought assurances, in particular, about the steering arm and the petrol tank. I quite accept that it is of first importance these vehicles should be completely safe and roadworthy. Although they will carry only twelve passengers instead of, perhaps twenty or more, the obligations are just the same.

It is perfectly true that the relaxation means that the steering arm joint may be pendant, instead of the reverse, as it is now, and, therefore, if there is a worn steering arm, it can drop off. The design of the pendant steering arm joint is, of course, that existing already on millions of cars. It is normal, standard design, and our officers are satisfied that, on a vehicle of this weight, with the strains to which it is exposed, this is really a perfectly safe and sound design. As the hon. Member rightly said, polishing of the steering arm is a safeguard to expose a fracture if one occurs in it. Once again, we feel that the danger of such fractures occurring in a vehicle of this weight is not serious and, in fact, not significant.

As to the petrol tank, it is certainly a matter of great importance that in a vehicle carrying passengers for public service, the fuel system should be safe. The existing Regulation requires that the fuel tank should be not less than 2ft. from any exit or entrance, and the relaxation requires only that the petrol tank should be clear of any exit or entrance. Once again, we have tried to take a practical view of this. In fact, we are satisfied that it would be really physically impossible to put the petrol tank 2ft. clear of any exit or entrance. Therefore, we have designed the Regulation in what we think is a safe and reasonable way, and we believe that so long as the fuel tank is clear of any exit or entrance then, in such a small vehicle, there will not be serious danger to the passengers.

The other main relaxations relate to the comfort and amenity of passengers. I would just say that these vehicles will certainly not be as comfortable as the full-size vehicles, but we have taken the view that it is quite optional whether they are used or not. We believe that there will be a better prospect of their being provided in the most difficult areas, and that country dwellers may prefer to travel in one of these less comfortable buses rather than not have a bus at all. They may, therefore, find advantage in it. Hon. Members were not concerned with the actual relaxations, so I do not think that they would ask me to go into detail about the relaxations on comfort.

In regard to the objections referred to by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, we did receive representations from the bus operators organisation. Their representatives came to see us last autumn, and their advice was that this would be of no use to them that they would find more economic the single-man-operated bus of 20, 26 or, with licence, 35 seats. We listened very carefully, naturally, to their objections. not only from that point of view, but from others as well, but we were persuaded that the effect of this relaxation would be, in some cases anyhow, that somebody would be attracted to running a service on a part-time basis. The local storekeeper, the local garage proprietor, in a village which no longer has its service may well feel inclined, because he sees advantage in it, and because it fits in with the rest of his work, to run an occasional service, if only perhaps several times a week, from the village, perhaps remote, to the local town. Although that is certainly not a very wonderful service, it is still much better than nothing, and our belief is that this reduction in capital cost which will result from this relaxation may just tip the scale.

One of the two hon. Members referred to the survey made in Northumberland and the necessity that was felt by the people who made that very interesting and helpful report about the great practical problem of finding the necessary capital to replace the existing vehicles when they wore out. That undoubtedly is a very real one for these small bus companies. One of the perplexities of this picture is that on the one hand we have these big operators who are very public-spiritedly carrying unprofitable services by virtue of their more profitable urban services and, on the other hand, we have a number of these small operators working with one or two or three buses, and still doing a very useful job. I believe that this measure may help them, and especially those who are running an occasional service on a part-time basis rather than on that of a regular service.

I have to accept, of course, that the 12-seater cannot possibly deal with peak periods, but hon. Members will have noticed that we are specifically prohibiting standing passengers in these buses because, clearly, with a height of—I think it is—4 ft. 8 in. it would be unsafe and extremely uncomfortable to have to stand for any length of time. We thus realise that these vehicles have their limitations.

Mr. Ernest Davies

It is the second of these Statutory Instruments which concerns standing passengers. Can the Minister explain this rather extraordinary thing, that no standing passengers are to be allowed in these buses which have 12 seats but the maximum number of passengers to be carried is to be 15?

Mr. Nugent

Certainly. The answer is quite a simple one. The second set of Regulations, which are consequential on the first really, contain the limitation of 15 when children are carried as well as adults. The normal formula for carrying children in these vehicles has been three children in the place of two adults. Because of the obvious limitations of these 12-seaters we think that with the relaxed conditions a total of 15 children and adults would be quite enough. Therefore we are allowing the formula of three children for two adults to apply only up to a limit of six adults and nine children, which makes a possible total of 15 persons.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling us what is the difference in the capital cost of the 12-seaters and the 26-seaters one may operate?

Mr. Nugent

I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. Member the answer to that. I will write to him and give him the answer. I can tell him without any doubt that the capital cost of the 26-seater would be very much higher. The figures I have given of the difference between the 12-seater with the old Regulations and with the new Regulations are a fair indication of the advantage in reduced capital cost that will be obtained and are enough to show that there is practical help in it.

I shall not go into details on the second set of Regulations; on that score, I think, the hon. Member is satisfied. I would only add——

Mr. D. Jones

In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is not saying anything about them, do I gather that he accepts the view that the operating costs of the 12-seater will be no less than for the 26- or 35-seater? Indeed, if provision has to be made for the peak days, the cost may be even greater.

Mr. Nugent

If a paid operator is involved, naturally the labour costs will be exactly the same, because one man will be involved. The reduction in fuel cost, although it would be something, would not be very large.

I was explaining the picture as I think it may turn out that this type of 12-seater bus will have its value probably largely as a part-time operation rather than as a full-time operation for any operator, self-employed or employing drivers. I quite accept the limitations in a regular service that to the regular operators a 12-seater would have no advantage over the larger buses.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the part-time operation on this irregular basis will fit in with the requirements of the Traffic Commissioners? Will there not need to be some change in the licensing system to make this permissible?

Mr. Nugent

No, I do not think so. Provided that it satisfies other requirements of the Traffic Commissioners, it is perfectly feasible and, indeed, it is happening now. It is very much on the lines of the thoughts in that admirable little pamphlet "The Village Bus".

It is not a perfect answer, but we are dealing with a complex, perplexing picture and we have to use what methods we can to try to help people to have some sort of transport to the local town. I certainly accept the criticisms made by hon. Members opposite that this is not a complete answer. I certainly do not contend that it is. Nor do I contend that it will completely solve the problem which is shown in Northumberland. What I do feel, however, is that it will make a useful contribution to it. In some villages, it will help to give communities a service which they are threatened shortly not to have or indeed do not have now.

It is for those reasons that I ask the movers of the Prayer to withdraw their Motion. I believe that these proposals will be a useful measure and will make a useful experiment. I say at once that we shall watch it closely. We want to see these vehicles not just working on contract, but doing some stage-carriage work as well, otherwise they will not be very helpful. We will watch closely and see how they do it. If experience shows that they are not making any real contribution, we shall be prepared to reverse our decision after we have given suitable notice to the interests affected. We believe, however, that this will make a useful contribution.

I have now become informed on the question I was asked earlier. The answer is that a 26-seater bus costs well over £2,000.

For those reasons, I ask hon. Members opposite, and the House as a whole, to withdraw the Prayer, to give this useful development the blessing of the House and commend it to the rural community as something which, I believe, will make a really useful contribution in a very perplexing field.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Having received the explanation which we sought from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, although we do not necessarily endorse everything that he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.