HC Deb 19 May 1969 vol 784 cc137-40
Mr. Berry

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 28, line 42, leave out 'express' and insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: No. 14, in page 27, line 7, leave out 'express'; No. 15, in page 29, line 13, after second 'of', insert 'stage carriages or'; No. 16, in page 29, line 18, after second 'of' insert 'stage carriages or'; No. 17, in page 29, line 21, leave out 'of express carriages'; No. 18, in page 29, line 31, leave out 'of express carriages'; and No. 19, in page 29, line 40, leave out 'an express' and insert 'a'.

Mr. Berry

These Amendments are all completely interlinked.

We come now to another old friend from the Committee stage, the question of express services and stage services. I must confess to a little disappointment. In replying to our earlier debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there might be something in my point and that he wanted another look at it. So I expected to find these Amendments tabled in the Minister's name, but once again I am disappointed.

The Amendments would change the definition to cover a feeder service in respect of not only the services of express carriages but also those of stage carriages. An express service is distinguishable from a stage service because the former has no fare of less than Is. In our debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not think that the Minister … could willingly connive at any L.T.E. empire-building by raising the shilling limit. I am sure that is so at the moment, but neither he nor I can say what might happen in future.

There is also the question of excursions or tours under the Bill, covered by the general term "services of express carriages". These may be operated on the road service licences as stage services, as well as express services. At the moment, there are few, if any, stage excursions or tours, but this may not always be the case, and we must look ahead in legislation of this kind.

I will not refer the House to the 1930 Act, to which I referred in detail in Committee, but my first point concerns the grants refunding some part of the fuel tax to operators of stage services only. Is it possible for express services, converted by regulation into stage carriage services, to become eligible for the bus fuel grant? The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that he could not envisage that, but he then added: There is, however, just that chance, … I want to have another look at the matter. I hope that he does have another look at it.

Second, the holder of a licence, of course, has discretion as to whether or not to operate the service and, if so, as to the times at which he should operate it. The proposed definition of an express feeder service is adequate now, but once again we have our doubts about the future. So the object of these Amendments is to reframe the definition of an express feeder service and make it just a feeder service. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, … subject only to Traffic Commissioner control"— he was clear that— there was a real impediment to the Executive's freedom of manoeuvre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st May, 1969; c. 368–9.] I did not question him at that time, but I am not clear why he felt this, and I should like an explanation also about that.

Mr. Bob Brown

Operators of express feeder services will be exempt from the need to seek the L.T.E.'s agreement to running their express feeder services within Greater London so long as they are definable as buses connecting into or out of express services, and have no separate fares for the feeder journey. That answers one of the hon. Member's points.

If the dividing line of the 1s. fare were raised, this would be for reasons totally unconnected with express feeder services—for example, to redefine eligibility for bus fuel grants. If this were to happen the danger to independent feeder operators would be extremely minimal. If there were to be any serious threat to operators it would be reasonable to introduce protective provisions, but this is hardly a matter for statutory protection, since such a move would be disproportionately complex compared with the very small point that is at issue. There are no practical dangers involved here, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Although the Minister says that no practical dangers are involved, my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out that we are not concerned only with the present. What may occur in the future is our prime worry. We are as aware as the hon. Gentleman that the number of express feeder services is limited. However, this concept could develop and real concern would follow a redefinition of "stage carriages". Should such a redefining process involve the maximum fare being increased from the equivalent of its present 1s. rate to what would be applicable in a redefined version—say 5s.—and if express feeder operators then came within the definition of "stage carriages", there could be considerable difficulty.

At present private operators enjoy the protection of knowing that the L.T.E. must go to the traffic commissioners for permission to run feeder services. If the definition of "stage carriages" were changed, there could be general permissiveness for the L.T.E. to operate express feeder services without application to the traffic commissioners.

Would the Minister resolve this problem by saying that should the definition of "stage carriages" be changed from the 1s. figure which is at present relevant, he would be prepared to look again at the effects on the private sector from the point of view of bringing in a wider range of express feeder services than would come within the operation of the L.T.E.?

Mr. Brown

I can give the hon. Gentleman a reasonable assurance in that if such a remote eventuality occurred, I feel certain that the L.T.E. would behave reasonably, if only for the sake of continuity, since it would have to co-operate in reaching agreement to allow any operator to continue running his feeder services, at any rate for the time being, on the present basis.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

That is not the assurance I am seeking. I am trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman to say that the Ministry, in drafting legislation which changed the definition of "stage carriages", would consider this problem rather than leave it to the L.T.E.

Mr. Brown

If the limit were altered, even to 5s., then not many express services would change to stage carriages. That is why I referred more than once to this eventuality being virtually negligible.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

While the risk in absolute terms may not affect a large number of people, it could be of considerable consequence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear this matter in mind.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to