HC Deb 04 July 1977 vol 934 cc1061-74
Mr. Horam

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 15, at end insert— '(2) Paragraph 13 below applies in relation to the grant of a special authorisation.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Government Amendment No. 11 and Government Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'give' to 'passing' in line 34 and insert 'the appropriate notice in one or more relevant newspapers; and where a local authority intend to revoke a special authorisation they shall also give the appropriate notice in writing to every district council, London borough council, parish council and, in Scotland or Wales, community council who will in the opinion of the local authority be affected by the revocation of the authorisation. (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the appropriate notice" means—

  1. (a) not less than 21 days notice of intention to consider a resolution or grant a special authorisation; and
  2. (b) not less than 56 days notice of intention to revoke a special authorisation.
(3) Before '. We may also take Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 12, after third 'council', insert 'neighbourhood council '; and Amendment (b) to Amendment No. 12, leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.

Mr. Horam

During the Committee proceedings on 16th June I accepted in principle Opposition amendments on similar lines to those which I now propose, with the proviso that the drafting be looked at. The present amendments reflect, I am sure, the spirit of what I accepted in Committee, namely, that longer notice be given in the case of revocation of a special authorisation, and that positive steps be taken to bring a proposal for such a revocation directly to the notice of local councils affected.

Mr. Adley

I gather that, although my amendments (a) and (b) were tabled at the same time as the amendment which we were not allowed to discuss previously, in this instance, because of the wonderful ways in which this place operates, the amendments have been selected and I am able to discuss them.

I first thank the Minister for abiding by the assurances which he gave to us in Committee, that he would table suitable amendments to take account of the proposal that we put, particularly the important one that there should be a period of 56 days before any service which has been started could be revoked.

Amendments (a) and (b) are minor drafting amendments which I hope the Minister will agree to. I am sure that the omission of the phrase "neighbourhood councils" is not a malicious omission on the part of the Government. The Minister is aware that following the 1972 Local Government Act, which I do not want to discuss because it makes me feel ill, neighbourhood councils were established in certain areas and were part of the "publicly elected councils" which was the phrase used in the Opposition amendment that was moved in Committee.

I would be grateful if the Minister would accept Amendment (a) because there is nothing malicious or hidden in it. It merely seeks to include all those publicly elected local authorities that it was our intention to include when we moved the amendment in Committee, which the Minister accepted in principle and said he was prepared to redraft himself.

The second very minor point concerns the use of the word "may" instead of "will". I have no wish to be difficult on this point. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the degree of influence of a local authority is not something that can always be laid down in hard and fast terms. I think the use of the word "may" is more appropriate than the word "will". I hope that the Minister will accept Amendments (a) and (b) to the Government amendment.

Mr. Horam

I would comment on the two proposed amendments which I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate. With regard to the first, we are, of course, extending the powers of parish councils which are the statutory bodies that we shall consult. In accordance with the Local Government Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, most areas can constitute parish councils if they so wish. We feel that that is the appropriate body.

Neighbourhood councils, I am afraid, do not always form themselves in the same way. Some follow a proper system of election and others are less formally constituted. We feel that neighbourhood councils would not necessarily be a representative of an area as the other bodies that we shall consult, like parish councils.

I therefore hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that in setting the limits as widely as we have—right down to the parish council, which we feel is the appropriate body—we are doing as much as we sensibly can. To add neighbourhood councils to the number of bodies which it is suggested should be consulted would be to add another not necessarily representative group in the community when we already have other properly and formally elected bodies to consult.

Mr. Adley

With respect, I do not think the Minister is aware of what he is saying. Neighbourhood councils were set up under the 1972 Local Government Act in areas where there were no parish councils. In my own constituency neighbourhood councils were set up under the 1972 Local Government Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is able to make only one speech on this amendment. Is he asking the Minister a question or is he endeavouring to make a second speech?

Mr. Adley

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are being rather harsh. This is an important point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am only the servant of the House and unless the rules are changed that is the situation in which I find myself.

Mr. Adley

I am putting a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Minister may have resumed his seat and so is not available for further questions anyway.

Mr. Adley

I am putting a question to the Minister. Is he aware that neighbourhood councils, as referred to in the amendment, are properly constituted elected public authorities under the 1972 Local Government Act in areas where there are no parish councils? The hon. Gentleman gave an assurance in Committee. He is not abiding by the spirit of that assurance if he does not allow the inclusion of neighbourhood councils where there are no parish councils. That applies to a few areas which were formerly borough councils in part-rural and part-urban areas, of which a small but not insignificant number were created by the 1972 Act. There is nothing untoward about this.

12 midnight

Mr. Horam

I am not suggesting that there is anything untoward about it. All that I am saying is that, as the term at present exists, neighbourhood councils can cover a heterogenous group of organisations, some properly elected and others not. Therefore, at the moment I feel that it would not be right to include neighbourhood councils in the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is considerable movement towards statutory neighbourhood councils. If legislation to this effect is passed, it would be appropriate to add neighbourhood councils to the Bill. But, at the moment, I feel that it would not. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

As for his second amendment, Amendment (b), I am quite happy to accept the change of wording which he recommends. I hope that he will be happy with that, too.

Mr. Moate

I do not want to get too involved in drafting technicalities at this stage, but I wish to ask the Minister for some assurance on a couple of matters.

It is difficult to follow, in drafting terms, the precise results of the two principal amendments, Nos. 10 and 12. In the case of Amendment No. 12, the Minister has all the drafting expertise available to him, and I suspect that on balance he is right. But I think that it would repay further study.

Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a sub-paragraph (2). In drafting terms, I presume that the earlier provisions will automatically become sub-paragraph (1), but, if we leave matters as they are and agree to Amendment No. 10, we shall have a sub-paragraph (2) but no sub-paragraph (1).

Assuming that that is taken care of in some other way, we are then advised that paragraph 13 applies to this paragraph. Why is that necessary? Paragraph 13 is a general provision with clear general effect over the whole Bill. Why is it necessary to add a further statement that paragraph 13 applies to this paragraph?

Paragraph 13 refers to resolutions passed by a local authority in pursuance of paragraph 2, 3 or 10, but not in pursuance of paragraph 5. If we are making paragraph 5 subject to the provisions of paragraph 13, resolutions of a local authority passed under paragraph 13 should also refer back to paragraph 5.

With the acceptance of Amendment No. 12, matters become rather complex. We seem to be introducing two new sub-paragraphs, (2) and (3). However, we already have a sub-paragraph (2). I hope that it will be checked to ensure that it is correct before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Horam

I shall check that the amendments as drafted are correct.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'to' to end of line 13 and insert— 'the revocation of a genera) authorisation or special authorisation'.—[Mr. Horam.]

Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'give' to 'passing' in line 34 and insert 'the appropriate notice in one or more relevant newspapers; and where a local authority intend to revoke a special authorisation they shall also give the appropriate notice in writing to every district council, London borough council, parish council and, in Scotland or Wales, community council who will in the opinion of the local authority be affected by the revocation of the authorisation. (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the appropriate notice" means—

  1. (a) not less than 21 days notice of intention to consider a resolution or grant a special authorisation; and
  2. (b) not less than 56 days notice of intention to revoke a special authorisation.
(3) Before'.—[Mr Horam.]

Amendment to the proposed amendment made: (b) leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.—[Mr. Adley.]

Proposed amendment, as amended, agreed to.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Horam

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a fairly long debate on the remaining amendments to the Bill, which also had a reasonably lengthy discussion in Committee.

In introducing the Bill, I described it as a limited Bill with a particular aim. The aim is to facilitate a series of controlled experiments in rural transport in the first instance. Many of the experiments which we want to undertake could be done without the aid of this Bill. But the steering committee, which sets up and monitors the experiments, felt that it wanted clear ground, with no restrictions, on which to analyse and experiment as it felt fit. Therefore, to give it this scope we agreed to the steering committee's request that this Bill be brought forward. I hope that it will enable experiments to go ahead in a clear and systematic way which will yield valuable results.

It is quite another thing, however, to talk about general changes in the licensing law. That will be the subject of separate legislation foreshadowed in the White Paper on transport policy on which we are now about to begin a process of consultation, and which I hope in due course will be debated in the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler

When?

Mr. Horam

That is quite a separate matter which is not within my ambit, but I hope that will occur as soon as we can manage it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have said that we are anxious to have more discussion in the House on transport matters—more than we have had in the last few years.

Within the ambit of our approach to rural transport problems, this Bill is a small piece of legislation. Indeed, it is a piece of a piece. It only facilitates experiments, and the experiments themselves are only a small part of our whole approach. It is, as it were, a sub-clause within a clause. It is not something on which we would rely as our major proposal. When the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) claims, as occasionally he does, that that is our intention, it is apparent that he is on a mistaken hypothesis.

The Committee cleared many of these points in its discussion and we believe that the Bill will now reflect the views of the Committee. This evening 11 amendments have been accepted and they all reflect the various strands of opinion in Committee both collectively by the Opposition and also by individual hon. Members. On the whole we can feel that the Bill now genuinely reflects the views of the Committee. Nevertheless, despite the changes that have been made, the principle of the Bill, and I am sure its practice, remain substantially unaltered from our original intention, namely that we should have controlled experiments which will yield us hard evidence on what is happening on the ground floor in rural transport.

Hard evidence has been sorely lacking, despite the many words that have been spoken from the Government Benches and from the Opposition Benches. I hope that our task now is clear-cut. Having obtained the Bill tonight, as I hope that we shall, we shall go ahead as fast as possible, make a reality of the experiments, and obtain meaningful results that will provide a basis for future legislation and future practice in a way that will help all those living in rural areas.

In those terms, I commend the Bill to the House.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler

The Undersecretary was not full of enthusiasm about the Bill, nor did we hear from him many flowing phrases of the type to which we are accustomed from him.

The context of the Bill is the Government's effort, if such it can be called, to improve rural transport. The Bill started life as a modest mouse of a Bill and now, because of the changes we have brought about to it, it is something a little more than that and with an incoming Conservative Government will be considerably more.

Since we last considered the Bill, however, there has been a development which some of us at least believed would never happen. The Government have published their White Paper on Transport Policy. It has not received an altogether entirely ecstatic reception from the Press. A fairly typical response was that of the New Statesman, which said: Frankly, no one expected Mr. Rodgers to inherit the whole body of Crosland's principles, still less to adhere unswervingly to the pledges made in the transport section of the Manifesto on which Labour won the election of October 1974. The title of the Manifesto Group was never much more than a catch-phrase; and, to be fair, election promises often have to be moderated in the light of political realities. Yet there is a point beyond which intelligent adaptation becomes sell-out and flexible development becomes cynical disregard of the Labour movement's purposes. Labour has been led into a major betrayal. Despite all the furtive briefings conducted by the Minister before the House of Commons saw the White Paper, the Press was not on the side of the Government.

Of particular relevance to the debate and to the Bill is the Government's statement in the White Paper. As the Undersecretary said, the Bill is concerned essentially with improving rural transport. We have sought to amend and extend it so that it will cover areas, or could be made to extend to other areas, apart from country areas. We believe that its major work, at least initially, will be in rural areas.

The White Paper says, that there are many places where so few people want to use existing public transport services that it does not make sense to attempt to continue to meet their needs by a normal bus service with professional drivers driving buses on fixed routes and with fixed stops. As a result, says the White Paper, the licensing system will be modified so as to make it easier for cost-effective local transport arrangements to be introduced. There we have it. It is the transport U-turn of all time.

For the last three-and-a-half years the Government have been arguing that there is no case for reforming the licensing system. They claimed that we Conservatives had been overstating the case, and that we were far too ambitious in proposing changes. These, after all, were the same people who killed the changes in the 1973 Bill prepared by a Conservative Government. We have a situation in which the last three-and-a-half years have been wasted in rural transport, as in many other areas.

Looking back, transport historians will make two comments about this period. The first comment will be on the delay. In three-and-a-half years the Government have done next to nothing to improve rural transport in this country. This Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading tonight, is their only contribution to date. The experiment now possible under this Bill is only possible because of a Conservative amendment.

The major legislation of the period is the Minibus Bill, and although no tribute was paid to it in the White Paper, that was not a piece of Government legislation. It was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). In these wasted three-and-a-half years the Government could have used the time to develop new transport services for the public. But they have thrown that opportunity away, and the losers have been the public.

The second comment that will be made is that in the dying months of this Government, Labour has at least accepted the case for reform of licensing. The Government will not have time to do much, but at least they have accepted the principle, and the significance of that is that they have accepted our case for change. That means that at the end of this Bill tonight, when it receives a Third Reading there will no longer be any need to argue whether reform is necessary. The Government, in an act of death-bed repentance, have conceded that reform is necessary.

The only argument now is about the extent of that reform. Only an incurable optimist would expect much from this Government whose transport policy up to now has been a mixture of lethargy and failure. It is a transport policy that has been spurned by many Members of the Labour Party, who regard it as a sellout and a betrayal.

The significance of this Bill, together with the White Paper, is not in what its authors intended but in the opportunity it presents to a new Government. The White Paper gives us our case on the reform of the licensing system, and the Bill allows experiments throughout the country. What we now need is a new Government to grasp the exciting opportunities presented to us.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Moate

As we now come to the Third Reading, I think that we can say once again that this is a pretty poor thing before us. Nevertheless it is a little better than it was when it started. While it is a feeble Bill, it offers two opportunities. The first opportunity is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) pointed out, for a new Government to build on to this and to repair some of the omissions that have been so evident throughout the proceedings.

The other opportunity exists now. It is available to county councils throughout the country to introduce wide-ranging experiments. The Bill, as it was when it started on its way, would not have permitted that in any way. It was then limited, and it is now much wider. I hope that county councils will take advantage of this opportunity. I hope that they get the message, understand the scope of the Bill, seize this opportunity and press substantial schemes on the Minister soon.

Personally, I doubt the value of limited experiments. I believe that there is a wide variety of needs throughout the country from one locality to another. It is of doubtful value to produce information from one locality and believe that it is universally applicable throughout the United Kingdom. If I am right in that, it follows that we need greater variety of local experiments and schemes. It is a significant achievement. We started with 16 puny experiments and now we can have many experiments.

I should now like to make some nice comments about the Under-Secretary. Generally speaking, I think that he has been more sinned against than sinning. After all, he has been in his present office for only a short time. We cannot blame him for the three and a half wasted years of Labour Government. That is what we have had, but it is not his fault. He is desperately trying to tidy up some of the mess left by his predecessors.

Generally, the Under-Secretary has been most helpful and courteous. It is a pity to waste compliments when the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I said that he had been most helpful to us in Committee, though I feel that he was limited by constraints not of his making. What concerns me is that the Government are constrained and will be constrained from reforming the licensing system by the shackles of an inherited burden of nearly 50 years of licensing restrictions and trade union interests—I do not decry those interests, because the trade unions are performing a legitimate job and they must be kept in perspective—and by the interests of conventional bus operators.

Throughout we have been dominated by these constraints, not by any real determination to get to grips with the problems of rural transport. I do not blame the Under-Secretary for that. He has been moderate and helpful, although occasionally he has dived into ritualistic, partisan diatribes, which did not seem quite right coming from him. I felt that he was indulging in those matters to please the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other fellow Members of the Manifesto Group.

I think that the Minister would have gone further than he went if he had had the opportunity to do so. I fear that the Government will not give the Minister the chance to reform the licensing system. The only way to achieve a major change is to have a change of Government.

One of the greatest ironies is that the White Paper pre-empts the Bill. The Bill is concerned with fairly minor experiments. It will take two or three years before we get the results of those experiments. Many hon. Members say that the time for experimentation is over. The Government say "No. We must work slowly towards changes in the licensing system to see whether they are necessary." Yet we now have a White Paper that states that it is clear from the early stages of the experiments that there is already a case for more general modifications of the licensing laws. That is a splendid transformation. The light has at last dawned. If we understand that before we conduct the experiments, what is the use of going ahead with them?

I hope that the experiments will go ahead and produce interesting evidence. However, I feel that this is a case of too little, too late. The crisis in transport in rural areas has overtaken the Bill. The Government stand indicted of three and a half wasted years. They should have acted sooner. To come forward with the proposition that they now see a general need for modifying the licensing laws when they abandoned a similar proposal three and a half years ago is a devastating indictment. This puny Bill makes little or no amends for the failures of the last three and a half years.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

I intervene briefly at this late hour. First, I should declare an interest. In my weekend mail I discovered a document which invited comments on an experiment in local transportation. I now find myself encompassed as a human guinea pig in an experiment to be undertaken under the terms of the Bill.

I should explain that my house lies three miles from Ripon. The experiment which has been devised in advance of Parliament giving its approval to the Bill, is for a taxi service to operate to draw people who require transport to Ripon from the area in which I live towards the neighbouring village of Masham. Masham lies some seven miles north of Ripon in the opposite direction to that in which I would wish to go if travelling to Ripon. Having got to Masham, the service would connect with a bus service to Ripon and a further nine miles of travelling from Masham to Ripon would complete a journey of 16 miles and land me in Ripon. It will be an interesting experiment, but the document invites comment and no doubt I shall be making my comments on it.

While we recognise the Minister's burning enthusiasm and zeal in getting these experiments under way, is he not jumping the gun, since Parliament has as yet not passed the Bill? Expenditure is being incurred in setting up this arrangement in advance of Parliament having passed the Bill and that would appear to me to be overstepping the mark. I hope that the Minister will explain how this decision was made without the authority of Parliament.

I hope that he will confirm that these experiments must be designed to consider the cost effectiveness of some of the journeys. Certainly the three-mile journey from Ripon is reasonable enough, but if the service is to take a round-about route of 16 miles in order to get to Ripon, that underlines the need for the experiments to be considered carefully in view of the fuel consumption and subsidy entailed.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Adley

The Bill has been a tug-of-war between the Labour Party's attitude that Whitehall knows best and the Conservative Party's attitude of setting the people free—the Liberal Party being absent, as usual. My notes for this speech were written beforehand, confident that the Liberal Members would be their usual invisible selves when there was work to be done. Transport is important to local people, but I suppose that it is not a glamorous and headline-catching subject, so we should not express surprise at the Liberal absence.

I am sorry that the Minister did not complete his undertaking about the Conservative amendment moved by me in Committee on 16th June. I ask him only to have another look at column 93 of the Committee proceedings for that date and to decide whether what he said tonight is in accordance with the undertaking he gave then.

We regret that in Committee the Government resisted the removal of the restrictions on the size of vehicles. That was indicative of their attitude throughout the Bill. Like the Kremlin, the Labour Government are afraid of freedom. However, the Conservative amendments have transformed this small Bill and we look forward to transport committees of county councils releasing their pent-up enthusiasm for experiments when they realise the opportunities that the Bill opens up for them.

The Bill started as a crumb. Thanks to the Conservative Party we now have half a loaf. Half a loaf is better than none, and so we support the Third Reading.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Horam

By leave of the House, may I speak again to inform the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that the money for the schemes will come out of the Department's research budget and that it will be a quite separate matter. Indeed, it is very small in amount.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to go on making speeches at 12.30 a.m. to make yet more party political points? There are a number of hon. Members, people in the Public Gallery and a number of other persons here who are concerned with the next debate. I respectfully ask the Chair whether it is in order for the Minister to make a speech.

Mr. Temple-Morris rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time. The point of order that has been raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) makes it clear that the Minister does not have the permission of the House to make a second speech. I therefore must put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Back to