POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO EXPERIMENTAL AREAS (Hansard, 4 July 1977)

§ Mr. Horam
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 36, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 9.

§ Mr. Horam
In Committee I gave an undertaking that I would introduce amendments in the same spirit as an Opposition amendment designed to increase the maximum seating capacity of private vehicles covered by the Bill. The Opposition amendment was technically defective and was withdrawn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) said in Committee, minibuses with larger seating capacities than 12 are now readily available. It was said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that it was right that private vehicles of this kind should be covered by the Bill. In moving the amendment in Committee, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) noted that the same point had been raised on the Minibus Bill. It would be in the interests of clarity and consistency if the maximum number of passengers were increased to 16.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler
This is a change which resulted from another sensible and far-reaching proposal made by the Opposition in Committee and which the Government have had no alternative but to accept. We congratulate them on their good sense.

§ Mr. Moate
I wish to ask the Minister about the difference between the 1054 figure 16 referred to in Amendment No. 7, and the number of less than 16 referred to in Amendment No. 9. Am I not right in saying that in one instance we are referring to a number less than 16, which can only mean 15, whereas in the other instance we are talking about a figure 16? Can the Minister explain this?

§ Mr. Horam
The difference can be explained if I say that by inserting the two separate provisions, one for a vehicle with the maximum size permitted, which is 16 passengers and a driver, and the other for a smaller vehicle, we can conduct some experiments which relate only to a vehicle with 16 passengers—that is, experiments relating only to vehicles of that size—without simultaneously giving the right to experiment with vehicles smaller than that. Equally, we can grant experiments for vehicles—a taxi, for instance, or a private car—which may be smaller than the maximum size permitted. It is simply that, and no more. In this way, it enables us to distinguish between two different types of experiment, which gives flexibility to the sort of scheme that we have in mind.

§ Mr. Moate
Not at all.

§ Mr. Horam
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'to' to end of line 40 and insert 'such one or more private vehicles or commercial vehicles as may be specified in the authorisation'. In Committee on 16th June, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said in relation to this subsection that it would be helpful to know whether the word 'specified' is intended to apply to commercial vehicles."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16th June 1977; c. 64.] That was the intention. The present amendment seeks to make it clear beyond any doubt.

§ Mr. Adley
The Minister was perhaps hoping that the extreme brevity of his remarks would clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and a number of us in Committee, but I do not think that he has cleared up the point this evening. I hope that he will take it in the right 1055 spirit if I say that I think that the Government must make the position a deal clearer than it is now.
The Bill makes frequent reference to public vehicles, private vehicles and commercial vehicles. However, having discussed the Bill as presently drafted—as I have had a chance to do now—with, for example, the chief executive of Dorset County Council, I find that he is not at all clear, as I am not, precisely what the Government intend and how they intend to interpret the Bill in its use of the word "private". Does the Minister mean that "private vehicle" is private in relation of "public", or does he mean private in relation to commercial"? There is a significant difference of interpretation.
The Government amendments were not available until the end of last week, and that has put a number of us in considerable difficulty. Clearly, in a complex, albeit brief, piece of transport legislation, one seeks, certainly on the Opposition side of the House, to consult the people who will be called upon to operate the legislation. When I went to Dorchester on Friday to see the chairman of the county council in whose area much of my constituency lies, the chief executive of the Dorset County Council, Mr. Kenneth Abel, raised a number of questions with me, particularly in relation to the buses that are actually owned by the Dorset County Council.
I confess that this was not a point that had occurred to the Opposition, and I do not think that it had occurred to the Government. A number of local authorities, as defined by the Bill, actually own their own vehicles, and additionally, a number of local authorities are operating bus services on vehicles which are owned by private operators but which are under contract to the county councils.
Therefore, I want to quote the letter that the chief executive of the Dorset County Council has written to me, which I received this morning, in relation to the question of private vehicles and public service vehicles. Mr. Abel says, Under existing legislation, the County Council are not able to use their fleet of school buses to pick up fare paying passengers and the buses which operate under contract to the Council for school purposes can only do so under a permit system by the Traffic Commissioners. It is the policy of the Council to use public transport to take the children to and from 1056 school and their own vehicles are only used in those areas where no public transport exists and this is generally in the more isolated areas of the County. When there is spare capacity on these vehicles this could be used to take people to and from villages and hamlets to the nearest public service route, if not to the nearest town, and the suggested amendment to the Bill would permit Councils to do this. The suggested amendment was Amendment No. 13, which is not selected. The Government were so dilatory in producing their amendments that this was tabled too late. The letter continues: Obviously the Council would not seek to set up in opposition to existing bus operators, many of whom are in receipt of revenue support from the County Council and District Councils. However, if the Council were authorised to carry fare paying passengers on their own vehicles and likewise the contract vehicles, it would be hoped that restrictions would not be imposed in the legislation limiting the Council's discretion. As we are not able to move Amendment No. 13, I ask the Government whether they have taken on board the position of county councils that own and, or, operate their own buses. If that has not been given specific consideration, does the Minister think that Amendment No. 13 could be considered in another place? I understand that that would be proce-durally possible. I should be grateful if the Minister could consider that. I am sure that Dorset County Council is not the only council that will be confronted with the problem of interpretation when they put forward transport experiments.
On Second Reading the Minister said: Where a vehicle is used in compliance with an authorisation, it will be treated as not being a public service vehicle. It will fall outside the public service vehicle provisions."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1419.] Dorset County Council buses are not public service vehicles. Under the Bill as drafted, will the council be able to apply for an transport experiment enabling it to charge fares on school buses that the Council owns or on buses that are under contract to it, in order to fill empty seats? If the council is unable to charge passengers for the use of school buses when there are empty places that could be filled, that is a waste of resources.
The Minister should concentrate on that proposition, if he is concerned with the use of resources, rather than on dogma. It would be a valuable use of resources if county councils were allowed 1057 to use these buses and to sell seats to the public.
The Minister has not yet answered another question which is relevant to the amendment and which concerns the limousine service. In Committee I asked him about it and I have written to him since then. If a county council were to put forward a proposal for an airport limousine service of the type that I described in Committee, would it be authorised to operate such a service, provided that the vehicle fitted at least one of the descriptions in the Bill? I realise that the Minister might find it difficult to interpret the Bill. There is more scope for the private vehicle than for the public vehicle or bus. That negates the point of the amendment that the Opposition moved in Committee.
The Minister said at another stage: I do not understand the difference between a commercial big bus and a commercial minibus, service, apart from the size of the bus."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1452–3.] It is the size of the bus or size of the passenger-carrying vehicle that we are discussing, so I feel that it is not unfair to press the Minister now to answer the question which I have asked on four separate occasions, on Second Reading, in Committee and in correspondence. Does he feel that a county council which put forward a proposal for a limousine-type service would be in order under the Bill as it stands?
If the hon. Gentleman is unwilling or unable to answer tonight, will he say that, when the Bill goes back to another place, the Government spokesman there will give a precise answer? It is one of the questions which will be asked and, sooner or later, either the Government will have to answer or the courts will have to decide. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is better that the Government's attitude on specific questions such as this should be made known now and that legislation drafted rather sloppily, as this has been in parts, should not be left to the courts for interpretation.

§ Mr. Moate
The Under-Secretary pointed out that the object of the amendment is to tighten matters up and to close a possible loophole to which I drew attention in Committee I think that it probably achieves that objective, but I 1058 now have some regret at the Minister's apparent success. It will be recalled that the original point was made during a discussion on whether we should extend the Bill to allow the use of commercial minibuses or commercial buses generally. Like so many of his colleagues, the Minister threw up his hands in horror at the prospect of ramshackle pirate buses charging about the countryside competing for the custom of people in the rural areas. This spectre of the 1930s, as he saw it, terrified him although it would gladden the hearts of rural people to see buses rushing up to collect them.
I pointed out to the Minister that as far as I could see, he had powers to prevent that sort of thing happening. First, he had the power to refuse authorisations, and, second, there was the power to reject applications because he could specify certain vehicles, He could certainly specify private cars. But it was not clear that he could specify vehicles to which the special authorisation should attach. It was only in that context that I made the point. The Minister now makes it clear that he will authorise specific vehicles. A special authorisation will attach to a specified commercial vehicle.
As we do not have the general power for commercial vehicles, I would rather that we had a slightly wider Bill and that the Minister did not have the power to specify the individual commercial vehicles, because it seems to me that it would be desirable for a wider power to be introduced to allow such as the school bus operations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lym-ington (Mr. Adley) referred. In those circumstances, one would not wish to specify each and every commercial vehicle. Nevertheless, I recognise that the Government amendment is in line with the rather restrictive fearful philosophy expressed in the Bill, so perhaps in that context it makes sense.
May we have one matter clarified? The amendment uses these words: such one or more private vehicles or commercial vehicles as may be specified in the authorisation". The word "may" may mean different things in different contexts. Perhaps it is permissive, meaning that the commercial vehicles do not have to be specified. It could be argued that the amendment says 1059 that the council may specify the commercial vehicle or vehicles if it wishes. On the other hand, it might be interpreted as meaning that they have to be specified, in the sense of such commercial vehicles as are specified". I think that it may not be quite as tight as the Minister intends it to be.

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
I appreciate that this is a tidying-up amendment, and I wish only to add my voice to what has already been said by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Christ-church and Lymington (Mr. Adley) spoke of the problems of Dorset County Council, with which he took the trouble to get in touch over the weekend, and he said that other county councils might have been affected in the same way. Hereford and Worcester County Council is affected in the same way.
In the past, at Question Time, I have said that in rural transport there should be co-ordination and the best possible use of whatever transport is available. Here we have—and I appreciate that it is better put in the starred amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christ-church and Lymington—a logical opportunity to fit in anything worthy of the word "experiment". Throughout the stages of the Bill there has been a shyness about the words "private enterprise" which does not seem to take account of the essential feature of experiments in rural transport. Unless we can join up the services available from private and public transport without any doctrinaire or dogmatic ideas, the experiment will not do the job for the people which it should be.
11.45 p.m.
That is the major failing of the legislation. We have conquered, fortunately—and I use that expression deliberately—one failing of the legislation. Another sad failing is the limited definition of "commercial vehicle".

§ Mr. Adley
I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to be antagonistic towards the Government, but if he reads Amendment No. 13 he will see that there is no question of the Government having to follow any dogmatic ideas.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Amendment No. 13 has not been selected.

§ Mr. Adley
I am well aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not seeking to move it. I am merely referring to it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to it very briefly.

§ Mr. Adley
Yes. The amendment refers to buses and services owned and operated by the county council. There is no question of private enterprise being called into play.

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
My hon. Friend, as always, is very helpful in drawing attention to his amendment without moving it. His amendment is a model of political moderation and patience, and I wish that we could have had the chance to discuss it.

§ Mr. Horam
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has had his fill by smuggling Amendment No. 13 into this discussion. I appreciate that the reason may be that our amendments may have been tabled late. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he feels that he did not have sufficient time to consult about them before speaking tonight. None the less, it was useful that he was able to mention Amendment No. 13, because he made a valuable point.
School buses with up to 16 passenger seats owned by local education authorities would come within the scope of the Bill under special authorisations, as they are not used for carrying passengers for hire or reward in the course of a passenger transport business and thus are private vehicles in terms of the Bill. Under such authorisations they could be enabled to offer seats to fare-paying passengers. Vehicles with more than 16 passenger seats might be eligible for a permit under Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968. What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that if the vehicles in Dorset about which he is talking are minibuses, they would come within the Bill.

§ Mr. Adley
These are, in fact, ordinary double-decker buses purchased by the Dorset County Council. They would not at the moment come within the Bill. Will the Minister consider tabling a Government amendment in another place to give effect to the amendment to which I must not refer, to allow county councils, as the local authorities referred to in the 1061 Bill, to carry out the services which I suggested?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Minister will be well aware of the fact that Amendment No. 13 was not selected.

§ Mr. Horam
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. The kind of bus about which the hon. Gentleman was talking could anyway carry fare-paying passengers under Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968. All the situations are covered and we do not need further amendments to the Bill. Airport limousines, if they have more than five seats, would not come under the Bill. If smaller than five seats, they would.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked about the use of the word "may". This is a matter of normal, simple, legal drafting. We are in no doubt about its meaning. It is too late in the day to do anything about it.

§ Mr. Moate
Does "may" mean "must"?

§ Mr. Horam
In effect, it means "will".
I had better not be dragged once again down the rosy path of private enterprise which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) invited me to tread.