HC Deb 04 July 1977 vol 934 cc1029-53

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after "State", insert 'after consulting the relevant Traffic Commissioners'.

Mr. Speaker

With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'after having consulted the relevant Traffic Commissioners for the area'.

Mr. Fry

In Committee we had a brief discussion of the relationship between the local authority and the traffic commissioners. I have tabled these amendments because I believe that this fairly innocent-sounding piece of legislation denotes a new departure in public transport. It does so because it begins to forge a totally new relationship between the Government and local authorities, whose duties under Sections 2 and 3 of the Local Government Act 1972 are at last being recognised and it is now expected that they will fulfil those responsibilities.

There is another party in this issue, namely the traffic commissioners. When I pressed the Minister in Committee on the future rôle of the traffic commissioners he said: The general rôle of Traffic Commissioners was considered in the course of our general review of transport policy, and we will make our views on that plain when we publish them. I cannot, therefore, go into that general problem now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16th June 1977; c. 85.] I believe that since, in the interim period, we have had the Government's White Paper on transport policy, it is relevant, before dealing with the final stages of this Bill, to examine where the Government stand with regard to the traffic commissioners and their relationship to local authorities and the Government. In what is in many ways a readable, if somewhat lengthy, document, the Government have said in their White Paper various things which do not take us very much further than the kind of comments that have already been made.

For example, paragraph 147 of the White Paper says, The licensing system will be modified so as to make it easier for cost-effective local transport arrangements to be introduced. It says very little more than that at that time.

In paragraph 150 the White Paper goes on to say, there is already a case for some more general modifications of the licensing law. The Government will now consult widely about proposals for early legislation. In paragraph 152 the White Paper goes on to say, on the subject of community buses, they must remain within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners. Finally, paragraph 156 states, The Government proposes also to amend the licensing criteria in section 135 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 so as to provide that the Traffic Commissioners should have regard, in making their decisions, to local authorities' policies and plans for local transport. But … overall responsibility for licensing is best left with them as separate and independent bodies. I suggest that if the Government mean what they said in those last few words, one must question very seriously indeed how far they intend the present experiments to go, because it is quite clear that only by giving the county councils a very real share in and a very real responsibility for deciding on the kind of routes and the kind of vehicles that can be used for public transport, particularly in rural areas, is there any hope of the alleviation of a problem of which I think the whole House is perfectly well aware.

With respect, I would say that the words of the White Paper are all very laudable but are still somewhat vague. It is time that the Minister came forward with a somewhat more definitive statement on how he sees the role of the traffic commissioners in the new set-up. I must make it quite clear that, for my part, I happen to feel that the traffic commissioners still have a most useful role to play. I am aware, however, and I am sure that the Minister is aware, that there are very strong feelings on this subject in many parts of the country, and indeed, there are some county councils and many county councillors who would wish totally to sweep away the rôle of the traffic commissioners in any respect in relation to road service licensing.

I do not think that we can possibly pass this measure tonight until we get some indication from the Government as to how they intend to allocate the rôles of themselves, through the Secretary of State, and of the local authorities and the traffic commissioners. I happen to believe that we are perhaps starting to make very fundamental changes in the public transport system. Frankly, the kind of advice and comment that I hoped for in the White Paper is not there. Too much of it is still in the future, yet the problems of rural transport and the problems with which the traffic commissioners are having to deal become every day more urgent.

I am quite well aware that there is to be a certain degree of additional support for rural transport. A figure of £15 million has been mentioned. But the Minister knows as well as I do that this is no more than a stopgap. It will do no more than support the present level of services until more fundamental reforms can take place.

If we are to have a situation in which, through the Bill as it now stands, all county councils can apply to the Secretary of State for experimental areas to be created, we shall have them making their sets of suggestions and we shall have the Secretary of State in the position of deciding whether to allow those experiments to take place, and at present we shall still have the traffic commissioners continuing in their traditional way, making judgments on the same set of criteria that has been established in many areas.

As I drew to the Committee's attention, the kind of criteria that have been set out in the schedule for local authorities to use when considering what kind of experi- ments to undertake bears a very strong similarity to the criteria that the traffic commissioners are required to use under existing legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's attitude. It is all very well to say in Committee that we should wait for the White Paper. The Government must come clean to a greater extent than they have done so far.

I am entirely in favour of this new partnership being created, but there is a danger in the Bill as it stands of there being a degree of uncertainty, particularly about the rôle of the traffic commissioners, if the Government are as firm as they have been. I remind the House of the words in the White Paper: Overall responsibility for licensing is best left with them as separate and independent bodies". How does the Minister reconcile this with the kind of experiment that undoubtedly will be asked for and made if the Bill is to have any long-term effect? I look forward with interest to what the Minister says in reply to the amendments.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redd itch)

I, too, should like to see clarification about the extent of the traffic commissioners' jurisdiction. Will it be possible under this legislation for local authorities to designate areas in which parents might make arrangements for their children to be conveyed to and from school?

I bring to the attention of the House a case in my constituency where parents attempted to club together to hire a taxi to take their children to school. The case was referred to the traffic commissioners and the parents were refused permission to continue this practice. That case is relevant to the Bill.

Are the traffic commissioners to be consulted about applications of this kind? Would such a scheme be permitted under the Bill? The case to which I referred was within the three-mile limit.

As the House will recall I attempted to pilot through the House a Bill to amend these provisions. Can the Minister say whether in his opinion such use by parents would be allowed whether or not it was within the three-mile limit, or whether the local authority might be allowed on their behalf to make such arrangements over the three-mile limit?

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)

I support everything that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). I want to return to the main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welling-borough who asked the Minister for clarification about the rôle of the traffic commissioners.

The whole purpose of the White Paper is to increase the power and influence of the county councils. When he made his statement on the White Paper I asked the Secretary of State about which rôle will prevail. How can we reconcile the increased power of the county councils and the continued r61e of the Commissioners? They are two forces. It is not clear which will prevail.

One can only presume from the Secretary of State's answer that he will back up by legislation the rôle of the county councils. Nevertheless, the commissioners will have the final say. Unless we get some assurance we can only assume that the same old rôe of the traffic commissioners will continue.

One of the things that are absent from the commissioners' criteria is a separate reckoning of public need. I do not have the papers with me, but I know that the traffic commissioners have to consider various criteria, and among them is public need. Public need is not a paramount criterion, and I suggest that it should be. If it were, we should never have had the calamitous occurrence in Oxfordshire recently when the county council had to wait a whole year for a relatively simple decision on something which it wanted to do, to innovate, improve and introduce a scheme much on the lines of the experiments we are now discussing.

I shall not go into the matter at length now, and we may have to return to it later. All I ask the Under-Secretary to give is some idea where the county council stands vis-à-vis the traffic commissioners. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is after, and that is what I am after, too. If anything, although I tend to agree with my hon. Friend on most transport matters, I am perhaps a little more critical of the traffic commissioners than he is, and, left entirely to myself, I should bear more on the side of the county council. How- ever, I should be happy to join my hon. Friend if the Under-Secretary would say something about the traffic commissioners giving more weight to what the county councils will have to say. Otherwise, if I may say so, the proposals in the White Paper will be a nonsense.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwel] (Ealing, Southall)

As he sees them, what effect does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary think these measures will have on the licensed cab trade? He will be as well aware as I am of the problems which are worrying workers in that trade. Although they support the general idea of diversification of public transport facilities, they are anxious about their existing situation and the proliferation of irresponsible usage of private vehicles, if I may so put it, for public purposes. Could my hon. Friend reply on that?

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I shall gladly reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) if he will bear with me until I have dealt with the more general matters raised by the Opposition.

I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) when he says that the traffic commissioners have a useful rôle to play. Those were his words, and I heartily endorse them in whatever scenario we view this matter.

One has to distinguish between two situations here. First, there is the situation under the Bill in which experiments take place in particular areas. There the traffic commissioners have one rôle, and I shall come to that. On the other hand, we have the general situation throughout the country, which is largely the matter dealt with in the White Paper. I gather that the hon. Member for Leo-minster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was principally concerned about that.

As regards the general situation, the proposal in the White Paper was that, in reaching their decisions and judgments, the traffic commissioners should take account of local county plans for transport. That was the general point. At present, as hon. Gentlemen know, they take account of a number of matters—the level of fares, the degree of need and factors of that kind. This would be an addition to the considerations which they have to take into account at present, that they should pay regard to the local transport plan as set out by the county council concerned. That is the only way in respect of their general rôle that the traffic commissioners will be affected.

Mr. Fry

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at present the traffic commissioners have considerable powers over fares? Does he foresee a situation in which the county council—which, after all, will be asked to pay the bill if subsidy is necessary—can have some say in fares? If things are left as they are, the traffic commissioners can decide who has a road service licence, and they also have a strong say in the fares which people will have to pay and, therefore, on the profitability of the bus company running over a particular route.

Mr. Horam

The situation would remain as it is today, except that in coming to their decision on fares as well as on other matters the commissioners would have to pay regard to the county plans. Plainly, as is stated in the White Paper, this is a matter for consultation. We shall be consulting in due course. In fact, in the next week or two letters will be sent to the county authorities asking for their views on the areas to which it is right to extend the new provisions. That is the general answer to the question of the overall rôle of the commissioners.

Inside that rôle we are talking about particular areas in which the experiments are to take place. In those areas the commissioners will be informally represented on the working groups which will be set up to conduct the experiments. I mentioned this matter in Committee. We thought it right to take account of their experience and advice, but clearly it would be wrong for them to be formally represented on the working groups. There is therefore no uncertainty about their rôle, which is to offer help and advice to local working groups. Nationally, it will be a matter for further consultation on the broad principle set out in the White Paper. I hope that that makes the general position clear.

Taxi-sharing schemes such as the one which constituents of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) wanted to conduct would come within the range of possibilities if a local authority was empowered by the Secretary of State to conduct an experiment in its area and provided all the necessary authorisations were obtained for it. Schemes are being conducted in the four areas in which there are Government experiments. In those four areas there are one or two examples of taxi-sharing schemes. Certainly they are allowable under the legislation.

Mr. Hal Miller

The Bill refers to a limit of five seats for commercial vehicles, but, with the later amendment, the number of seats for private vehicles not used for other purposes would be 16. Will the hon. Gentleman anticipate the discussion on the amendment and say what numbers of schoolchildren might be carried?

Mr. Horam

The commercial minibus does not come within the scope of the Bill. However, special authorisations could be given for taxis normally carrying three, four or five people. I am looking to see whether there are any taxi-sharing schemes. In fact, there is one. I have a reference here to hospital transport schemes which may involve hire cars, private cars or minibuses to tackle the problems of people in remote areas who need to get to centralised hospitals in towns to attend clinics", and so on. That is analogous to the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall, may I say that the Department of Transport is not responsible for the hire cab business. Therefore, I cannot speak with authority on that matter. However, the relaxations of the licensing laws for taxis will apply only in the four areas in which we are conducting experiments. That has always been the case.

The general safeguards for the taxi business—to which I know my hon. Friend attaches importance, as I have in the past and still do—are maintained except in these particular areas where we are relaxing them with the agreement of the cab trade, which is represented on our working parties and has agreed to all this legislation. We are doing it in these cases and in no others. I think that the general situation maintains itself.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough put this forward as a trailer, as it were, to put these particular matters on the rôle of the traffic commissioners. In many respects I should be happy to agree to his amendments, because obviously we shall certainly consult the traffic commissioners, but, as it happens, they have come rather late in the day. There is, unfortunately, a technical flaw in them, in that they should be attached to subsection (5), where we deal with the people whom the Secretary of State should consult before agreeing to designate an experimental area. They are also somewhat redundant in view of the fact that the Secretary of State now has to agree to an experimental area if the county council wishes to have one, although he retains power to authorise particular schemes. To that extent, therefore, consultation of this kind is slightly redundant.

For these reasons, if the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance, which will be on the record, that we shall certainly consult the traffic commissioners in the experiments which we conduct, I hope that he will feel able now to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Fry

In view of what the Minister has said, I think it probably will be right for me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to make this final point: if these experiments which are forecast in the Bill are to be meaningful, I still think that some of the questions that my hon. Friends and I have asked will require much more firm and concrete answers than we have received from the Minister tonight.

I am aware that the Government are feeling their own way on this point, but the day will come when a much clearer delineation of the various powers and responsibilities will be required. I am delighted to see that the Minister nods his head. I am glad that the Government realise that this is required.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Horam

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert— 'The Secretary of State, if requested to do so as regards any such area by the local authority concerned, shall so designate the area in question.'.

Mr. Speaker

With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Mr. Horam

These amendments are concerned with provisions which were inserted into the Bill in Committee by the Opposition and are purely to tidy up the drafting. I said in Committee that I should be happy to accept the amendments dealing with the extension of the period covered by an order designating an experimental area, even though it is perhaps unnecessary, because clearly we would not cut off a promising scheme in its prime. None the less, it is sensible for the Opposition perhaps to build in this point, and I can accept that.

I also undertook to give serious consideration to the amendment concerning the designation of an experimental area at the request of the local authority. I still feel, as I said in Committee, that the provision introduced is in a sense redundant. It has been clear all along that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to consider designating experimental areas at the request of any local authority concerned which had proposals for experiments which fitted in with the basis on which we are working.

In my view, therefore, these amendments will make no difference in practice to what will happen as a result of the Bill. However, I do not seek to reverse the decision of the Committee. The present amendments, therefore, merely introduce certain minor drafting changes to make it quite clear that a local authority could request an experimental area to be designated only in its own territory—an obvious point but one that we should like to clarify. If any county council wishes to apply its own resources to the conduct of experiments of this kind, to complement our programme, my right hon. Friend would use his powers under the Bill to facilitate this, always providing that the experiments will genuinely add to the evidence that the Government's programme is designed to collect.

As I have explained a number of times already, this is not a Bill to facilitate random patchwork modification of licensing law across the country but to enable certain experiments to be carried out under controlled conditions, to provide hard evidence of the effects of certain modifications of licensing. Against this background I am prepared to accept the provisions.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

As the Minister said, this amendment and this change result not from the will of the Government but from a defeat that they suffered during the Committee stage. From the point of view of the Opposition, the victory was an important one. I believe that it will probably prove to be one of the most important changes in the Bill.

The Minister says that it will not make much difference to his Government's policy. We would agree with him that very little will make much difference to his Government's policy, or lack of policy, in this area.

But the Conservative Opposition consider that what we have here is a change of substance and of very real importance. It was perhaps not the Government's best day when they lost this important vote, but we shall gloss over the circumstances of that morning, because in spite of a great deal of huffing and puffing from the Under-Secretary, the Government had the good grace to accept the will of the Committee.

I believe that the result is significant and important, particularly to those living in country areas. What this amendment has done is to convert the model of the Bill, which the Under-Secretary produced and represented to the House, to something which is of considerably greater importance. What the Undersecretary intended and wanted was a modest little measure confined to four areas of Britain, two in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland. That was the limit of the Government's ambitions, and even then they thought that they were taking an enormous leap into the dark.

The amendment enables not just four experiments but any local authority to run experiments in this country. Let us remember what the Bill allows and what it envisages. The schemes already approved and put forward by the Government include community minibus services, shared cars, postbus services, lifts for payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has received an assurance about schemes to help with school transport.

We would have hoped—I say this frankly—that we could go even further in the Bill. We would have liked to see commercial minibus services allowed as well. It was a disappointment that the Government did not concede that point also, but it came as no surprise considering the Government's stone-walling attiude over the last three and a half years.

At any rate some progress has been made in the Bill and even more progress has now been made because of the amendment. It means that experiments can be run by any county council, by the GLC and by regional councils in Scotland as well. The potential of the change is quite clear and very considerable.

First, it means that county councils which have asked to be allowed to run experiments, and have been refused by the Department of Transport, can now put up proposals again. This means that a county council like Oxfordshire, for example, which had its proposals refused, can now resubmit its plans.

Secondly, it means that other county councils can now turn their attention to running experiments to see what progress can be made, and to see how they should go forward at local level. To that extent, our victory in Committee represents a victory for the local authorities and a victory for the local people.

But one matter should be made clear. By a later clause, the Secretary of State still retains a power of veto. Despite a proposal that is put forward, the Secretary of State can refuse permission for a scheme to go ahead. It needs no great powers of forecasting to see that the potential of the Bill will not be realised under this Government. Indeed, it will not be realised until we have a Conservative Secretary of State for Transport who is dedicated to seeking change and making progress.

A Conservative Government will want to use this Bill to the full, and we shall appreciate and value the advice of all outside expert bodies in this work. But I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that, in the final analysis, Parliament is sovereign. The aim of an incoming Conservative Government will be to work in the closest consultation with the elected members of local authorities in devising new schemes to help local people solve their own transport problems.

This is a significant Conservative victory. It takes a step along the path to better transport services for the public. Its greatest benefit will be for the country areas, but it need not necessarily be confined to them. This clause, passed by the Opposition, has now been accepted by the Government. We look forward to operating it to the maximum.

Mr. David Watkins (Consett)

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in introducing this group of amendments, their effect is to modify the amendment carried by the Opposition in Committee, where they were, as usual, more concerned to embarrass the Government than to amend the Bill constructively. That was the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) tonight, as it was so often in Committee.

The Government amendment seems to be a compromise to try to make the best of a bad job. Like all such compromises, it raises queries which are even more serious than the bad job on which it seeks to improve. My hon. Friend said that he felt that there would be no difference in practice. But, although the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to that remark, he also spoke of a later clause containing a power of veto, and it is about that that I want to ask my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield laid great stress on the fact that the effect of the amendment was to extend the powers of the Bill to any local authority, irrespective of whether it covered rural or urban areas. It is clear that the amendment extends powers to non-rural areas and that, if any non-rural local authority makes such a request, the Secretary of State has a mandatory obligation to accede to that request. However, the whole object of the Bill is to deal with transport in rural areas, and it seems contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill to apply it to urban areas as well.

I want also to express concern about the machinery for consultation, especially in urban areas, with existing licensed operators. My hon. Friend referred earlier to the cab trade, which is represented on the working party and which has a considerable number of other reservations. Although I have no direct contact with the trade, I believe that its representatives have co-operated closely and played a constructive rôle in the formulation of the Bill.

I am disturbed that existing facilities could be damaged owing to lack of consultation, and this is an important side effect of the amendment. The object of the Bill was to improve services in rural areas, and the effect of the amendment will considerably undermine that position by extending these provisions to urban areas. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation. I am concerned that the effect of the amendment will place a mandatory obligation on the Minister to make arrangements in areas which might not necessarily lead to an improvement in the service—and that would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

It is not always easy to fault any remark made by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), but on this occasion he is in error to a considerable extent. If he says that the Bill is designed primarily for rural areas, he has failed to understand the Bill.

The definition of "local authorities" is set out on page 4 of the Bill as follows 'Local authority'… means, for England and Wales, a county council or the Greater London Council". One would not normally regard the GLC as being a rural area. Although the term "rural experiments" has been widely used, I submit that the Bill has never been limited to rural areas.

The amendment has drawn attention to the fact that this is a wide-ranging Bill, which is all to the good. But the hon. Gentleman might almost have been talking about a different Bill. He certainly appeared to be talking about a different Committee stage when he suggested that the Opposition were trying to embarrass the Government. He obviously forgot what happened on the morning in Committee when the amendment was passed. The Government could not even provide a quorum. Far from embarrassing the Government, the Opposition after a short delay provided enough Members to allow the Committee to continue. We were being most helpful.

Mr. David Watkins

Is the hon. Gentleman pretending that the Opposition were not waiting outside the Committee room until the last possible minute before entering the Committee?

Mr. Moate

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is the duty of the Government to maintain their business and to see that there is a quorum. He can hardly suggest that we were seeking to embarrass the Government because our efforts kept the Committee going.

The hon. Gentleman then sought to argue that we were tabling a destructive amendment, but since the Government are now accepting our amendment he cannot have it both ways. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to vote against his Government's amendment, or will he accept it? Acceptance by the Minister demonstrates the sheer sound common sense of the amendment that was carried in Committee.

The Minister deliberately underplayed the effect of the amendment. Powers of this kind can mean little, and it depends how they are interpreted. I hope that the amendment, which will allow any county council to apply these provisions in an experimental area, will be taken up enthusiastically by county councils. If that happens, we could start to make a major impact on the problems of rural transport.

Will the Minister say how he sees the amendment applying to county councils? In an earlier reply he said that he had to accept applications from councils. In introducing the amendment, he put forward one or to modifications and said that it was subject to the use of resources and so on. To what extent does he regard this as a mandatory obligation? In what circumstances could he refuse authorisation and under which procedure would that be undertaken.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that such refusals will be rare or will never happen. We want these experiments to get off the ground on a wide scale throughout the country.

11.0 p.m.

Can the Minister confirm also that if a county council decides to submit an application for an experimental area the contact is direct between the county council and the Department of Transport and does not go through the steering committee. Although the steering committee may have to evaluate the results of the experiments, I am sure that it is right, if we are to get speedy action, that county councils, using their local knowledge of what is needed, should be able to get on with the job and submit the proposals to the Department and obtain a speedy decision.

The steering committee has become so committed to its four areas and its 16 schemes that it might be hesitant about approving many more schemes involving many councils. I hope that the Minister will say that it will be his decision and not the decision of the steering committee and that action can be taken speedily.

Will the Minister comment also on the question of the extension of period. Again he has shown great judgment and has been of assistance to the House in accepting the sensible suggestion that a local authority may apply for the extension of the period of an experiment which seems to be working. As the clause is drafted, it presents two options. The second option is that the Secretary of State can extend the period at the local authority's request. That leaves the first option, which means that the Secretary of State can extend a scheme not at the request of the local authority. I wonder why the Minister foresees the need for such a power. Does he really foresee a situation in which a local authority might not request an extension and he has therefore to impose an extension? That is the only logic I can see in having two alternatives. It is not a fundamental point, but I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification.

Lastly, all these extensions have to be made by order which shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament". As I understand it, every experimental area and every extension of period must be approved by order. If we are to have many experimental areas, we shall have many statutory instruments. This will be very much of a mixed blessing to hon. Members such as myself who serve on the Statutory Instruments Committee. I wonder whether we are right in this instance to have statutory instruments for every experiment and every extension of period. I hope that there will be many experimental areas, but does it make sense to have a separate statutory instrument for each one?

Mr. Fry

I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) refer to the Committee stage and the decision that was taken there. We frequently hear from the Minister and other Labour Members that the Government have a greater interest in promoting rural transport than we have. They had such a great interest in Committee that they could not maintain the necessary quorum. They needed our help to ensure that this puny little Bill got as far as it has. I am astonished that the hon. Member reminded the public of the great interest the Labour Party took in the Bill.

The Minister made a remark which caused me some concern. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said that he thought that the amendment would make no difference in practice. If he thought that it would make no difference in practice, why did he object to the amendment initially? If it will make no difference in practice, I shall be interested to know, in answer to the questions my hon. Friends have asked, how the Government now intend to interpret the Bill.

The Minister will admit that this was a very modest measure as originally phrased. The great advantage of the amendment moved and accepted in Committee, and now endorsed by this Government amendment, is that it will give a great number of county councils the opportunity to make meaningful experiments.

The Minister either has to say tonight that he does not want a lot of county councils to make meaningful experiments, in which case he has made a nonsense of accepting the intention of the amendment accepted in Committee, or he has to say that he does accept that many county councils will put forward experiments and that he will accept this. There is considerable difference between that and what was in the Bill as originally drafted.

I hope that the Government will not drag their feet, because by their own admission in their own White Paper they have granted a further £15 million to support public transport in rural areas. According to some budgets, that is not a lot of money, but in terms of the rural transport budget it is a large amount, and it is a measure of the very real crisis in many rural areas today. In putting forward that figure the Government have committed themselves to an ongoing subsidy of considerable proportion to maintain rural transport. With experiments such as those that can be brought about by the Bill, we could find that sum of money reduced in the not-too-distant future.

All of us who are aware of the difficulties of public transport know perfectly well that the loss in rural areas is a flea-bite compared with that in urban and semi-urban areas. Therefore, it is essential in a Bill that proposes to experiment and reduce the cost to the public purse that there should be included the possibility of experiments in urban and semi-urban areas. This is in the interests of the taxpayers and users of public transport, and, far from decrying the fact that we have widened the Bill by the amendments we suggested, I would have thought that hon. Members would congratulate the Opposition on turning the Bill into a more meaningful measure.

Mr. Temple-Morris

If I could add to the good will that flows towards the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), I shall say how much we enjoyed his contribution and his cry on behalf of the urban areas. However, we appreciate that his constituency is mixed; he has a foot in the rural camp and a foot in the urban camp.

This particularly puny Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has described it, is not a menace to the stability of urban areas. As the buses roll in and out at 9 o'clock, 9.10 or 9.15, the provisions of Clause 2(3) will enable owners of private vehicles generally to do what they have done for a long time—pay each other for the privilege of driving to work together. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett—

Mr. Watkins

It is very welcome to see the Opposition taking this interest in urban transport. It is the first time in the proceedings on the Bill that they have spoken with emphasis on this matter. In earlier stages they were concerned only with rural transport.

Mr. Temple-Morris

I ask the hon. Member's forgiveness. Just now I called him my hon. Friend, when I should have referred to him as the hon. Member. Although he is a friend personally, he is not a friend in the political perspective. He has sought to make a political point, when I was being rather more charitable to him. Urban areas have had quite enough. This is something that benefits rural areas.

Thanks to hon. Members on this side of the House we have carried this amendment which extends the authority that was previously extremely limited. Local authorities up and down the country will have the chance to put forward these experiments. If an urban area wishes to put one forward, good luck to it. The Secretary of State has the ultimate authority and if an urban authority can get within the terms of the Act and do something, good luck to it. But we are concerned with rural areas.

Oxfordshire has been mentioned. Some years ago, at a late hour of the night, I made a plea on behalf of Herefordshire and Worcestershire that the then Undersecretary of State—this was at a time when the Government were setting up experimental areas—should consider Herefordshire and Worcestershire as a posssibility. It would be a great advantage now not only to Oxfordshire but to Herefordshire and Worcestershire, if they wish, to put through an experiment.

I do not want to conduct a political vendetta. I thank the Under-Secretary for his charitable viewing of the amendment that we won in Committee and his acknowledging of the truth. I hope that he will do that whatever the parliamentary situation. I am sure that within the calm that prevails at this hour of the night on Report, he would not maintain or even pretend that the political situation is quite as hot as it was in Committee when he was dealing with accusations of delay, into which I shall not go now. We appreciate that the Labour Government in 1968 did certain things that, frankly, have helped rural areas, but we are dealing with a problem that has since developed and grown more acute. The Conservative Government had the foresight to do something about it in 1973, but that was not adopted. I do not want to go into those matters now. However, I think that we should be treated to the Under-Secretary's words in Committee when dealing with the accusations that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) when he championed the cause of the Labour Government and Labour Party on transport in rural areas, which no doubt created delight on the Government Benches. The hon. Gentleman said: Therefore, in bringing forward this Bill—the first to deal with these matters since that time"— in other words, he was claiming that there was no 1973 Bill; it was since the 1968 Act— we are building on the sturdy rock of Labour concern for the rural areas on a continuous expression of careful concern."—[Official Re-port, Standing Committee F, I4th June 1977; c. 8.] I felt it right to remind the Undersecretary of those words and to ask whether he can live up to what he so vividly expressed upstairs.

Local areas—even urban areas, if they wish, although the Bill is not built for them—now have a chance to do something creative. I do not fancy that any problem will be caused by urban areas. We now have a chance to do something, whatever county we may come from or represent. We are grateful that the Minister has given way, but we are conscious that this occasion would not have arisen but for our perspective and determination to push this amendment through in Committee.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Horam

My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), whose interesting remarks in Committee were made on another matter, not that which he raised tonight, was right in thinking that the genesis of the Bill was concern for rural areas.

The Bill came about because the Government thought that there should be experiments with relaxations of the bus licensing law in four areas. Most of the experiments will involve changes and schemes that do not need the Bill. However, to make sure that everything could be considered, we brought forward the Bill to allow that to be done. We felt that if we made no distinction between urban and rural areas, we could in future, if necessary, look at the problems of suburban as well as urban areas under the provisions of the Bill.

The first thought on the Bill arose from the desire for a fresh approach to the problems of the rural areas, and that is probably how my hon. Friend has fixed so clearly in his mind the thought that the Bill was about rural areas. None the less, it does not specifically limit the changes to rural areas.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

Will the Minister assure the House, in view of what he said, that at no time will the Secretary of State seek to interpret Clause 2(6) in an unfavourable light merely because it might happen to relate to an urban rather than to a rural area?

Mr. Horam

As I shall make plain later, our sole consideration in these matters should be that the experiments which are put forward by any authority, whether in a rural, urban or suburban area, are genuinely adding to the evidence that the Government programme is designed to collect, as well as taking account of factors such as the resources available for this sort of experiment. We shall have this broad consideration in mind and we would not necessarily make any distinction between urban and rural. But I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that it is in the rural areas that the most pressing need for such experiments clearly exists. We should therefore probably give them priority, but I do not think that it is necessary to make a distinction—and the Bill does not seek to do so—between the urban and rural areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Consett asked what consultations there would be with the public transport operators. As I have explained, the Bill came about because the steering committee which was controlling our experiments in the four selected areas felt that it was necessary. That committee is composed of representatives of the bus operators, the bus workers' trade unions, the taxi trade, users' committees, district and county councils, and all the various interests which might be relevant to local transport.

I am sure, therefore, that a good criterion for an experiment, other than the four experiments we have set up, would be that consultation of that kind should be built into it. It is essential for the success of a scheme for all interests to be fully consulted and my hon. Friend may be assured therefore in that respect.

My hon. Friend asked where in the Bill was the veto on schemes that were thought to be undesirable. It is in Clause 2 (6), by which any authorisation must receive the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport. There have always been two filters through which schemes must pass. The first is the designation of an experimental area. The second is the authorisation granted by the Secretary of State for any proposal within an experimental area. This could be, for example, that a particular route should be run by a bus on flexible timing, picking up at request points. We should consider such a scheme, and if it were thought right we should agree to it.

My point in considering the exaggerated remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who has claimed a great deal more for the Conservative amendment passed in Committee than he is legitimately entitled to claim, is that we have always been prepared to accept experiments which were sensible and met our criteria. The amendment does not alter in one whit our power to do that because we still have the power to deny authorisation to schemes which we think are wrong in principle or undesirable in effect. That power remains.

Therefore, there is no real change in the Bill. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield may huff and puff a great deal about this achievement, but at the end of the day the success of the experiments will simply depend on the enthusiasm of the people trying to run the schemes—whether local councils, operators or whoever else—and upon the common sense of the schemes. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that it would be radically different when a Tory Government came to office—if a Tory Government ever do. Indeed, things would be different if that Government decided to go for less sensible schemes than ours, but I shall not comment on that. We should certainly be prepared to accept any sensible schemes that met our criteria. That has always been the case.

I said to the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Fry)—who has left the Chamber temporarily—that originally I objected to the amendment because it was not necessary. I still consider it to be unnecessary, but in a spirit of harmony I am prepared to accept the amendment on this occasion, although it does not make any change at all in the Bill.

That is a perfectly sensible position. We shall see what happens and what is brought forward under any Government, Labour or Tory, in the nature of suggestions for further experiments. We shall consider suggestions on their merits as we have always been prepared to do. That also answers the question of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). These will be the criteria on which we shall look at schemes—simply whether they are practical, whether they will be rewarding and whether they will give the sort of hard evidence that our four schemes are designed to produce. Such evidence will be generally useful to local authorities wishing to mount schemes of their own and to make changes of their own.

The hon. Member for Faversham also asked whether I thought it desirable that these orders should come to the House as Statutory Instruments for each experimental area. That is a matter of procedure, and I am sure that we should have been criticised in the reverse way had we not done this. The hon. Member for Faversham knows that these matters are sometimes contentious. The Government are sometimes accused of being over-solicitous in the interests of the House. More often we are accused of being neglectful. Perhaps we have been over-solicitous in this respect, but the House cannot criticise us for that.

A point was made about alternatives for the extension of the period of the schemes—at the behest of the Secretary of State or of the local authority. That is simply building on the amendment that was passed in Committee and there is no change. In practice it will simply be a matter of mutual agreement. Under our schemes the local authorities will be represented on the local committees and if it is thought desirable for a scheme to go beyond two years I am sure that that will be a matter for general consent in the committee or otherwise and that a decision will be made accordingly. In practice, there is not much difference between the two approaches. I am sure that that covers the points that the Opposition have raised.

The hon. Member for Leominster made a final flourish in talking about the sturdy rock of Labour concern for rural transport which I mentioned. Indeed, that is our position, because if one looks at the history of the changes in bus licensing that have been made by successive Governments one finds that the only changes of substance have been made by Labour Governments. Changes have been made most recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and now by this Government in promoting and helping along matters by way of a Private Member's Bill, the Bill relates to the minibus, and now by this Bill, which is merely a part of our total approach. The positive achievements have been made by this Government. The rhetoric, the ideology, the lack of reality, the to-ing and fro-ing—

Mr. Norman Fowler

Before the Minister goes into orbit, will he say frankly whether he believes that it was right, given what the Government have said in the White Paper, for them to kill the reforms in the 1973 Bill which the Conservative Government left behind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. I am not able to follow how that could possibly come within the terms of this amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my remarks arose directly from the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If I did not hear what I should have heard when the Minister was speaking it does not make what the hon. Gentleman was saying any more in order.

Mr. Horam

Opposition Members should not tempt me to go down these paths of rhetoric. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield having been called to order, perhaps we should exercise more discretion. I believe that the success of the experiments and the success of the Government's approach to experimentation will depend on the nature of the schemes put forward and the common sense with which the general willingness to experiment is expressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 1, line 22, after "State", insert— (a)'.

No. 5, in page 1, line 24, after "effect", insert— '; and (b) if requested by the local authority whose area is or contains the experimental area designated by such an order to extend or further extend the period for which the order is to have effect, shall so extend or further extend that period accordingly.'.

No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Horam.]

Back to
Forward to