AMENDMENTS ABOUT ROAD SERVICE LICENCES AND PERMITS (Hansard, 17 May 1978)

§ Mr. Horam
I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 20, line 15, after 'and', insert 'subject to subsection (2D) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 61.

§ Mr. Horam
As the Opposition will be aware from my letter to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), this amendment is in response to 731 an amendment tabled in Committee on the question of excursions within the meaning of the 1968 Act which include a charge for overnight accommodation. Basically, we accept the proposition that was put forward in Committee.

§ Mr. Younger
We are grateful to the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for having met our point on this matter. It will enable those who operate coach tours far away from their home bases to do so without being obstructed by the traffic commissioners. This is a valuable change in the Bill.

§ Mr. Horam
I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 20, line 25, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 60.

§ Mr. Horam
These amendments fulfil the undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. Friend that he would introduce amendments to meet the point of the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on behalf of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. We pointed out that it had a number of technical defects, and we have attempted to correct them.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler
As the Under-Secretary of State has said, these amendments meet the undertaking given by the Government in Committee. They recognise—I think probably for the first time in transport legislation—the rights of the disabled. They place an obligation upon policy-makers to ensure that the needs of the disabled are taken into account in transport policy. I think that the Government's acceptance of our argument will be very much welcomed by the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, particularly by Peter Large, to whose work I pay great tribute. We are grateful for it.

§ Mr. Younger
I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 21, line 6, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one year'
I hope that the Minister may by now have had further thoughts about this amendment, which is similar to one which we moved in Committee. This portion of Schedule 2 allows an experiment to take place with a new bus service for a period up to six months whereas before, as was mentioned in Committee, the maximum period was two months, which everyone agreed was not nearly long enough. We contended that six months was not long enough and that it would be more sensible and prudent to have the experiment for a year.
The important point is that many bus services are highly seasonal in terms of passenger traffic. For example, in the Highlands of Scotland it would not make sense to run an experiment from October to March in an area which catered for many tourists.
I hope that the Minister has thought again and will be able to accept the amendment. I am certain—I have confirmed this view with people in the trade—that an experiment over six months would be worthless, but it would be very valuable if taken over a year.

§ Mr. Horam
I have had further thoughts about this matter but, unfortunately, I have been unable to change my mind. We have moved from a period of two months to six months, and I am afraid we must rest there.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the seasonal problem, and I accept that that may be a difficulty in certain parts of the country. But if in those cases the six months could be chosen to overlap part of the summer and part of the autumn, for example, the problem could be dealt with in that way. We feel that if it were to go to a full year it would genuinely raise the possibility of damage 733 to existing services in a way in which a period of six months would not.