Title (Hansard, 17 May 1978)

§ Mr. William Rodgers
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Long ago and far away as it seems—to be precise, on 19th January last—we gave the Bill a Second Reading. At the end of my remarks on that occasion, I said: This is not a long and glamorous Bill, but it is a good and necessary one."—[Official Report, 19th January 1978; Vol 942, c. 703.] Seventy hours of debate later, if it was good then I think that it is better now, and if it was necessary then it is more than ever necessary now. But I am quite prepared to say that the Bill as drafted and brought to the House by me on 19th January has been improved by our discussions in Committee and on Report, and, although the Opposition were foolish enough to vote against Second Reading, perhaps they regret it a little now.
I think that the Bill is significant. It makes a number of very important changes. I think that many hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will look back and believe that they played a part in putting good and meritorious provisions on to the statute book.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler
It would be unfair not to mention the concessions that the Government have made during the 738 process of the Bill. As a result, there are important changes affecting, for example, the rights of district councils and important groups such as the disabled. However, having said that, I should make it clear that this is still a disappointing Bill.
Basically, the Government have accepted in principle the case for local devolution—that is to say, they have accepted in principle that Whitehall does not and cannot know best when it comes to the planning of local passenger transport services. However, having accepted the principle, they have not followed this through in practice.
The Secretary of State once described the Bill as being the "rural charter". That description was not used widely in Committee, and for very good reason. It is not a rural charter because it does not put power where that power should be—with the representatives of the local people. At every stage when the Opposition have proposed that further power should be devolved, this has been resisted by the Government. There is a fundamental division between the outward appearance and the reality. Our fundamental objections still remain.
County councils will produce five-year plans and enter into three-year agreements, but they see no commitment on the Government's part to match them. The traffic commissioner system remains largely unreformed. We have community bus services and shared cars—for both of which the Opposition have pressed consistently—and these could have been provided in 1974 when the present Government scrapped the Conservative reforms. But what the Bill misses out is the potential for the development of new commercial services.
We will return to this area again. What is important is that county councils should have more flexibility to run the services that they judge necessary. It is vital that new experiments should take place with new passenger services. We should seek to innovate. We should not be afraid of making experiments. An incoming Conservative Government will want the licensing system to make these negotiations possible, and we regret that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill.
739 We regret also some of the decisions that have been taken. The transfer of the ownership of Freightliner to British Rail is one example. The unnecessary restrictions on car parking is another. Where, however, I am glad that there is some agreement is on the future of British Rail. There is now a great deal of common ground on railway policy. Both sides of the House want to see an important future for the railway industry, and it is fair to say that there is a great measure of agreement that British Rail should be far more publicly accountable. However, there are important challenges ahead for British Rail, not least the issue of productivity. It is for British Rail to tackle these problems. What it has, however, a right to expect is the constructive support of this House.
Therefore, we shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. We have expressed our criticisms and we have sought to reach agreement on the points where agreement is possible.

§ Mr. Penhaligon
I am pleased that we have at last reached Third Reading, though it seems ludicrous that we should be discussing it at 5.10 in the morning. I am pleased that the Bill will reach the statute book. It is the best Bill for many years for providing help for rural transport. It is all very well for the Conservative Party to talk about what it wished it had done, what it had started to do or what it would do if it had the chance, but this legislation is going through and I am pleased.
We have transferred a substantial amount of power to the shire counties and given a clear indication that the often rudimentary bus services in rural areas will be maintained. I am pleased to have been involved with the Government in that.
We are in the fourteenth or fifteenth month of the Lib-Lab pact and we have done something substantial to help rural transport. All the protests from the Conservative Front Bench cannot deny that more progress has been made in rural transport in the past 15 months than was made in the previous 15 years. I am extremely pleased with the co-operation that I have received from the Secretary of State in putting the Bill together.