§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
- No. 6, in page 4, line 35, leave out "30" and insert "40".
- No. 7, in page 4, line 35, leave out "30" and insert "35".
- No. 8, in page 4, line 37, leave out from "up;" to and"in line 40.
- No. 9 in page 4, line 39, leave out "30" and insert "40".
§ Mr. BoothIf amendments Nos. 5 and 8 are taken together, they remove from the Bill a special definition of what constitutes an express bus service. It is a 1287 definition that has never previously existed in our law or in that of any other country. I have tried to think of a term or a word that would describe it. The best word is probably "dog-leg". I am referring to a route which involves picking a passenger up and putting him down, during which time he and the vehicle travel through a place that is 30 miles from the place at which he was picked up or put clown. That is the meaning of the provision. Therefore, one can have a dog-leg shaped course conveying each passenger, as the scheme works for each passenger, and not in respect of total routing, and still come within the definition of express service.
There is a better way of looking at this matter, and that is to think of the scheme in terms of an area bounded by two arcs, each of 30-mile radius. It does not matter whether the centres of the arcs are less than 30 miles apart. Provided that one travels from the centre of one arc to the centre of the other, with the two bus stops passing outside the point where the arcs intersect, an operator can ensure that the service is classed as an express service.
That is a rather complex concept by any criterion, and it is one that does not serve to meet the objection that I raised with regard to the initial definition in the Bill. In practice our objections to the way in which express service is defined are so substantial that they wipe out any limited advantage that it might have.
My first objection is quite straightforward. If an operator wishes to avoid submitting an application for a road service licence, he will be able to construct his route in a way that will ensure that it can convey passengers, or a passenger, more than 30 miles, thereby avoiding the need for a road service licence. I do not think that such a provision is desirable in legislation.
The other and more important objection is that this provision is almost unenforceable if one thinks of it in terms of realistic routing. Any operator who realistically wants to construct his route for the convenience of the public in whose area he is travelling in such a way as to allow someone to get off the bus after travelling 30 miles must keep on the bus anyone else who has embarked within 1288 the 30-mile limit. He must not let such people off at that stop, otherwise he ceases to operate an express service.
I do not envy the task of the conductors or drivers engaged in express operations in trying to keep people on the bus until they have travelled more than 30 miles from the point at which they got on. Some people may be prepared to pay the fare for 31 miles because it offers the advantage of an express service, but I suggest that they will make darned sure that they get off when the bus stops at their destination.
Another objection is that the scheme will be almost impossible to operate in a reasonable way. Therefore, I prefer the much simpler definition of express which would remain in the Bill if amendments Nos. 5 and 8 were carried. In that case, an express service would be one which carried passengers a set distance from the point at which they got on to the point at which they got off.
I shall not comment on the circular routes that exist in some parts of the country, including my own constituency. But in that case, some people must travel around Morecambe Bay, which is a much greater distance than the distance across the bay, in order to travel to Barrow-in-Furness. That has occurred because no Government have had the wisdom to build the Morecambe Bay barrage. I make that as a non-party point.
Amendment No. 7 extends the distance from 30 to 35 miles. Unlike the argument in Committee, the argument is now one of degree rather than of principle. I prefer the argument of principle, but I cannot advance it on this amendment. Given that one will exclude express services as defined in the Bill from the test of the traffic commissioners as to whether or not they are in the public interest, the question is whether the distance should be 30 or 35 miles.
It is no part of the Opposition's argument that somebody should not be allowed to operate an express service that stops at distances less than 30 or 35 miles. We are saying that where that is done the traffic commissioner should consider the matter. If he is convinced that it is a reasonable service, with no adverse public effects or adverse effects on the maintenance of the stage carriage service. 1289 the express service should be allowed to operate.
We are arguing only about where there should be applications for road service licences. We are not saying that there should be any prohibition on express services which allow passengers to disembark at distances between 30 and 35 miles.
Up to 35 miles there is a greater likelihood of the introduction of the express service cutting across the cross-subsidised services. Therefore, it is proper that those who wish to operate that service, like those who operate a stage carriage service, should be subject to an application for a road service licence.
Another consideration is that when travelling further than 35 miles passengers are more likely to use the stage carriage services to take them to the express bus stop. Some people may take a bus, even if it is going in the opposite direction, to the nearest terminus to catch the express bus. Up to distances of 35 miles, express services are more likely to affect the network arrangements, and even the single service arrangements, that have been subject to consideration by local authorities under their transport policies and plans.
For all those reasons, it makes sense to widen the range of services that are subject to road service licences, leaving the issuing of such licences to the good sense of the traffic commissioner. It makes sense for a service to be run with stopping points of up to 35 miles, rather than to work on a 30-mile definition. It is an argument of degree rather than of principle.
On the dog-leg, or intersecting arc, description of what constitutes an express service and a stage carriage, it is almost impossible to operate a service. The only operators who will gain any advantage from it are those who are prepared to create artificial routes so that they are not subject to road service licensing requirements.
§ Mr. PenhaligonI wish to raise the case of the ultimate dog-leg, namely, where a person returns to the point from which he started. I am referring to the day excursion, which is common in my part of the country for people on holiday. Someone coming to Newquay or Perranporth on holiday often takes a coach trip 1290 around the countryside, and at the end of the day he returns to precisely the point from which he started.
Ironically and incredibly, that qualifies as an express service under this definition, provided that at some time during the day the bus travels more than 30 miles in a straight line from its departure point.
9.15 pm
I do not believe that the Government have malice. However, the clause could smash the only profitable part of the coach industry that exists in Cornwall. We have discussed before how few bus routes make a profit. One profitable activity in Cornwall is carrying passengers on day trips during the summer. The routes are licensed. They are highly fought over and much sought after: They are the backbone that keeps together the rudiments of a private bus service that still exists within the county.
The pattern of the holiday industry is that people often come to the tourist areas of Cornwall by coach from the Midlands, London and other places. They arrive on a Saturday and the coach stays with them until the following Saturday. During the week, the driver and the coach are doing nothing. On marginal costings, the coach company could run a service in competition with local operators at low cost. Those coaches can be used at the moment to take on day trips the passengers that they have brought to the area. They cannot advertise the fact that they are going to Land's End. Only a licensed local operator can offer that service. I cannot believe that an amendment could not be produced to prevent what is defined as an express service from applying to people who arrive back from where they started. I am sure that is not what the Minister intended as an express service. It is not my understanding of an express service.
I support the clause, but it is crazy that this one valuable part of the travel industry in Cornwall looks like being smashed for a general principle which I cannot believe was intended by the Minister. The repercussions on public transport in Cornwall will be substantial. I would vote to make the journey longer. Cornwall is not a wide county. If the distance could be increased to 50 miles, that would extend into Devon. No one in his right mind on holiday in Cornwall would go to Devon. That would perhaps 1291 largely solve the problem. The further the distance can be stretched, the fewer routes will be available for coaches coming into the area.
As a percentage of the total British travel industry this must represent 0.1 per cent. In the peculiar financial structure of Cornwall, it seems that the only people who do not make money out of holiday visitors are those living locally. There seems a danger that the clause will unwittingly have the effect I have outlined on the one lucrative travel industry that exists.
§ Mr. BendallI rise because my amendments are linked with this group. My concern, like that of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), is specific. I am concerned about the area between Heathrow and Gatwick airports, operated, to a large extent, by the London black cab service. If express operators are able to carry on business between those airports, it will affect the trade of the black cabs.
When almost a year ago the Government granted an increase in tariffs for taxis, they saw fit to reduce the double tariff that operated out of Heathrow airport to a tariff and a half. That obviously affected those taxi drivers operating out of Heathrow airport. If they are to be further restricted by express carriages operating between Heathrow and Gatwick, their livelihood and income are liable to be affected.
Another problem at Heathrow will have a serious effect. There has been a High Court decision which was taken to appeal with regard to the operating of minicabs out of Heathrow airport. Lord Denning made clear, on appeal, that there were abuses at London airport by minicabs and he suspenthd a certain number of people found not to be operating within the law.
All these things will add up, and now we have the additional problem of people running express carriages between the two airports. This could affect the livelihood of taxi drivers. I cannot see why this clause could not be tidied up in order to exclude the airports. If that were done it would resolve the problem.
§ Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye)I rise only to oppose the idea that we should make 1292 the distance even longer than it is. If one must travel 30 miles by road in a rural area one finds that that involves an enormous amount of travelling. If the 30-mile limit is extended even further it means that many of the services that we in Suffolk hope will arise from the implementation of the Act will not be possible.
If the distance is increased to 40 miles the situation is even worse. The House contains a large number of hon. Members representing metropolitan areas. Therefore, we who represent rural areas must place on record the fact that in those areas we have long winding roads. To extend the 30-mile limit to 35 miles would have an entirely deleterious effect.
§ Mr. PrescottWhether we represent urban or rural areas, the fact remains that Labour Members have placed a great deal of emphasis on the rural argument. We believe that this measure will make the situation much worse in rural areas.
§ Mr. GummerAlthough these arguments are put by the Opposition simply because they are in opposition, some of us live in rural areas and we put the arguments because the problem affects us.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeWe are concerned with those features of the bus system that we intend to take out of road service licensing altogether, wherever they may be in the country. I shall deal with the individual local points in the course of my speech.
Basically it is the Government's position that there are two categories of service for which there is no need to have road service licensing. One is the long-distance excursion and tour—that which does a circular journey returning to the place where it started. The second is the long-distance express service, which takes each passenger a distance of at least 30 miles from his starting point. Basically the policy of this part of the Bill is to take out of quantity licensing and road service licensing the long-distance excursion tours and the express services, because we see no worthwhile public interest in keeping those within the traffic commissioners' set-up.
I shall deal with the English aspect of excursions and tours and come to the 1293 Cornish case later. Generally, our argument is to save bureaucracy and needless objections by competitors when there is no particular interest in having licensing arrangements for them.
I turn to the question of inter-city express services and others which make long-distance journeys through urban and rural areas, taking people for considerable distances before setting them down. We want to encourage the growth of that type of service. We believe that the best and cheapest way of travelling by public transport in this country between major centres of population is by express bus services. We are encouraged by all the signs, at the moment, that people are contemplating extending their services in this field. We welcome the opportunity that will be given by the Bill for people to provide good express services between cities. If something equivalent to the United States' Greyhound network can be established in this country, it will provide a valuable addition to our passenger transport, particularly for low-cost travel for students and others who want to cut back on fares. We shall resist any attempt to eliminate them.
What sort of distance should one choose above which the services will be taken out of road service licensing? The choice of any distance involves judgment. People make an application for their particular area. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) mentioned Suffolk and the rural areas that he represents. Given the huge geography of East Anglia, he is in favour of the retention of 30 miles. My hon. Friend the member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) mentioned a service that runs between Heathrow and Gatwick. I am anxious to do everything possible for the taxi trade. I attempted to meet a representation yesterday. However, many air travellers look forward to the provision of an express coach service to Heathrow and Gatwick.
We tried to hit on the right distance to fit Britain generally. We began with 25 miles. However, many representations were made to the effect that 25 miles was not long enough. Most of them came not from the public but from bus and coach operators. They felt that public interest demanded that they should have protection for another five miles. Some good general points were made about the 1294 damaging effects that that limit would have on stage carriage and on areas that need protection. In response to consultation, we therefore move to a 30-mile limit.
If one accepted the various figures suggested in these amendments, long-distance and important express passenger services would be brought back into the licensing network. It is contrary to our policy to bring such services back into licensing. Operators have responded to our suggestions. I advise the House that we do not wish to go beyond that 30-mile limit.
I appreciate the particular problems of Cornwall. To a certain extent those problems arise as a result of its peculiar shape. In particular, the area depends heavily on summer tourist traffic. The amount is probably out of proportion to that found in any other part of the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) and for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) made arrangements for me to attend a meeting at a hotel in Liskeard. A large number of bus and coach operators attended that meeting. Some of them may have been constituents of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). Not all those who attended would have come from Bodmin.
Those operators pressed exactly the same point at considerable length. I appreciate that they are heavily dependent on summer traffic. They use coaches in the summer that fulfil school contracts during the winter. They fear that coaches from far away will suddenly bring passengers from Manchester and will spend a week in Cornwall making tours of over 30 miles up and down the peninsula.
If we were to meet that problem we should undermine our policy and its effect on the rest of Britain. I examined some of the propositions. I tried to argue with those that I met and to persuade them that the damage would not be as great as they had initially feared. I found no example of anyone supporting a village stage carriage service.
The vehicles used during summer peak periods to run excursions and tours do not, by definition, provide stopping services to villages. They are at a considerable advantage to coach operators from 1295 outside. Indeed, local operators might consider such operators as coming from abroad. Their garages and maintenance facilities are on the spot. Their drivers know the geography of the area and have better knowledge of the market. Local operators have a head start on outside competitors.
If a firm in Manchester, Birmingham or Warrington wished to move in on a large scale, it would have to set up a branch operation in the summer, miles away from its base. It would have to try to get in on the Cornish trade.
Many people were not reassured. Many believe that they will face serious problems, but there are others who accept that they will have to do what they can to respond. In practice it may not be as bad as they fear.
9.30 pm
I am glad to say that in Cornwall I found a number of operators—not always popular with their colleagues at the meeting—who said that they were looking forward to the Bill and had been waiting for it for years. They were the people who had fewer road service licences under the present arrangements and were being prevented from having more by the other operators at that meeting. No one wishes to undermine or destroy the Cornish bus and coach service, or those provided in similar districts. There are some coach and bus services on the West Coast of Scotland and in some of the tourist resorts along the coast.
Having listened to those operators and considered whether we could revise the 30-mile limit, my right hon. Friend and I came to the conclusion that the dangers were not so great as feared and do not justify transforming the system for the whole of the United Kingdom. If we went beyond a 30-mile limit we would undermine the policy in the Bill. We believe that it is right, for the reasons that I put forward at the beginning, that we should take these long-distance excursions and tours and the express services out of the licensing system altogether. It is a needless restraint on the development of new services.
§ Amendment negatived.