Minibus Service (London) (Hansard, 12 April 1983)

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)
I shall discuss the proposal by Associated Minibus Operators Ltd. known as AMOS, to introduce a service of 500 private minibuses on four routes across central London. It has applied to London Transport for permission to go ahead. London Transport has held a public inquiry and is considering the submissions that have been made.
If, as I hope, London Transport turns down the application, the application will be subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State. I understand that, because of that, the Minister may have to crib and confine what he says because of the quasi-judicial position of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, this proposal should be debated in the House.
The average London traveller in the rush hour might be forgiven for wondering what 500 minibuses would do to improve the transport or ordinary people across central London, with another 500 vehicles stopping and starting, taking up and setting down, collecting fares, stopping not at designated stops but anywhere they wish, making u-turns and stopping on junctions. Yet that is what is proposed. The general idea is that AMOS will buy minibuses, lease them on a franchise and allegedly control and discipline the franchise drivers. However, if we compare it with the black cab system, we must recognise that there will not be vigorous control. With the black cab system there is rigorous testing and monitoring, and it is possible for a cab driver to lose his licence for bad driving, overcharging, not maintaining his vehicle in good condition or parking it in the wrong place. That rigorous control has been built up over the years to the benefit of the travelling public in London and to the benefit of most taxi drivers, because it makes their system respectable and secure.
Nothing like that is proposed for the AMOS system. It proposes only two inspectors for each of the four routes—that is, eight inspectors for 500 minibuses—which presents the prospect of exceedingly slack and sloppy supervision of services. That characterises the rest of the application submitted to London Transport.
I can do no better than quote the summary of the representations made by the Metropolitan Police about this application, which stated: The AMOS scheme … is unsatisfactory as it stands and should be opposed on the grounds that: (i) route details supplied are vague and inaccurate: (ii) proposals for turning at route ends and stopping on demand are impractical and in the latter instance would be a source of congestion and possible danger: (iii) little or no consideration appears to have been given to the question of operator licensing, supervision of drivers' hours and records, overnight garaging, the maintenance of vehicles and lost property. That is a reasonable description of this sloppy application.
Why has the idea been pushed? We are told that such a system works in Hong Kong, so apparently the Government's transport motto is that where Hong Kong goes today, London will go tomorrow. That idea does not appeal to me, but it seems to be the current motto. However, Hong Kong has had considerable problems because of traffic congestion and what might be described as the misbehaviour of the minibus drivers, who have obstructed the passage of other traffic and made life 780 extremely difficult for all the drivers in the area. They have also made it extremely difficult for the Hong Kong police to supervise them. A report by the Hong Kong Government on this allegedly admirable scheme states that drivers are congregating in unacceptable numbers at the kerbside and stopping in the middle of road junctions … in an often selfish and aggressive endeavour to pick up passengers. Law enforcement to stop these practices has proved extremely onerous for the police. As (minibuses) are mainly operated by individual owners and drivers it is difficult to regulate their method of operation. It is proposed that a scheme like that should be introduced in London at a time when the Metropolitan Police are spending more than £30 million a year on their traffic functions and when the newly appointed Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has rightly said that what he wants to do is to concentrate the attention of his hard-pressed police force on battening down on crime. The last thing he wants, I am sure, is to have to spend more money and time on traffic problems created by this minibus scheme.
Would British drivers be any different? I do not think there is any reason to suppose that they would.
A British Government report on the operation of similar minibuses in Kuala Lumpur stated that they operate with almost complete disregard for the provisions of their franchise"— with illegal overcharging and overcrowding amongst other things.
In addition, it is stated: For the first year the system operated more or less as intended, but it then began to change, with drivers turning short, or alternatively asking passengers for an extra fare to complete their journey. When the government tried to enforce traffic regulations the minibus operations went on strike. What is just as important for the passengers and police of London is that in the case of Hong Kong the minibus operation was rife with corruption. The Commission of Enquiry chaired by Sir Alastair Blair-Kerr in September 1973 heard major allegations of corruption in the transport department, amongst others, of Hong Kong. It also received evidence of police corruption in their relations with minibus operators and owners. It is quite clear that when the minibuses were introduced into Hong Kong in 1968 the Hong Kong public service was absolutely rife with corruption. That was common place. It did not just apply to the transport department.
I must be careful in what I say, because the transport commissioner in Hong Kong at the time minibuses were introduced was Mr. Anthony Shepherd, the man who is the main proponent of the AMOS minibus scheme for London. When describing the introduction of this scheme in her book "Crusade for Justice", Elsie Elliott, a member of the Hong Kong urban council, says that she proposed the licensing of minibuses in 1968 but her proposal was met with derision by the Commissioner of Transport. 'Legalise those things?' he laughed. 'Never.' Three months later, after a trip to Japan, the same Commissioner announced that he had decided to legalise the minibuses, not for a limited period, but as a permanent form of transport. It soon became clear that the minibuses would have to be of a standard size, supplied by one Japanese firm. Thus, minibuses became a permanent form of transport in Hong Kong". In November 1973 the Far Eastern Economic Review ran an article on Hong Kong corruption featuring the dubious career of Cheung Sam, who is the Cantonese equivalent of John Doe, which exemplified what had occurred. This lengthy article included the following reference to the minibuses operation. 781 Matters improved in 1968 when, through his police contacts, Cheung heard that nine-seat minibuses were to be legalised in congested Hong Kong. It cost him a good deal of money (since he was not dealing with junior civil servants) to find out from the Transport Department the precise specifications of the vehicles and thus grab a piece of the market by ordering the minibuses from Japan. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Blair-Kerr report nor the two documents from which I have quoted have been challenged. It would appear, therefore, that there was corruption in the Hong Kong transport department at the time Mr. Shepherd was commissioner. There is no evidence to suggest that he either recognised the corruption or acted to sort it out. I have no wish to make unwarranted aspersions about Mr. Shepherd, but I believe that the information I put before the House obliges the Secretary of State to investigate the suitability of Mr. Shepherd to run a minibus service in London. I hope that such an investigaton would clear up any doubts that have been raised by the public documents which I have quoted, and that the AMOS proposals can be decided on their transport merits. However, nothing less than a thorough investigation will discharge the Secretary of State's obligation to ensure that the highest standards of conduct in public life are maintained in this matter, as in others.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre)
The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) for giving us an opportunity to discuss these proposals. While, for reasons that I shall come to in a moment, I cannot comment on the merits of the AMOS case—and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding comment—I should like to describe the legislative background. I hope that the House will find this useful.
The provision of stage carriage bus services in London is mainly governed by the Transport (London) Act 1969 and the Transport Act 1980. Under section 23 of the 1969 Act, no person other than London Transport, or a subsidiary of London Transport, can run a London bus service except with the agreement of London Transport. This agreement is given in the form of what is normally known as a London bus agreement. Under the 1969 Act, London Transport's decision on an application for an agreement was final; there was no provision for an appeal.
Section 35 of the Transport Act 1980 amended the 1969 Act provisions to allow an applicant for a London bus agreement to appeal to the Secretary of State. The applicant can appeal against a refusal by London Transport to enter into an agreement or a failure by London Transport to enter into an agreement within a reasonable period of time. The provisions in the 1980 Act specify which organisations have to be informed of an appeal. They are the GLC, the police and the boroughs through which the proposed service would operate. In determining the appeal the Secretary of State must take into account representations made by the GLC. He must take into account representations on relevant road traffic matters made by the police or the relevant boroughs. The provisions allow the Secretary of State, should he think it appropriate, to make an order requiring London Transport to enter into a London bus agreement with the appellant. The Act also allows appeals on points of law to the High Court against the Secretary of State's decision.
I understand that AMOS applied to London Transport in October of last year for a London bus agreement 782 covering four routes crossing London. The service would be operated between 7 am and midnight and would use 400 16-seat minibuses.
London Transport decided—and I use the words of its chairman— in order that all the pros and cons of this radical idea are brought into the open and fully debated that the application would be considered at a special public hearing under an independent inspector appointed by London Transport. The hearing lasted from 1 March to 11 March. Evidence was heard from AMOS, British Rail., the GLC, the taxi trade, the Metropolitan police, transport unions, some London borough councils and the London Transport Passengers Committee. London Transport submitted written evidence. Smaller groups and individuals representing only themselves also participated. London Transport clearly gave all interested parties a good opportunity to express their views and to cross-examine those with opposing views.
The inspector is now preparing his report. When he has presented it to London Transport, it will consider it and then reach a decision on the application. If London Transport agrees to the application, it will enter into a London bus agreement with AMOS, which will then be free to set up and operate its proposed services. If London Transport rejects the application, then, as I indicated earlier, AMOS has the opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State against that decision. The Secretary of State will then consider the matter. His normal practice is to arrange for an inquiry, which anyone can attend, to be held under an independent inspector. If he decides to uphold the appeal, he will make an order requiring London Transport to enter into a London bus agreement with the appellant. If he rejects the appeal, that is the end of the matter.
I cannot forecast what London Transport's decision will be, but it is possible that it will rule against AMOS, which will then be entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State. I do not therefore wish to comment on the merits of the AMOS proposals; any such remarks could inevitably be regarded as prejudicing the Secretary of State's possible appellate role in respect of the proposals.
I should add that an operator contemplating the provision of any public bus or minibus service would need to hold a public service vehicle operator's licence. As the hon. Gentleman may know, these licences are issued by the traffic commissioners and the operator has to satisfy the basic requirements of professional competence, financial standing, good repute, maintenance arrangements for vehicles, and so on.
I am sorry that I cannot say more on this subject at this stage, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that what I have said is helpful in the circumstances.

§ Mr. Dobson
Will the Minister confirm that in the event of the AMOS application being turned down by London Transport and an appeal being made to the Secretary of State, it would be wholly proper for the Secretary of State to look into the bona fides of the applicant and at what it may or may not have done in the past?

§ Mr. Eyre
I have explained the normal procedure that would apply in a matter of this kind, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my words carefully tomorrow. I also referred to the public service vehicle operator's licence. Those considerations apply in all cases of this 783 kind. If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully what I have said, I think he will find that I have answered his question in what I said about the normal procedure that would apply in such cases.
784 Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o' clock.