HC Deb 25 June 1984 vol 62 cc719-20

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 25, line 27, after "Act" insert , and the general structure of routes of those services

Mr. Ridley

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment will ensure that local authorities and the passengers committee will be informed annually of LRT's plans as to the general structure of routes on services provided by LRT, by any of its subsidiaries or by anybody who contracts to operate a service under clause 3(2).

As we discussed in Committee, LRT is required under clause 30 to provide information on its plans about the general level and structure of fares and the general level of services. This is an additional requirement that it should consult about the general structure of routes as well. I hope that the House will agree that the addition is desirable.

Mr. Prescott

Clearly the House will agree on that point. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we spent some time discussing the structure and routes. The amendment is a further improvement, in that information about the structure of routes will now be given by LRT to the local authorities involved. Clearly, LRT and any subsidiary which has a negotiated agreement under clause 3 to provide a service will have an obligation to give information about the structure of routes. What will be required of bus operators who agree with the traffic commissioners to provide a service in London? Those operators may not necessarily need the agreement of LRT before they provide a service in the area; they can seek the agreement of the traffic commissioners.

If, for instance, Associated Minibus Operators is allowed to develop such a service, will it be obliged to give this information to the local authority if its agreement is not with LRT but with the traffic commissioners?

Mr. Ridley

No. It will not be required to give the information. However, in granting a licence, the traffic commissioners might well impose a series of conditions, which might include conditions that the traffic commissioners had seen fit to base on evidence given to them by LRT. In the event of an application for a competitive service, I have no doubt that the traffic commissioners would listen to objections, that there would be objections from LRT, and that the traffic commissioners could then append conditions to the grant of a licence, which might well be very limiting, just as having to fulfil the requirements on services operated by LRT would be limiting.

Mr. Prescott

The private services which may enter the market may be openly encouraged by LRT itself. Is this not an unfair situation? Should not the traffic commissioners be told that those applying for licences should have to supply information to the local authorities about structures of services? Why should LRT be obliged to do so while those providing similar services are not?

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Gentleman is a passionate believer in a co-ordinated, integrated, state-owned and monolithic transport service for London, in which everything is planned and everyone concerned is consulted. Roughly speaking, that is what he is going to get, but there is also the possibility of the private sector operating on a very different basis—providing the services that the customers want, and providing them cheaply and competitively. Very often, the customers are the only people who are not consulted.

Question put and agreed to.

Forward to