PROPOSALS TO DISCONTINUE NON-FRANCHISED ETC. PASSENGER SERVICES (Hansard, 25 May 1993)

§ Mrs. Ewing
I beg to move amendment No. 232, in page 36, line 39, leave out 'three'and insert 'six'.
I assure hon. Members that in speaking to the amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and myself, I do not intend to detain the House nor to press the amendment to a Division.
Clause 32 defines Proposals to discontinue non-franchised … passenger services 848 and gives a clear signal that the service operator shall give notice of the proposal of a closure to the Franchising Director not less than three months before the date specified". The amendment is not ideological; it relates to the practicalities of life, so I hope that the Government will be able to exercise some flexibility in responding to me. Three months may seem a substantial time in terms of giving notice and allowing a consultation period. However, decisions often coincide with holiday periods. In Scotland, for example, an announcement may be made in June; July and August tend to be our holiday period so it is difficult for organisations to get together to discuss the decision and to reach any formalised conclusion. The same would happen if an announcement were made in November because December and January are months when people may not be on holiday but when they are very much involved with their families over Christmas, new year and Burns night.
I seek an element of flexibility. The three-month period should not be adhered to rigidly. I hope that the Government will give special consideration to a demand clearly expressed by the local community that the three-month period should be extended.

§ The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was kind enough to say that she did not intend to press the amendment. I understand the importance of the issue she has raised. Amendment No. 232 would require operators of the non-franchised passenger services to give, as she said, six months'notice rather than three months'notice. It is the franchising director who is under a duty to secure the continued provision of the service until the regulator decides on the merits of the closure proposal.
There are two issues here. The first is whether three months or six months is the appropriate period in which to give notice to the franchising director so that he can consider whether he should secure a replacement service. Our view has been that three months is an adequate time for that process to take place because it is not subject to the holiday considerations that the hon. Member for Moray mentioned.
If we were to rely only on the three months—if that were the sole determinant of the time available between notice of closure and closure being effected—the hon. Lady would have a perfectly fair point when she says that the time is inadequate. I emphasise that the point at issue is that the required period of notice being three months or six months has no bearing on whether a service continues to be available to passengers. The operator may not discontinue the service until the expiry of the notice period. From that expiry, the franchising director is under a duty to secure the continued provision of the service until the regulator has come to a decision on the closure proposal.
If we extended the amount of notice that the franchising director has from the operator, it would merely eat into the time that the regulator took to consider the closure proposal. How reasonable it was to make the period three, four, five, six or more months would be a matter of commercial judgment. It is fair to say that to keep the figure of three months is not to erect an unreasonable barrier to entry into franchised services. However, I reassure the hon. Lady that the important point is that the period of three months is not a truncated period after which the regulator will give his decision. He will take 849 whatever time he needs. The franchising director is under an obligation to procure the continuance of the service if the operator, having given notice, then terminates the service. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

§ Mrs. Ewing
As the Minister has said that the three-month limit will not be applied rigidly, especially as it relates to the regulator, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.