MINIBUS BILL (Hansard, 7 July 1977)

§ Baroness YOUNG
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Lord DE CLIFFORD
My Lords, while welcoming the Bill, I should like, if I may, to say a few words before it is read a third time. I had intended to put down certain Amendments at Committee stage, but I did not feel that it was worth wasting your Lordships' time to put them down when it is quite apparent that this Bill is already partially in operation. I gathered this from the White Paper on transport policy, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, commended to us the other day, and which I read. But I should like to make one or two points on what I regard as weaknesses in the Bill, and to express the hope that in operating it the Minister will help various people.
I think that this Bill will not help the people it is required to assist. It certainly will not help pensioners in rural districts. I do not believe that it is appreciated that 462 it takes quite a collection of people to be able to buy a minibus, as I understand that each one costs nearly £3,000. That rather rules out any collection of pensioners in a small village who would like to apply for a permit. It therefore puts back on to the welfare societies and the churches, who are the only people able to provide the funds, the obligation to assist pensioners in rural districts under this Minibus Bill, if they can see their way to do that from within their own organisations. I trust that, when the positions becomes more widely known, some encouragement will be given to the various societies for this to be done.
Furthermore, when the Minister is issuing permits and giving directions or guidance to the Traffic Commissioners, will he please tell them not to base their thoughts on whether there will be wide interference with some bus service, or other public transport? Will he please ask them to look at this matter from an angle from which they do not normally look, which is the benefit of the community? I suggest that it would be very nice if somebody could very politely spell out to the Traffic Commissioners the meaning of "the benefit of the community", so that they can take it from there. With those words, I welcome this Bill. I hope that it does all that it is supposed to do, and I wish it well on behalf of everybody.

§ Baroness YOUNG
My Lords, the answer to my noble friend Lord de Clifford, who has raised three points, is as follows. The Minibus Bill was never intended to be a substitute for public transport in rural areas. I wish that it could be, but it cannot be. Therefore, I regret to tell him that, had he decided to put down Amendments on that point, I should have had to resist them. As I hope I explained at Second Reading, the Bill can be of enormous benefit to voluntary organisations (which are defined in the Bill), religious organisations and others. If there is an old age pensioners' club that has a minibus, the difference that the Bill will make is that that club can use the minibus and make a charge to cover costs, without needing to have a driver with a public service vehicle licence, and without coming under the Road Traffic Acts. This will be of great 463 help to them, and it will make it possible for them to continue using a minibus without breaking the law. In that way, it will help pensioners. It cannot possibly provide a bus service for elderly people in country districts. Much as one would like it, I regret to say that that is outside the terms of the Bill and, therefore, could not possibly be included.
That brings me to my noble friend's third point, which was the definition of "the benefit of the community". This has been put in, along with the groups to which the Bill applies that have been identified in Clause 1, to indicate voluntary organisations not covered by the other definitions. It could, for instance, be a group that was interested in conservation and which took out a minibus to look at some archaeological site or something like that.
I think that the Traffic Commissioners, in issuing their permits, will have to bear in mind the purposes of the Bill. I have no reason for supposing that they will not interpret them correctly, because the Bill is one which has all-Party support. I am sure that, when the regulations are drawn and a circular is issued on the interpretation of the Bill, the Commissioners will be left in no doubt as to the groups of people to whom the Bill ought to apply. Therefore, the Commissioners will be perfectly willing to give the permits, provided, of course, that a vehicle is a safe one, the driver is suitably qualified and the organisation falls within the definitions in Clause 1. I hope that that answers the questions that have been raised.

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, I do not intend to intervene on the merits or demerits of this Bill. We have now before us the Third Reading of a Bill and what I want to ask is this: why is it that in another place—not that we should always follow the procedure of another place—when a Bill reaches the Third Reading, after having gone through First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage, it is finalised? That is the end of the story. No Amendments can be moved and no speeches can be made. Why should we waste time having to listen to speeches which have been heard over and over again during the various stages of a Bill? Could we 464 not save some time by accepting the Third Reading and passing of a Bill as the final stage?

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)
My Lords, my noble friend was looking in my direction, but I fear that it does not fall to me to answer the question, because of the strange alchemy of your Lordships' House.

§ Baroness YOUNG
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is that it is possible in this House to move Amendments on Third Reading. As my noble friend said, he did not put down Amendments at Committee stage, and he therefore wished to raise some points which I hope I have answered.

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, if I may pursue the matter for a moment, it seems to me to be all wrong. Surely this could be referred to the Committee on Procedure. This happens over and over again. We come to Third Reading and Members of the House, who have probably taken no part in the Committee or Report stages, make speeches. I cannot see why that should be permitted.

§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)
My Lords, I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has long experience of the other House, that even there Third Reading is very useful for finalising attitudes. But if the noble Lord feels strongly about it, this matter could be referred to the Committee on Procedure to be looked at.