HL Deb 29 March 1977 vol 381 cc765-90

3.7 p.m.

Read 3a.

Clause 1 [Public service vehicle licensing: designation of experimental areas]:

The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 11, at end insert— ("(2A) Any local authority not designated an area, or part of an area, under subsection (2) above, may be so designated by resolution of the local authority.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 with Amendment No. 1, as they are all consequential on the first Amendment. When we had the Committee stage of this Bill several Amendments were moved and, after debate, were withdrawn. However, I feel that the Amendments I am moving this afternoon, which are not dissimilar to those which we discussed the other day, should be aired again. They relate to one fundamental idea, that it is wrong that central Government should have such a tight control over local government, particularly over local transport. This Amendment seeks to allow local authorities to opt into the scheme if they so wish.

I do not in any way wish to appear derogatory, but it seems that the Government's approach since 1974 has been somewhat unenthusiastic, perhaps lukewarm and even slow-moving to bring about a reform of our local transport system. I would be the first to agree that they have had many other things to cope with over the last three years, but what is the situation we have this afternoon? We have a Bill which is really only a stop-gap measure and which is really only an experiment. The reform of transport in rural areas may well seem way down the list of priorities. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, stated that when the Conservatives took office they would reform local transport. I do not doubt the noble Lord's sincerity or his intent—he is a very old friend of mine—but these reforms may not occur immediately, so for the moment we are back to where we started, to three years ago. We must also bear in mind that when the hand of the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, is at the helm one day, as it may be, they will find that they have many reefs and troubled waters to sail through; and I feel that, however sincere the noble Lord's thoughts and beliefs may be, once again local transport may find itself at the bottom of the list.

As I have said, it has taken this Government three years to produce this Bill, and I am afraid that it shows that their heart is not really in it. Therefore, I feel that all of us, wherever our political allegiance may lie, should think about this today and should try to improve the Bill with these modest Amendments. The Bill is not a meal in itself but, with a little sauce and seasoning, it could be made into an appetising starter. Should this Government or the next Government bring forward adequate legislation for local transport, well and good; but if they do not, for diverse reasons, this Bill will be, at least, a firm foundation stone on whch to build a more solid building. It is better that we make a start now and lay a foundation for reform by amending and improving this Bill than that we should wait for the hope that something may turn up in the future. If we amend this Bill this afternoon, we can afford to wait; but as it stands at the moment I do not think we can. I beg to move this Amendment which allows a local authority which has not been included in the scheme to participate in the scheme if it so wishes. It will allow the town hall to have the final say before Whitehall; in other words, elected representatives will have the choice and not the unelected civil servants. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, with interest. He has really reiterated what we have already said in Committee. I have already said in Committee most of what I feel about this. Since the Committee stage, I have had letters from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the Minister in charge of this Bill, and I have had letters from her Department dealing with this matter, for both of which I am grateful. I have the feeling that the Government are trying to improve the situation and, to that extent, as I have said before I support the Government in this measure. I said nasty things about it being a little mouse of a Bill nibbling at a mountain of cheese—not in those words; but they are the new version. It is improving the situation. The licensing system of this country is moribund. The traffic commissioners are trying to do their best, but they are bound by legislation which is outdated.

Given these facts, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and his Party have put down Amendments broadening to an extremely wide degree this experiment which the Government have set up. I have a lot of sympathy with his views, in particular the four designated areas; and having seen the excellent Press release from the noble Baroness's Department about these four experimental areas, I must confess that it is impressive. Nevertheless, I still see the noble Earl's point. Other counties and areas might want to do it, too.

I have talked to the noble Baroness and she has been kind enough to explain the problems. I have talked to various representatives and friends on the various county authorities. There is nothing sacred about a county boundary. Many services needed by communities do not necessarily coincide with Parliamentary, county or local electorate boundaries. To that extent, these county boundaries in the experiments are somewhat of a nuisance. Nevertheless, having talked to the noble Baroness, I must confess that I have been somewhat impressed by the willingness of her Department not to stick necessarily to complete particular boundaries. Given this willingness, and given the fact that this is an experiment, I am willing to accede to this.

The only worry I have still is in relation to certain counties in England. One thinks immediately of Oxfordshire and Northumberland—and especially the latter, about which my noble friend Lord Ridley has written to me. There you have the sixth largest county in the country with a small population, most of which is concentrated in a very small area. I therefore make Northumberland a very obvious target for such experiments as these. I know from people who attended the various meetings that it was considered, and outvoted on balance, that it should not be one of the four areas. In a democratic system, given there should be so many areas, one must accept this.

Nevertheless, there are counties like Northumberland which might well like to set up experimental areas. I understand that the Minister will tell us that the Government are willing for this to be done, provided that the cash flow part of it, too, is done by the county itself. It is the labour involvement, I understand, which is the expense in this experiment, working out the pros and cons of the various forms of helping the population that is to use a particular service,

So, while sympathising with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, having heard from the county councils concerned that although they would like to be able to carry out these functions, county councils in particular are apt to feel that if they are given a right it may become a duty. And if it is a duty which, of necessity in this case, would involve their own outspending on cash—at a time when the central Government, quite rightly, are telling them that they must cut down—I think that under the noble Earl's Amendments we may be giving them more than they want. On balance, I do not think we should press these Amendments of the noble Earl.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, I think, again on balance, that I find the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton convincing.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will do as the noble Earl did and speak to the group of Amendments in dealing mainly with Amendment No. 1. I felt in Committee that I had made some progress in clarifying the basic purposes of the Bill, but the noble Lord's Amendments which are, in the main, identical to the Amendments he put down in Committee, clearly indicate that I was perhaps too sanguine on that occasion.

As I thought the noble Earl had acknowledged in Committee—and as I certainly said several times—the Bill is not a blueprint for general changes in the licensing system. The Bill's purpose is rather to allow the value and effects of certain modifications to this system, mainly affecting private vehicles, to be carefully monitored and assessed under controlled conditions in specially selected areas. In this way, hard evidence (which is still far from plentiful in this field) can be accumulated as an aid in reviewing the terms of licensing law.

This Amendment is even less compatible with the limited, exploratory purpose of the Bill than the similar Amendment put down by the noble Earl in Committee. In that case, there was at least a 12-month period from the first designation of an area by the Secretary of State before a county council could designate its own area. In the present Amendment there is no such period; under it the strictly experimental modifications to licensing could be available over a very wide area before there had been any time at all for an assessment to be made of their value or their effects on existing public transport.

Moreover, this revised form of Amendment does not come to terms with the mechanics of Clause 1. The concept embodied in Clause 1 is that an experimental area would be the whole, or a part, of the area of a county council or the corresponding authority in Scotland. The Amendment is drawn up, however, on the assumption that the minimum area to be designated is a county, and that a designation order could go wider. This is not so.

In withdrawing the similar Amendment in Committee, the noble Earl commented (at column 511 of Hansard of 1st March) that …possibly more experimental areas could be included in the future". I would assure the noble Earl that this is still the case. As I said in Committee, we will be open to suggestions for additional experimental areas aimed at the purposes I have outlined. I would also reiterate that it is open to any local authority to set up transport experiments of its own within the present licensing system. The Amendment is almost certainly outside the Long Title of the Bill which refers only to "areas designated as experimental areas by the Secretary of State".

I fully appreciate that there are noble Lords who feel that the Government's step-by-step approach is too cautious: that what we should be considering now is a Bill for general amendment of the law, not a Bill for variations in limited areas for the purpose of experiment. That is a point of view I respect, and I appreciate the sense of urgency that lies behind it. But the present Bill is an experimental areas Bill, and whether we should have proceeded in this way or by wholesale change in the law, there is one course which I do not think can possibly be justified; that is, to leave it to county councils to decide individually what the law in their county should be on such matters as neighbours giving each other lifts for payment. One can imagine the chaos and public indignation if this were permitted in one county and not in the next, particularly for people living near the county boundary whose nearest market-town was over the Border.

The noble Earl may feel that that was not his intention and I have misread what he intended in his Amendment. He may feel that he had intended only to permit further carefully-controlled experiments as a result of local initiative. The Bill at present permits such further experiments, as I have already mentioned, but the noble Earl's Amendment could in practice leave us wide open to the kind of difficulties I have described.

Noble Lords will wish to know the views of the various interests concerned in these experiments. It so happened quite by accident that I chaired last week's meeting of the Steering Committee for the rural transport experiments. This brought together the county councils and other local authorities, the two sides of the industries, and various voluntary movements. We had some discussion on the noble Earl's Amendments, and it was clear that neither the county councils nor any of the other interests supported these amendments. In view of this reaction from those to whom these powers would be offered, and the other interests concerned, and in view of what I have said, I trust that the noble Earl will feel he can withdraw this Amendment.

The noble Earl's Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 would be consequential upon this Amendment being accepted. Turning to Amendment No. 6, it is clearly necessary, if the fullest possible advantage is to be taken of the experimental programme under the Bill, that the Secretary of State, acting on the advice of the local Working Groups and of the National Steering Committee, should retain complete control over the extent and duration of the experimental areas. The subsection in question in this Amendment constitutes one of the key provisions in that control. If it should emerge during an experiment under the Bill that the designated area could with advantage be altered to take in some locally significant feature like a hospital, or that the experiment, as originally formulated, cannot provide the kind of evidence desired or that it is unmistakably evincing some unwanted side effects, then the Secretary of State must have the power to take the necessary remedial action. When we come to this Amendment, I would ask your Lordships, if the noble Earl does not withdraw it, to reject it.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, in listening on this Amendment to the great eloquence of the noble Baroness, I have much more peace of mind with her statement that other areas could be used if they were asked for as experimental areas by local authorities. In view of what the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, have said, I hope that this airing in your Lordships' Chamber may well pave the way for a greater reform of local rural transport. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.27 p.m.

Lord TRANMIRE moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 15, leave out ("exceeding two") and insert ("less than two years and not exceeding five").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, moved an Amendment to make the designation period a minimum of five years. The Bill as drafted gives no minimum period but puts the maximum period at two years with power to extend for further periods of two years. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in replying to that debate said at column 515 of Hansard on 1st March: …I think the provision of an initial experimental period of two years which can be extended if necessary accords far better with the flavour and sort of operation we are conducting than the Amendment… I am following the advice of the noble Baroness She presumed, it appeared, that there was a minimum. There is no minimum. I am suggesting that there should be a minimum of two years. I attach importance to this because I am delighted that Her Majesty's Government have gone ahead with this measure in the way that they have. I want it to be a success. I do not believe that it can be a success unless there is some guarantee of a minimum or that the Government give some financial guarantee to all who are involved.

If I may illustrate this by referring to my own county of North Yorkshire—I was discussing the matter with them only yesterday—they are embarking on five experimental schemes: one, a flexible scheduled bus service where one rings up and diverts a bus if one has a telephone, which not everybody has; secondly, an extension of a feeder service provided by hired cars or taxis to existing scheduled services. Thirdly, a survey of the needs of the hospitals to see whether a hired car, a taxi or a private car service will serve the needs of visitors and patients. The other two schemes are shared car services.

As I understand the position, a guarantee will not matter for the "Phone-a-Bus". There is no risk there; it is merely a matter of whether it works, and that we shall have to see. On the feeder services, it will matter to a certain extent because a man will think, "If I am going to provide feeder services for the bus, it may be worth while getting another hire car or taxi for a period to make it work." But particularly with the shared car service, it is very important that there should either be a guarantee of a minimum of two years or that the Government say: "If you buy a minibus or get rid of your second car in order to make this scheme work, we will stand by you if we curtail it before the two years are finished." That is why I attach great importance to the minimum and rather less importance, I admit, to the maximum of five years. I rather fear that unless you have something like that there could be a failure of these experiments because people will not have sufficient inducement to co-operate.

In the rural areas from which I come there is great difficulty regarding the shared car service. A great many inhibitions have to be broken down, and therefore it is very important that the experiment should last for two years. If we were to say: "We will have two years, and you can make arrangements in your village to take people to the market town, with payment for the petrol and a little margin on top", then I think this will work. If we do not have two years, I do not think it will succeed and therefore it will not represent a fair experiment.

The whole purpose of this Bill is to see that there is a fair experiment. People must have sufficient assurance to induce them to go in for these shared car service schemes or to enable them to purchase the hire car or the taxi to provide the services. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will look at this with some degree of sympathy, because we want the scheme to work. If she says that the Government will guarantee that no local authority will lose a penny on it or that no private persons will lose a penny if they go in for these schemes, then my Amendment may be unnecessary. But I cannot see that that is consistent with the present economic situation. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I should like briefly to endorse everything that my noble friend has said on this question. It will be appreciated, I think, that I have changed my viewpoint and have come round to trying to help the Government on this Bill in the hope that by this means we can put it on a sounder footing by designating a two-year to five-year period. That will give more security to all concerned. Because of the longer period which is allotted, they will know more clearly where they stand. I hope that on consideration the noble Baroness will be able to accept this good advice from my noble friend.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, wants this scheme to be a success, and I am grateful for the welcome he has given to it and also for the support for the five schemes which, as is now public knowledge, are to operate in his part of Yorkshire. However, we still maintain that the Amendment is both unnecessary and potentially damaging to the whole object of the Bill. In so far as it seeks to permit experiments to last for up to five years, as I pointed out in Committee, the Secretary of State has power under Clause 1(4) of the Bill to extend by order the period for which any designation is in force. The extension period may not itself be more than two years but there is provision for further two-year extensions. In so far as it introduces both a minimum period and a maximum, it puts a completely different slant on timing, making the whole process into something of larger terms—a thought which is unlikely to appeal to a number of noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill in the earlier stages.

There is adequate provision already in the Bill to cope with any experiment where firm conclusions cannot be drawn within two years—or, more likely, where it is considered desirable to test whether new arrangements will survive after support under the experimental programme has been withdrawn, and initial local interest may have passed. Careful and detailed monitoring of the experiments now being designed by Working Groups and the national Steering Committee will ensure not only that positive results will be obtained as quickly as possible, but that any experiments which need an extended period can be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State well before the initial order is due to lapse. To provide for a minimum period would risk creating a more leisurely atmosphere altogether.

The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, expressed concern in Committee about those operating the experiments suffering financial loss when they end. As I explained on that occasion, most of the vehicles coming within the scope of the Bill will be private ones. I think there is still considerable misunderstanding of what the Bill is all about. The only commercial vehicles involved will be taxis and hire cars; if they are included in the experiments they will in all probability be operating already in the experimental area. These experiments would therefore clearly need little, if any, capital outlay to get started. If additional vehicles should be necessary, however, we would be prepared to help with their purchase. There should be no question of anyone losing their livelihood—or suffering a large financial loss, as envisaged by the noble Lord—when the experiments come to an end.

I must stress yet again that the purpose of the experiments is to provide detailed evidence of the value and effect of the licensing modifications contained in the Bill, which can then be used in considering whether there should be general changes in the licensing law. We still contend that the Amendment is therefore both unnecessary and makes the Bill less workable than I am sure the noble Lord would wish; and I urge your Lordships to reject it.

Lord TRANMIRE

My Lords, in view of the assurance of the noble Baroness that, if necessary, the Government will supply the money for the purchase of the hire car, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Powers of local authorities in relation to experimental areas]:

3.39 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 inclusive with Amendment No. 7, and also Nos. 17 and 18, which are consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I have already explained my approach to this Bill in speaking to previous Amendments, but I feel it is worth pursuing my thoughts. It is with that in view that I beg to move the Amendments. Amendment No. 7 in particular seeks to delete some of the powers of the Secretary of State to revoke or over-ride decisions of the elected local authority. It seeks to realise the intention of the clause in the Local Government Act 1972, which states quite plainly that it is the duty of a local authority to deal with local transport.

This Bill would make it difficult for a local authority to do its duty, as defined. On numerous occasions there is reference to the Secretary of State's power to revoke, vary or grant. I would ask: where is that responsibility and duty which is referred to? I agree that local authorities are volunteers as regards this scheme and there are several who would like to participate. But let us for one moment look at the conditions that are laid down for joining the club, and take the example of South Yorkshire, which is rightly included in this scheme.

South Yorkshire has stood up to the directives of central Government, telling it to increase public transport fares. This example of a local authority ignoring central Government and going its own way is not to be lightly dismissed. Here the duty to which I referred earlier has been firmly taken up by the local authority, and as a result central Government have decided to slash their transport support grant from £4 million to £241,000. In the face of this Whitehall aggression, South Yorkshire has bravely decided to put 2p on the rates rather than increase fares, which will mean that a South Yorkshire bus ticket for a journey of three miles will cost 8p, as opposed to 15p in Newcastle, 16p in Manchester and an astronomical 23p in Glasgow, for the same journey.

The local authority has done what it thought to be correct for its local transport, and for doing that has had the majority of its subsidy cut by the Government. I understand that the Secretary of State is thinking of having more central Governmental teeth for snapping at disobedient local authorities, and it looks as if South Yorkshire will feel those teeth first. I am a little worried as to exactly what further teeth could be added. In matters such as this, central Government today seem already to have fairly large fangs. I have quoted that as an example, because it is what may well happen in the case of other local authorities.

We in this country have one of the most rigorously controlled—if not the most rigorously controlled—public transport systems in Europe, and I have ascertained some information about one or two other European countries. In Germany, local transport is in the hands neither of federal government nor of individual State governments, but is run by local government; in France, it is the responsibility of local government; in Italy, it is the responsibility of local government; in Denmark, it is the responsibility of local government, and likewise in the Netherlands. In fact, we have one of the most centralised local transport systems in the EEC, which therefore makes it more inflexible from area to area.

I ask: why are we the odd man out? Why do we very often fall behind our European colleagues in developing new ideas and in tackling reforms? I hazard the guess, which may be wrong, that it is because for some extraordinary reason central Government, who demand a finger in every pie, have a feeling of insecurity. So I appeal to the Government to let local authorities have their heads, and do away with the Whitehall rubber stamp of Damocles which is hanging over them. As regards financial responsibility, if central Government allocate money to local government through the rate support grant, and the additional grant systems, why cannot local government be allowed to spend as it sees fit? If it overspends, then it has to foot the bill and the electorate will ask why through the ballot box. If it underspends, then more power to its elbow.

I am a passionate believer in democracy, which is the tradition in this country. In the best tradition of that democracy, I commend this Amendment to your Lordships and to the Government in the hope that your Lordships will agree with me that central Government have too strong a grip on rural transport at the moment, and that this Bill could be considerably improved by this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, in rising to speak to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I feel rather like Humpty-Dumpty. I do not know whether I am standing on my head or my small end. First, I understood him to say that South Yorkshire is part of these experimental schemes, but in no way at all is it part of them. South Yorkshire has nothing to do with them and, on my understanding of rural transport, I would not think it likely to be a candidate. It is a very heavily industralised area, and is not the kind of rural area which is likely to commend itself to your Lordships for this purpose.

Having established that the noble Earl, speaking for the Liberal Party, was on a non sequitur, or a non-starter in this case, I should also like to dissociate myself immediately from what he said at the beginning of his speech, which was the kind of gospel which would be much more akin to the views of the Minister or her Party, than to my own views. We on these Benches have been trying to stop unthought-about subsidies without end, on both the transport front and the housing front. We have been saying for very many years that when people can pay they should pay, and we believe that help is better given in capital projects and things of that kind.

I cannot go along with what the noble Earl said about the South Yorkshire Council. I think that it has been criminally negligent in disregarding the Government's advice, economists' advice and the advice of most people in Yorkshire. It has caused itself a great deal of trouble and, to my mind, emptied its pockets unnecessarily. It has less money to spend on worthwhile projects. I said this only the other night when we were discussing the South Yorkshire Navigation, and I still believe that South Yorkshire was ill-advised. But we are not discussing South Yorkshire now, so let us leave that subject. I just wanted to establish the fact that I do not support the noble Earl's contention that open-ended subsidies towards the cost of bus tickets are a good thing. I think that when passengers can pay, they should pay. If necessary, there should be a subsidy towards capital development. But I repeat that South Yorkshire is not a genuinely rural area, such as I envisage.

Getting back to what I understood subsection (7) to be about, I should like to return to the question of Oxfordshire and Northumberland. Having made my original comments on the noble Earl's first set of Amendments, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to say anything about the conditions under which Oxfordshire and Northumberland will be able to participate in these experiments. What conditions will they have to fulfil, what costs will have to be met and what research will have to be done? I accept the general principle of what the noble Earl is trying to accomplish, but I should like to know what counties such as Oxfordshire and Northumberland will have to do. Finally, I felt that I must make my position clear as regards the noble Earl's other comments.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I should first like to support the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, that South Yorkshire is not one of the counties likely to be considered as an experimental area. South Yorkshire is one of the metropolitan counties. It is very built-up, and does not have as desperate a need for rural transport as the North Yorkshire area where we have five extremely good schemes, which we hope will all be successful. As regards Oxfordshire, Northumberland and any other counties which might like to carry out experiments, I said earlier that there is nothing to prevent them from making any experiments that they want, within the existing traffic laws. My Department can offer them no money to help them to carry out these experiments. We have a limited budget with which to finance the four groups of experiments in the scheme which will be under the control of the local working parties and the National Steering Committee. Northumberland was one of the counties which was originally considered by the National Steering Committee, but it did not come democratically within the first four. I am not in a position to say whether or not Oxfordshire was also considered, but I know that Northumberland was and that for some reason it was turned down as being not quite such a good candidate for the schemes that they had in mind as the other four areas selected. The Department are quite happy to make available any technical advice that they can to any counties, but I must repeat that no money will be made available by the Government for any additional schemes which are outside those that are being sponsored under this experimental areas Bill.

When the noble Earl withdrew this same Amendment in Committee he acknowledged that it was an experimental, not a permanent scheme. The Bill has not changed one iota in the interim. This Amendment would still vitiate the purposes of the experiments which are being carried out under the Bill. As I said in Committee, this subsection is intended to ensure that experiments in designated areas involving the grant of authorisations are carried out in strictly controlled conditions. This will help us to attain the objective of collecting and assessing the maximum amount of evidence on the effect of the revised arrangements that can be made under the Bill. We are certainly not trying to dictate to the local authorities. Any experiments will be carried out in the fullest consultation with them. The local authority representatives sit on both the National Steering Committee and the Working Groups which are at present preparing the experiments.

I asked the representatives of the local authorities at the meeting of the National Steering Committee whether they had any views on extending the scheme to other counties. They agreed that there is not the wherewithal to extend the scheme further than we have gone at the moment and they were not prepared to push for any other counties to be included in these initial experimental areas. I would remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said in Committee. He said that the Secretary of State is, better positioned to co-ordinate and view the whole spectrum, which I think must be desirable. The Bill deals with experiments which are going to provide us with the evidence that will assist in considering whether general changes should be made to the licensing system. This is quintessentially a field for national, not local government, and I urge your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I do not want any Members of your Lordships' House to think that I am against the Bill. I am not. I can only say that I hope that what I have said this afternoon will lead the Government in the near future to get a move on with the Bill. I hope also that the Bill may lead to bigger and better things. In view of the assurances given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.53 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 8:

After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause:

Travel concessions.

".—(1) A local authority may make with any person whose use of a motor vehicle is covered by an authorisation under section 2 above the like arrangements for the grant of travel concessions by that person as the authority have power to make under section 138(3) of the Transport Act 1968 (travel concessions) with a person who operates a public service vehicle undertaking.

(2) Subsections (4) and (5) of the said section 138 shall, so far as applicable, apply in relation to arrangements under this section as they apply in relation to arrangements under subsection (3) of that section; and in this section "local authority" and "travel concession" have the same meaning as in the said section 138."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, put down an Amendment at Committee stage which sought to achieve the same objective as this one, and he was supported on that occasion by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I said at the time that I had doubts whether a specific provision was needed to arrange for concessionary fares experiments under the Bill, but I agreed to take the necessary action if it were. This Amendment is the result, because, on reflection, we accept that a specific power would be appropriate to cover concessionary travel arrangements in experiments under the Bill.

The Amendment has therefore been drafted accordingly, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we have met the point which he raised. However, I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I say once again that the Bill is not a blueprint for future general legislation. I made that point on a number of aspects of the Bill as introduced and I make it again on this Amendment. In particular, the Government are not committed on the question of the extension of travel concessions as part of any new arrangements that might be adopted following these experiments nor, of course, on the public expenditure implications. With that proviso, I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, it would be churlish of me to say anything but thank you to the noble Baroness the Minister for what she has done. May I also endorse what I have said already: that I do not regard this as a major Bill upon which to hang important hats on many pegs. I have always regarded the Bill as an experimental, interim measure, out of which something bigger will come. With those few words, again I should like to say thank you to the noble Baroness.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, may I join my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton in a courteous bow to the noble Baroness. When we raised the matter on Report she gave us a very courteous reply, as she always does. The noble Baroness promised to look at the point. She has done exactly what she said and has produced an Amendment which seems to meet the point entirely. I also take note of the reservation that the noble Baroness made at the conclusion of her remarks.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 18, after (""local authority"") insert (",except in section (Travel concessions) above,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to introduce the new clause relating to the arrangements for travel concessions. Therefore I beg to move.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain how this is a consequential Amendment. I may be a little drowsy this afternoon, but I cannot follow this point exactly. I am sure that what the noble Baroness has said is right, but perhaps she will be kind enough to explain it.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is that the definition in the Bill as drafted does not include district councils within the definition of "local authority". The powers in Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968 relating to arrangements for concessionary travel can also be exercised by district councils in England and Wales. This is reflected in the wording of the previous Amendment, and the Amendment that we are now discussing adjusts the definition of "local authority" in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

In the Schedule [Authorisations under Section 2]:

3.58 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (a).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee proceedings I took the opportunity of complaining about the drafting of this sub-paragraph. It has not become any more lucid or felicitously phrased during the intervening days, nor have I become any more convinced by the arguments in favour of the restrictions that it seeks to impose. It seems desirable to integrate these experiments, so far as possible, with existing transport. I do not understand why the noble Baroness should be so suspicious of the intentions of existing operators who might be covered by these restrictions and I hope that she will clarify the Bill in both style and content by abandoning them. I beg to move.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton in asking the noble Baroness to be kind enough to explain why it is still proposed to exclude this type of transport in this ownership. As I think I said at the Report stage, it seems to me that the important point is whether this type of transport will provide a more economical service, supplementing existing services. If so, and if the service is used, I cannot see why it is relevant who will make a profit out of it. It seems to me to be irrelevant to the aim and I still cannot quite understand the objection of the noble Baroness to the exclusion of this sub-paragraph.

Lord TRANMIRE

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. Sub-paragraph (a) is a replica of paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the Road Traffic Act 1960 which dealt with commercial vehicles carrying fewer than four people. This is an attempt to deal with private cars generally and the minibus, and I do not see how that paragraph carries very much weight in this new relationship. I can see why, in the old days under the 1960 Act, one did not want to have any connivance between the hire car operator and the bus company. That is the purpose in that Act of sub-paragraph (a). But I do not quite know who one is attempting to hit by putting it in here, suggesting that the private car owner has some clandestine arrangement with a scheduled bus service.

As I said at the Committee stage, the only thing I can think of is that in the very rural areas there are a number of minibuses which are operated for the public good in conjunction with the education committees. I should hate to do anything to restrict those minibuses, which usually are operated only at 9 o'clock in the morning and half past three in the afternoon. But I should very much like them, in the middle of the day, to do some work by taking into the market town people who do not have cars. It is conceivable, but I think unlikely, that subparagraph (a) as drafted might hit those minibuses. Otherwise it has not got a target and I should have thought that if you were to leave sub-paragraph (a) out of the Schedule that would meet all that it needed to meet, because the point of paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule to the 1960 Act does not arise here, where we are dealing merely with general authorisations and not with special authorisations. I wish to support my noble friend.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, this Amendment was thoroughly discussed, and then withdrawn, in Committee, and I would refer noble Lords to the record of that debate. The limitation in this subparagraph applies only to the general authorisations, not—and I emphasise this—to the specific authorisations. So perhaps we may consider the particular purpose of the general authorisations under the Bill. They are intended essentially to allow lift-giving against payment on a regular basis where it is of an informal variety. As I said in Committee, private motorists can hardly be expected to go through the public service vehicle licensing system in order to get authority to enable contributions towards petrol costs to be accepted. Licensed operators, such as those people who use minibuses for getting children to school, on the other hand, should have little or no difficulty in making use of the normal public service vehicle licensing procedures to extend their services in this manner.

If it is a matter of operators making vehicles available, on hire, say, to private individuals—not, I should have thought, a very likely proceeding for the purposes covered by a general authorisation—then this can be done under other provisions in the Bill. It would be open to a licensed operator to apply for, or to be associated with, an application for a special authorisation. As I have already mentioned, this restriction does not in any way affect special authorisations. Nor does it in any way prevent individuals or voluntary groups from providing links to existing bus services with their own vehicles.

If the noble Lord's objection to this sub-paragraph is merely on drafting grounds—on grounds of aesthetics—I am quite prepared to ask Parliamentary Counsel to have another look at it from this point of view. We feel that the Amendment is misconceived and that it would unnecessarily widen the provisions of general authorisations; it would blur the distinction between the different types of experiment and hence would potentially reduce the value of the conclusions that may be drawn. I would urge the noble Lord not to press the Amendment but, as I have said, if noble Lords want me to look at the wording of it in order to make it a little more aesthetically acceptable, I will certainly ask Parliamentary Counsel to do that, and we will do something about it in another place at a later stage.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, speaking only for myself and not for my noble friend Lord Tranmire, with whom I have not been able to communicate since the noble Baroness sat down, I would accept the intention of the noble Baroness that the difference between the special authorisations and the general authorisations is sufficiently established. Personally, I should he grateful if she would ask her Parliamentary draftsmen to see whether—if I may use the words I used before—they can more felicitously word it. But I should like to hear what my noble friend Lord Tranmire feels about this before we formally withdraw the Amendment.

Lord TRANMIRE

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will look at the point I was making because I do not think her reply, which I think was prepared before I made my speech, really dealt with my point. As I see it, sub-paragraph (a) in this Bill is not necessarily dealing with a general authorisation. It would have been necessary of course if it had been dealing with a special authorisation, because there you are dealing with commercial vehicles and with this link-up there would be an evasion of the licensing law; but I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that it could not be so in connection with a private vehicle. Perhaps she will look at this point again as the Bill goes through another place and, if necessary, make the amendments, apart from tightening up the language, because certainly the language of the 1960 Act is somewhat diffuse and not very clear. I am sure it could be tightened up a great deal, as my noble friend suggested; and on the major point I was making, I should like the noble Baroness to ascertain whether sub-paragraph (a) is really needed when we are dealing with a general authorisation.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I think my answer will still be, "Yes, it is", but I will certainly look at it again.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.7 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 7, line 39, at end insert— ("() Not less than twenty-one days before passing such a resolution the local authority shall give notice of its intention to consider a resolution under this paragraph in one or more local newspapers circulating in the experimental area to which, or to one or more parts of which, the authorisation applies or would apply as the case may be and before so resolving shall take into account any representations received from any such organisations or bodies as are referred to in section 1(5).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Amendment on Third Reading is simply to give the noble Baroness the Minister an opportunity to put on record the intentions of her Department. I have already had words in private with her on this subject and substantially she accepted our arguments during the Committee proceedings. I believe she may have some information for us as to the intentions of her right honourable friend in another place. I beg to move.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, when the noble Baroness answers the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I wonder whether she will have anything to say to me in regard to the question I asked at a previous stage; namely, because the local authorities should publicise this fact as much as possible, that these notices should be put in public transport prior to the necessary date?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, moved this Amendment at Committee stage, as he has said, I undertook that the views of the Steering Committee overseeing the current programme of the sponsored experiments would be sought on the principles underlying it. If they thought it desirable then the Government would consider putting down a suitable Amendment, since the one moved at that stage did not seem technically satisfactory. On that basis the Amendment was withdrawn by the noble Lord.

As I said, the Steering Committee met on Thursday last and the consumers were very well and vocally represented on that Steering Committee. They brought to our notice the various things that would have to be done in order to publicise what was going to happen. The consensus at that Committee meeting was that there should be arrangements for advance notice of, and the making of representations about, the intention of a local authority to grant a general authorisation. The Committee went further and suggested that similar arrangements should apply in relation to an intention to grant special as well as general authorisations. They did not consider whether the means suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, should be one of those used, but I am sure they will take advantage of every possible means of publicity.

At the Steering Committee time did not allow us to give proper consideration to the drafting of the appropriate Amendment for discussion today, but I am happy to give the noble Lord a firm undertaking that the Government will be introducing such an Amendment in another place as the Bill proceeds.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Privilege Amendment made.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. There is not a great deal more that I wish to say. First, I would thank all your Lordships who have contributed to the passage of the Bill. We have had several useful debates, useful in the sense not only that they have led, I believe, to a better general understanding of what the Bill is seeking to achieve, but also because they have served to illuminate aspects of its provisions, and indeed of the experiments which will be carried out under it, which have been causing concern to some of the interests involved. This has enabled me, I hope, to offer reassurance on many of these. I have been able to accept some of the changes proposed by noble Lords opposite by putting down the Government Amendment we have made today, or, where there was not sufficient time, by my firm undertaking that the Government will put down Amendments in another place. As to the other changes which I did not feel able to accept and which noble Lords withdrew, I think these helped us a great deal to bring out the essential nature and the limitations of the present Bill.

May I say one more thing. Arising from the meeting of the Steering Committee on Thursday, concern was expressed at several points that some financial loss might be suffered by commercial operators as a result of one or two of the experiments planned in the four study areas under the Bill's provisions. I gave an assurance to the Steering Committee then, which I now repeat, that there are adequate powers available to pay compensation and that compensation will be paid if such losses are shown to have occurred as a result of our granting authorisations within these four areas. I thank noble Lords for their support for the Bill.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Stedman.)

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way that she has guided this small Bill through the House. Her task has not been easy; she has been faced with a House which has discussed these measures many times before, and from these Benches with perhaps a slight measure of impatience against her Government for not having moved more hastily in the way which we had been wanting. Rural transport, as we know, is in urgent need of revision. This Bill goes some way towards helping to free the licensing system, as I have said in various stages of the Bill. The way that she has helped the passage of the Bill has been exemplary. I heard about the Steering Committee later that evening from her private secretary.

I heard from another source about one of the matters to which I think she is probably referring. In Devonshire two bus services were perhaps endangered. I repeat that I have not heard this from the noble Baroness or her private secretary; I have heard this from another source within the Steering Committee. I should like to make that absolutely clear. The unions, from their point of view quite rightly, raised the point that two bus services might have their prospects affected. But by heavens!, my Lords, this is what change is about. To bring in several smaller services is almost certain to injure some already existing services. It is because the existing services are not serving a wide enough public; they are perhaps too big for the public they are serving and are therefore uneconomic. That is what we are discussing. There will be no improvement without some existing service being slightly injured. At the end of the day we hope that we will have a more useful service, more fully used, although perhaps each particular service is not coping with as many people. As we know, the bus services are probably under-used at the moment. What we are doing in this Bill is suggesting more but smaller services.

Having said that, I should again like to thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy in putting up with my criticisms, which, as she knows, are Party political and not personal. I thank her, and also the Government, for the way in which they have been open to honest criticism and suggestion. I thank them for what they have done.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Baroness for the very courteous way that she has dealt with this small Bill. I hope that, as a result of some of the difficulties that we have raised, this Bill will be the first foundation stone to a reformed rural transport system. We thank her very much for her courtesy.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.