1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
More Bill changes in the Lords
Page 40
Page 41
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
from our Parliamentary correspondent • The House of Lords this week approved by 105 votes to 54 an Opposition amendment which says that local authorities can run contract carriage within their own areas only. Lord Nugent of Guildford, who advocated the change, said that private contract carriage firms saw the entry of the local authority bus services into this field as a serious blow to their livelihood and they already had a difficult time, Lord Winterbottom, however, argued that while competition might well harm someone not particularly. efficient, the powers proposed for local authorities were fairly strictly circumscribed.
Another important change in the Bill was the rejection—by 135 votes to 44—of the section, giving State transport bodies wide powers to manufacture and sell. Lord Nugent said that for the national economy as a whole a further extension of State trading was dangerously weakening.
For the Government, Lord Shepherd point ed to the safeguards in the Bill. An authority could not engage in new activities unless satisfied there would be no detriment to their main duties and any proposals approved would be made available to the CEO and the TUC and any other interested party. If there were any suspicion of unfair trading action could be taken while all the activities had to be carried on as commercial enterprises.
During a discussion about the National Bus Company Lord Winterbottom said it was the Government's intention to enter into discussions with it as soon as it was established in order to settle targets of financial performance.The company was expected to be a fully viable undertaking, providing for the interest on its capital loan by the Exchequer and for the renewal of its assets out of revenue. In fact, said Lord Winterbottom, it was going to operate as a normal commercial undertaking.
He added that one should expect Transport Executives and the Bus Company to work together to present a rational plan for future bus services.
Lord Winterbottom noted that the Bill gave government power to include other passengers on school buses.
After Opposition Peers had expressed anxiety about the granting of permits for minibuses to operate on routes not well served by public transport, Lord Winterbottom promised to see whether the Bill was so restricted that if there were one bus service a
Neel( this would kill the whole scheme. He lid not believe this to be the case, however.
That the Minister of Transport will be able to apply the Transport Bill's Bus Grants scheme to new vehicles coming into use on stage work on or after September 1—instead pf waiting until the measure becomes law—is another change made in the Lords by the Government. It does not, however, mean that money will be handed over quicker than expected.
"There is no question of grants actually being paid in advance of Royal Assent", emphasized government spokesman Lord Ninterbottom when he successfully asked for the change to be made. It would, he said, ensure that there need be no artificial restriction on the selection of a date for the scheme, assuming that it was agreed in the near uture. The change would empower the dinister to fix any date on or after September l—but it related only to the method of deining the vehicles eligible.
For the Government Lord Hughes said he would look into the possibility of raising the unladen weight limit for small goods vehicles to 2 tons. At the moment the Bill specifies a carrying capacity not exceeding 3+ tons and an unladen weight of not more than 30cwt, and Lord St. Oswald put forward an amendment to raise the unladen weight for dualpurpose vehicles to 2 tons.
Lord Hughes said it would be wrong if he refused to look at the question of whether this could be done—though without committing himself in any way.
The amendment was withdrawn, but the Opposition insisted on a vote on another amendment r allowing operators working in more than one area to apply to just one Licensing Authority. This was accepted by 69 votes to 32.
Proposing the change, Lord St. Oswald said that the application methods for transport operator licences as they stood at present in the Bill were wasteful and disruptive.
This was resisted by Lord Hughes, who said that it was part of a.Licensing Authority's duty to be satisfied that adequate maintenance facilities existed at the bases of an applicant. This could not be delegated to someone else in some other part of the country..