I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 16, line 11, at end add—
The Bill, which has as one of its early purposes the definition of "public service vehicles", omits from the definition school buses run by school authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to make a school bus that is run by an education authority a public service vehicle solely for the purpose of the requirements of initial certificates of fitness under the Bill. The Opposition can see no reason why school buses run by school authorities should be excluded from a provision that applies to all vehicles which are designated as public service vehicles. I believe that that is a mistaken judgment in the Bill. I understand why the Government were especially sensitive, possibly when the Bill was being drafted, about school buses, in view of the b charaing provisions. I do not want to stir up that difficulty tonight. The argument for the amendment rests on a simple proposition which is unassailable—namely, that carrying children to school on a bus, the arrangements for which are made by school authorities using their own buses, is just as much a matter about which the House should be concerned. The vehicles should be as fit for that purpose as those carrying passengers where charges are made. Here I am not concerned with whether a charge is made. That seems to be irrelevant. The certificate of fitness has nothing to do with whether or not charges are made on buses; it is really the starting point at which, in the whole construction issue in relation to safety, it is ensured that the vehicle is a proper one for the purpose. Yesterday, in debating new clauses 1 and 8, we were concerned with the need for annual tests of public service vehicles. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out on his new clause 1 at that time that by removing the bar in the 1972 Act to making test requirement provisions concerning public service vehicles he was going wider than public service vehicles as defined within this Bill and asking the House to give him power to require by regulation the testing of other vehicles. I make a plea on this amendment that if the Minister accepts the logic of making buses which run solely as school buses subject, as the amendment requires, to an initial certificate of fitness, he will accept, within the spirit of the definition of new clause 1 yesterday, that he should later follow this by regulations making them subject to annual tests as well.'(5) For the purpose of this section only a bus run by a local authority for providing transport in pursuance of arrangements made under any Education Act shall be treated as a Public Service Vehicle for the purposes of this section.'.
I sympathise entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's intention. I would not plead that the safety requirements for school buses are particularly logical, but I argue that they have worked reasonably well over the years. It is not strictly true to say that the Bill is making any change in this respect. What we are doing is preserving the status quo. I think we have to consider the cost of any changes we seek to make, and I am advised that the amendment would impose considerable costs on local education authorities. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.
The amendment would produce a rather curious change. It would require fitness; it would require all school buses to have a certificate of initial fitness, but it would not give the PSV examiners or certifying officers any powers to inspect vehicles once the certificate had been issued or to prohibit the driving of unfit vehicles. The amendment would apply to existing as well as new vehicles and might well require substantial refitting and even structural adaptations to most of the 800 or so school buses owned by local education authorities. My reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals—and I certainly sympathise with what he is seeking to do—is twofold. First, I take the view that local authorities are responsible public bodies which can be trusted to ensure the safety of school children. Indeed, this is probably a point which the Opposition recognise. They are not, for example, seeking powers to examine school buses or to prohibit the driving of unfit vehicles, so by implication that point is accepted. I would add that the system whereby we have undoubtedly put this responsibility on local authorities has worked well. The scond point of which I wish to remind the House is that new clause 1 and the annual test for buses, which, as I announced yesterday, is to be implemented, will cover all school buses and that, I believe, is more relevant to the continued fitness of a vehicle than an initial certifi- cate of fitness. In other words, I claim that what we are doing in new clause 1, which we debated yesterday, has more relevance to the continued safety of school buses, in the concern as to which I am entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman; clearly he is right in everything he says on that. I must conclude, therefore, that the costs resulting from this amendment would not be justified by any gain there might be in public safety. I would also claim that new clause 1 deals more satisfactorily with the problem about which the right hon. Gentleman and we are concerned.With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I speak again. I totally retract anything I said that may have implied that the Bill created the problem of the school bus. I accept that previous transport legislation failed to grapple with the problem, and did not define the school bus run by a school authority as a public service vehicle.
It was not the intention of my hon. Friends and me—It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.