Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Before we adjourned for lunch, I was congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on his powerful campaign against the three-for-two allowance. As this is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, it would be remiss of me not to say what a pleasure and privilege it is to serve under your expert stewardship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has been so persuasive that we agree that local education authorities will have to undertake not to use the three-for-two provision in the buses that they contract to carry out the school transport pilots. I hope that we shall learn something from the schemes. Although parents are understandably concerned about the three-for-two allowance, there is little data to support the argument that the use of the three-for-two allowance poses severe risks to child safety.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Monmouth is delighted that the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) expressed scepticism about such matters. Can the Minister explain the cost implications for pilot authorities in moving from a three-for-two allowance to a two-to-two allowance on buses? Some general information would be useful to the Committee.

I do not know about the costs involved at present, but I am sure that we can provide the hon. Gentleman with such information. We shall certainly be examining the pilot provisions in various local authorities and I am sure that we can draw up some cost implications. The whole three-for-two allowance is very much a matter for the LEA. Indeed, the allowance is withering, not growing.

Let us consider the alternatives to the three-for-two allowance. If there were not enough seats, we could allow young children to stand on the bus to the limit of the standing capacity of that bus or to leave them at the bus stop. Standing passengers are more vulnerable to injury when a vehicle is both accelerating and braking, as well as if there were an accident. If we left children stranded at the bus stop, whether or not in an isolated area, they could be subject to other dangers and would miss out on one of the safest ways in which to travel to school—on the bus.

The three-for-two allowance should be used only as a fail-safe mechanism. No one is suggesting that it should be used as a planned overcrowding measure. The sad accident that occurred in the Constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth was not the fault of overcrowding, but it gave rise to concern among parents about the three-for-two allowance. Ultimately, it is the LEA that has to decide about the three-for-two rule.

I thought that the Minister said that if a LEA wanted to enter into a pilot scheme, it would have to forgo the three-for-two allowance. Why will the Government not give local authorities discretion in such situations? Why does the hon. Lady want to centralise matters?

That is because we are considering pilots. I was talking about the general situation. We shall be examining a range of issues in connection with the pilots, such as improving school transport and various other options, which is why we are specifying that we will not use the three-for-two allowance in the pilots. The allowance has a limited application. It applies only to stage fare buses that have bench seats, the buses that stop regularly and do not have seat belts. The allowance is applicable not only to school transport, but general public transport. However, I appreciate that it is more likely to be used in the school context because that is when overcrowding is most likely to occur. All seats are required to be fitted with seat belts on dedicated school journeys by minibus or coach. The allowance cannot be used in that context.

I hope that my remarks have allayed some of the concerns that have been raised.

Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth) I thank the Minister for her assurance that the three-for-two concession will not be permitted in the 20 pilots. On her second point, the accident that she referred to—the Stuart Cunningham-Jones tragedy—took place not in my Constituency but in the vale of Glamorgan. I acknowledge that overcrowding per se was not the main cause of that accident.

The Minister says that there is no evidence of the three-for-two rule and the excessive overcrowding that that can permit causing concern. That is a bit like the assurances we always get when we are campaigning for provisions such as traffic calming, which is that there has not been an accident yet. I ask her to imagine a 52-seater bus that has 78 people sitting in it under the three-for-two rule, as well as the 10, 12, 15 or however many who are allowed to stand. Should there be a serious accident involving a vehicle with that level of overcrowding, people would look back and ask why it is still legal for 78 children under 14 to be sitting on double seats.

I do not want to get involved in the wider discussion, but we ought to look at encouraging operators to provide seat belts and proper seating for children. I see no reason why that should not be a priority in school transport.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In the case in which I was involved, it was the intransigence of Stagecoach, the bus operator, which caused this issue to be raised. It has plenty of buses

and it could have put on an extra one. However, although it was being subsidised for the route and it was getting guaranteed season ticket sales from the pupils, it wanted an additional subsidy to put on that extra vehicle to avoid the overcrowding. It refused to put on that extra vehicle, and eventually the county council subsidised it itself.

We have been told that it is likely that a road safety Bill will be introduced soon. It may be appropriate for that legislation to give consideration to getting rid of the three-for-two rule once and for all.

We have had an interesting debate. However, I am more confused than ever about the justification for the Government limiting the number of pilots to 20. The Minister spoke as though that was contained in the Bill, and that we need not worry because things could be altered in regulations. However, the Government have not included any figure in the Bill. They have said that they will bring forward regulations and yet, notwithstanding the much higher than expected demand that the Minister says there is for participation in the pilot process, they seem to be insisting on sticking rigidly to the figure of 20. The Minister said that they could increase that number later through regulations, if that was thought appropriate. Is the Minister saying that when the scheme is initially introduced the Government may well have more than 20 pilots, or are the Government still convinced that 20 should be the maximum number?

It would help Committee members if the Government were able to produce the cost-benefit analysis on the three-for-two allowance, because although that creates increased danger there is also an enormous benefit from being able to have three for two. I am sure that the Minister's prolific officials have been able to produce some material, and we could use that to inform our debate and to test the Government as to whether it is reasonable for them to make non-use of three for two a condition of being able to apply for a pilot.

I am happy to look at the figure of 20. That was our best guess of the number of pilots that would be appropriate. Clearly, there is a great deal of interest from local authorities throughout the country about going for the pilots. The figure will probably be more rather than less, simply because of the huge interest that the Bill has generated among local authorities.

On the cost-benefit analysis of ensuring that the pilots do not use the three-for-two allowance, I am happy to produce that information. We are very much in a learning experience about the three for two. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned a road safety Bill—that would depend on whether it is in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that he will examine that, but I cannot commit anyone to examine three for two in the context of a possible road safety Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.