Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 62B: 62B: Clause 42, page 37, line 32, at end insert— ““(d) place minimum period of operation conditions on the applicant”” The noble Lord said: This amendment is further to the discussion that we had in the previous Committee sitting allowing registration restrictions within quality partnerships to include restrictions on the proposed length of operation of a new service. If a proposed service is questioned because of the disruptive effect that it may have on the market, requiring a service to be operated for a minimum length of time may be an effective means of assuring stability. Giving the traffic commissioner the ability to do this could prove to be an effective compromise in place of rejecting an application. In response to our Amendment No. 12 last week, the Minister spoke mainly about why he thought this amendment would not work with the variation or withdrawal of services. I can understand that varying a service may be useful, such as when co-ordinating with rail timetables, but I emphasise that what I mean by this amendment is the registration of new services and the period of their operation, with or without minor timetabling variations. I beg to move