| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) rose--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before the hon. Member speaks, may I ascertain that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and the Minister agree to him speaking? That is the tradition in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Yes I do, Deputy Madam Speaker. Forgive me.
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) indicated assent.
8.50 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) I am glad that the early start of this debate has given me the chance to make a few brief comments because the debate is very important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate, which he has initiated because the council in his constituency has caused a problem.
The transport undertaking in Burnley and Pendle was brought together some 60-odd years ago as--originally-- the Burnley, Colne and Nelson joint transport undertaking. It ran in that context until the local government reorganisation of 1974, when it took the new name Burnley and Pendle. Before I became a Member of the House, I was a councillor in the borough of Burnley, where I served on the joint transport committee for a number of years, and therefore have some knowledge of it.
My hon. Friend referred to the Transport Select Committee report, "The Consequences of Bus Deregulation" that has been published today. It is somewhat fortuitous that that report has come out today. I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's comments and echo his full support for the points that he highlighted.
My hon. Friend referred to the guarantees that are said to be being given by some of those who are bidding to buy the Pendle shares in the Burnley and Pendle joint transport undertaking. I emphasise "the Pendle shares" because there is no doubt that the Burnley shares are not for sale. Indeed, we hope that we can persuade Pendle to think again and not sell those shares.
Pendle Liberals, and those who are inclined to support the sale in that borough, need to think twice on two particular points. First, the petition has clearly shown that the public are strongly opposed to the proposed sale. Secondly, as my hon. Friend said, the Liberals and their supporters should know that guarantees given now are not worth the paper that they are written on.
Certainly in Burnley we all know that when the Burnley building society was taken over by the National and Provincial building society--in the early 1980s it was called a merger--certain undertakings were given. Those
undertakings were guaranteed in a letter sent out by the then chairman of the Burnley building society. All the undertakings given, including those that said that one third of head office jobs would remain in Burnley and that Burnley's name would appear in every office of the National and Provincial building society, were not honoured for very long at all.
Now there are no head office jobs in Burnley, and only a computer that may well go when the society is taken over by Abbey National plc. We do not even have a regional office. We know that, if any shares are sold with regard to the transport undertaking, the same thing will happen--and we will lose services.
One thing that people in Pendle have to understand is that while the profit of the Burnley and Pendle company is shared 50:50 between the two boroughs, most of it is in fact made within my borough of Burnley. That is because of the nature and geography of the constituency of Pendle. It is more rural, and has a scattered population, and services do not very easily make a profit. My hon. Friend and myself believe that the provision of services are far more important than making profit, but we recognise the context of the Transport Act 1985. I remember that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were joint Chairman of the Committee on that Bill, along with Madam Speaker when she was a Committee Chairman.
My hon. Friend referred to the former general manager, Mr. Roy Marshall, and his strong view that the sale would be bad for transport and the provision of a public service for the people of Burnley and Pendle. When the joint transport undertaking became a company as a result of 1985 Act, the general manager was Mr. Luddeman, who is currently the manager of London General. Now the manager is Mr. Jelpke. Both those men faced the challenges of the 1985 Act and made Burnley and Pendle transport a very successful and viable undertaking.
I want to refer to the question of who is submitting bids for the company, since we do not really know. We understand that it might be Stagecoach, which took over the former Ribble undertaking. When the 1985 Act went through, Ribble, which was part of the National Bus Company, was split into three. The main part of Ribble, based at Preston, was the subject of a management buy-out and was subsequently acquired by Stagecoach. Indeed, Stagecoach garages some of its buses at the Burnley and Pendle transport depot in Queensgate in my constituency. Ribble used to have a depot in Centenary way, but it closed it a few years ago.
We understand that other potential bidders are Blackpool Bus, First Bus Yorkshire Rider, Greater Manchester Buses (North) and Preston Bus, which is submitting a bid in conjunction with Burnley and Pendle management and employees.
We know for a fact that the Preston Bus bid was considered by a specially appointed Pendle council sub-committee yesterday, but we do not know exactly what happened. We know that Mr. Souter, the multi-millionaire owner of Stagecoach, has already been to the Queensgate depot and met the work force. He has made no secret of the fact that there will be job losses, especially among the managerial, clerical, administrative and mechanical staff. The drivers' position is a little less precarious--in the short term at least. But once the services start to go, so will those jobs. We know that there will be job cuts and service cuts.
On 4 December, a letter was sent to the chief executive of Pendle borough council by the chief executive of Burnley borough council, who was trying to ensure that there was no misunderstanding on the part of the Pendle controlling group. The final paragraph of that letter says:
Among other things, Burnley has been told that if it does not sell, its 50 per cent. of the shares will not be worth as much as the other 50 per cent., when those are bought. As far as I am concerned, if there are two halves, one owned by the private sector and one by the public sector, instead of the two halves being in the public sector, as at present, the two halves are still equal to one, so if one half share is devalued, the other must be devalued too.
Burnley borough council wrote to Pendle:
Finally, I shall quote the paragraph that tells potential purchasers exactly where they stand:
"I think it is important that you draw the contents of this letter to the notice of all Members of your Council but particularly to the attention of those who will be involved in the decision to dispose of the shares. It is also important that you draw it to the attention of prospective purchasers as I am not certain that all of them will be aware of Burnley council's position in relation to the sale, the Articles and the replacement of Directors."
Burnley feels that Pendle council should know, as should potential purchasers, exactly where Burnley stands. That is why the letter was sent.
"I understand that your Council are still considering the disposal of your shares in the Transport Company, that bids have now been submitted and that a decision will be reached following further consideration by a Special Sub-Committee and your Policy Committee.
Burnley Borough Council remain completely opposed to any form of sale of the company or the whole or part of its shares and I have been asked to write to you formally to inform you of this position and to ask you to draw the content of this letter to your Members, particularly the Liberal and Conservative Members who are supporting the share sale.
We have carried out our own survey of the effect of local authorities disposing of their transport companies and the pattern is all too familiar--job losses amongst both managerial and operational staff; less favourable working conditions; longer working hours; reduced pension arrangements; increased fares; poorer services; loss of less viable and rural services; lengthened 'bus frequencies; and loss of public involvement. This pattern has, I understand, simply been confirmed in a recent discussion which the Chairman of Stagecoach had with company employees when he implied that apart from some of the drivers the job prospects for the remaining workforce, if his company were the successful bidder, were poor."
Those are the things that both the public and the employees need to know.
"I have to tell you that my Council are prepared to take what action is considered necessary to prevent the sale and I am currently discussing various options with my Members. However, I think it would only be fair to draw to your Members' attention the possibility that Burnley council will not feel obliged to co-operate with any purchaser of the Pendle shares in amending the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company. Similarly, my Members may not feel obliged to approve any nominations which a purchaser may put forward to replace the Pendle Directors with their own nominees."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |