House of Commons
Tuesday 21 October 2003
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Transas Group Bill
Read the Third time, and passed.
Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Wednesday 29 October.
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
The Secretary of State was asked—
Royal Mail (Rail Transport)
1. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): If he will make a statement on discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the Royal Mail's decision to end mail transport by rail. [132959]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Royal Mail's distribution operations are a matter for the company, not something in which the Government would seek to intervene, however much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I may regret that loss of business for the rail freight sector.
Alan Simpson : My hon. Friend will know that on 18 September the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Whitty, wrote to the RMT union, saying:
- "I personally and this Department also have grave concerns about the Royal Mail decision, which seems to be heading in the opposite direction from the aim of a more balanced, environmentally friendly and integrated transport system."
Dr. Howells: Royal Mail came at this issue from a very interesting and new angle—that its new strategy would be more environmentally friendly than its old one.
Indeed, it has made out a case that, overall, the new transport network will use about 2,000 fewer road vehicles and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. I assume that DEFRA is looking at that—we are certainly looking very carefully at it—but Royal Mail has to be a company that operates commercially and delivers value for money. That is why it has taken its decision to switch from rail to road.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Has any financial assessment been made of the implications for the railways of Royal Mail's decision? For example, is it likely to cause other freight users to consider withdrawal from the railways, particularly while there is uncertainty over the £8 billion demanded by the rail regulator?
Dr. Howells: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on taking up his new position. It is always a pleasure to see him.
We certainly look very carefully at all the schemes that are proposed to try to help shift whatever we can from the most congested roads on to the railways, and we will continue to do so. That is the Government's policy. Of course, we are looking at the recommendations made by the rail regulator and, indeed, at his interim report.
Ramsbottom to Manchester Rail Link
2. Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): If he will make a statement on the Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link. [132960]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Ramsbottom is part of the East Lancashire Railway, a privately run operation on a preserved line between Rawtenstall and Bury Bolton Street. I am not aware of any plan to link it to the national rail network.
Mr. Chaytor : My hon. Friend is right to say that there is no Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link, but there was a Manchester to Ramsbottom rail link before Dr. Beeching came along. There could be, and there should be, a Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link. It would be of enormous benefit to the thousands of commuters in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). My hon. Friend the Minister is not accurate in saying that there are no such plans. Plans are on the table and there are two alternatives for establishing a Ramsbottom to Manchester rail link, so will he speak as a matter of urgency to the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and Network Rail to advance at least one of those two alternatives?
Dr. Howells: I would be only too glad to speak to both those agencies, although I have to tell my hon. Friend that I can promise nothing.
Bus Companies (Regulation)
3. Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton): What plans he has for improved regulation of bus companies. [132961]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The current statutory framework is set out in the Transport Act 2000. As with all other legislation, we keep the situation under review.
Jim Dobbin : The Secretary of State will be aware that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. The Greater Manchester passenger transport authority—I spoke to the chairman about this last night—other transport authorities throughout the United Kingdom and the Local Government Association are urging my right hon. Friend to regulate the bus network so that we can improve services for the travelling public. I can tell him that my constituents are not at all happy at present with the service that they are getting from FirstBus. I simply ask him whether he will look at this matter again.
Mr. Darling: In relation to regulation, most people accept that to return to the situation that prevailed prior to 1985 would be a mistake. Let us face it—while some bus services worked well prior to that time, others did not. Since 1985, there have been substantial increases in bus patronage: in Brighton, more than 50 per cent.; in Nottingham, 14 per cent.; and in Cambridge, 20 per cent. Those are all examples of good local authorities working with bus companies. I am aware, however, that problems exist in Greater Manchester, especially with competition or, sometimes, lack of it. That is why I have said to my hon. Friend that I will continue to keep the situation under review. I honestly do not think that going back to pre-1985 is the answer. However, I do think that some changes may be necessary to improve bus patronage.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a 70 per cent. increase in bus tender prices over the past four years in Merseyside, and a 25 per cent. drop in passenger numbers since 1997? Does not that demonstrate that bus deregulation is not working? Will he meet a small delegation who can perhaps convince him to change his policy?
Mr. Darling: On bus deregulation, I do not think that I can add anything to what I said a few moments ago—it is too early to change the policy that I set out just a minute ago. On Merseyside, my hon. Friend is right that there has been an increase in car ownership in Merseyside, which is a result of increasing prosperity in the area, much of it thanks to the things that we have done over the past few years.
In the issue of buses, tender prices have been going up, not least because the cost of operating buses has increased, as has the cost of employing bus staff and so on. Of course, the Department and my colleagues will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. I repeat, however, that when bus patronage has gone up it is because a local authority has had the courage to put in place sometimes difficult and controversial measures
to encourage bus use, as well as having a bus company that has some flair and initiative. Both those things are absolutely essential.
Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East): The Secretary of State is well respected, but he must conduct a review with seriousness; the matter is now past a joke. Whole communities in Leeds are being cut off, the elderly cannot go shopping, people cannot get to hospitals on public transport at weekends, and even the local hospice cannot be visited by public transport on weekends and evenings. That is clearly a ridiculous situation and public transport is becoming a joke. The bus companies are in it only for money, there is no public service and no public interest, and we are sitting on the sidelines looking like fools.
Mr. Darling: In Leeds, about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal from the time that he led the council there, bus patronage has increased. He is right to draw attention to the fact that some bus services late in the evening, in areas that are more difficult to reach, are not of the standard that they should be, but nor were they prior to deregulation in 1985. From the end of this year, we are extending the availability of the bus service grant to provide better, more bespoke services for areas without bus services, especially when there is thinner patronage than would justify a conventional route being run. Many innovative steps can be taken that will encourage bus use in areas that have not done well historically, either before or after deregulation. As I said previously, I am keeping the situation under review. I know that there are difficulties, which we want to sort out.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |