---

Transport (Pudsey)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Charlotte Atkins.]

6 pm

Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): I want to start by discussing the problems facing the most oppressed minority among public transport users: bus passengers. Since deregulation in 1986, they have faced a consistent and irreversible decline in services, and Pudsey is no exception. The voices of bus passengers are rarely heard, and I want to redress that shortcoming with a few short quotes from my constituents.

The first comes from Laura Ladd of Yeadon, who wrote a cogently argued letter about the shortcomings of First Bus, saying:

"Fares have increased significantly over the past years with no improvement in service. New bus times and numbers were launched with insufficient information and few new timetables made available at stops. I should congratulate you"—

First Bus—

"that buses are rarely late—they just don't arrive at all."

The next quote is from Mr. Stephen Tong, who bemoans the loss of the 66 route in Pudsey and says:

"Whenever I have travelled on this service I have noticed that the vast majority of passengers are elderly, and many of them infirm. The withdrawal of this service would be a body blow to the many small communities which it serves."

Mrs. D. Burke says, among many other comments that

"When I came here to live in 1988 I drove a car and was a much younger person. Now I am in my eighties, my eyesight is not good enough to drive and I depend solely on public transport, which is an absolute shambles."

Another constituent, Alan Gladwell, comments on the same theme that

"In Leeds, the concentration seems to be on the more popular (and more profitable) routes in and out of the city centre. It seems to be a common occurrence for First or other monopolistic bus service providers to withdraw bus services for 'commercial reasons'."

Mrs. Margaret Young of Yeadon wrote to me about the loss of a link between her part of Yeadon and Otley, which is the location of Wharfedale General hospital, noting:

"It would seem that whoever it is that decides on these 'silly' changes never travels by bus, has never understood the geography of the area of Lower Yeadon and perhaps doesn't even know there is a Hospital at Otley (the wonderful Wharfedale Hospital) that caters for Yeadon."

Dennis Gibbons bemoans the changes, saying:

"As a daily user of the bus services in Leeds we see the decline in the provision of local services at first hand . . . They continue to alter and change services with inadequate notice and with little thought to the users of those services."

Finally, in a cogently argued three-page critique of the operation of First Bus, my constituent Anne Simms says:

"I enjoy my job and once upon a time I used to enjoy travelling to and from work. Sadly though now I do not enjoy the travelling at all because of the fact that buses are late or missing and I have such problems getting home."

Since the deregulation of the bus industry outside London in 1986, bus use has declined by nearly 30 per cent., and fares have risen by more than 25 per cent. in

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1842

real terms. Outside London, the Government are in real danger of missing their 10-year plan target for increasing bus use. A recent parliamentary answer indicated that although bus patronage grew by 3.8 per cent. nationally in the past two years for which figures are available, the growth in London was 13.5 per cent.; outside London it was minus 1.8 per cent.

Two thirds of public transport journeys are made by bus. Those on the lowest 20 per cent. of incomes make more than nine out of 10 of their public transport journeys by bus, and about 60 per cent. of bus journeys are made by people from households who do not own a car. People on low incomes outside London are particularly badly affected, with fares rising by 2.1 per cent. a year in real terms over the past 10 years.

Marginal social routes continue to be vulnerable to cutbacks, as the letters that I have quoted from constituents attest. Arriva's most recent half-year report spells it out. It states:

"Outside London our approach, to what is currently a mature market, is to focus on a twin track strategy of targeting investment to deliver growth and eliminating low margin and loss-making routes."

In London, the average pre-tax profit margins of such companies are under 6 per cent.; in passenger transport executive—PTE—areas such as mine in west Yorkshire, the average is 14 per cent.

In areas such as Pudsey, 5 to 10 per cent. of services do not operate, and even when they do, punctuality is poor. According to PTE figures that I have just received, punctuality in the Pudsey area fell below the so-called acceptable level of 95 per cent. in every single month since June 2003, and it has fallen as low as 80 per cent. on some occasions. PTEs are involved in planning services effectively only at the margin, since 85 per cent. of services are commercial. PTEs continue to try to get the best out of the existing system. For example, locally we have the Yorkshire bus initiative, guided bus projects and a major bus priority measure on the A65 that will serve a small part of my constituency, but such measures are severely limited.

It is clear that overall the current structure is failing passengers. It is time for a fresh approach to the way in which we spend the £1.3 billion public subsidy that goes into bus services. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of early-day motion 581 on bus franchising. My view, and that of those MPs who support it, is that if it is good enough for London, it is good enough for my constituents—and, I hasten to add, my hon. Friend's constituents.

Legislation to allow PTEs and local authorities to introduce London-style bus franchising through quality contracts is long overdue. Although such contracts are possible, the hurdles are so high that, according to a recent parliamentary answer, none has been introduced. The system is being reviewed and there is some indication that the period between which an application is made and comes into operation is being considered, but, on the good authority of the PTE in my area, that will not change the system in practice.

We need to make it easier for local authorities and PTEs to introduce quality contracts where the private sector is failing to provide an integrated, socially inclusive service delivered in a way that achieves

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1843

passenger growth in areas outside London. Bus services could be planned to connect with—rather than to compete against— train, tram and light rail services, and there could be tickets that increased transfer between buses and other means of travel.

Like bus passengers, rail users in my constituency have been ill served by privatisation. My constituency is served by stations on three routes—Horsforth, New Pudsey and Guiseley. I accept that we have seen some major improvements. All three stations have undergone major refurbishment. The efficiency of Leeds City station has been increased by a £250 million investment that has reduced congestion and delays. An RPP—rail passenger partnership—grant enabled the provision of excellent new 333 class four-car rolling stock on the Airedale and Wharfedale line. I should declare an interest, because I am an avid user of those trains.

Between 1994 and 2000, use of the west Yorkshire rail network increased by 44 per cent. from 11.5 million to 16.6 million passengers. The privatised structure simply has not coped with that increase in demand and use. The recent inquiry by the Select Committee on Transport into overcrowding on public transport concluded that overcrowding is worse in west Yorkshire than in the south-east. Overcrowding in London and south-east in the morning peak is 5 per cent., while in west Yorkshire it is 9 per cent. in the morning peak and 5.3 per cent. in the evening peak. For example, four of the six trains arriving in Leeds via New Pudsey between 7.30 am and 9 am have standing passengers. In the evening peak, five of the six services leaving Leeds between 4.30 pm and 6 pm have standing passengers. We must tackle that sardine syndrome in areas such as west Yorkshire.

Additional units are required to cater for future growth, especially to serve the two priority new stations sites identified on the Wharfedale line—Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall. Metro has bid for six additional units, three of which would operate on that line, but several outstanding issues need to be resolved before the bid can succeed. It is essential for a way forward to be found if future growth and new stations are to be accommodated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will do everything that they can to ensure that the current impasse is resolved favourably.

The capacity issues are also the key to other priority plans, such as the Horsforth Woodside station that is planned for my constituency. There is a longer list of 30 possible stations that includes Calverley Rodley. That is also in my constituency and would provide an excellent site for a park and ride scheme.

Unfortunately, the high cost of rolling stock means that it difficult to provide the extra trains required. For example, it costs £144,000 to lease a two-car basic Pacer train from a rolling stock company. By comparison, the cost to Metro when it bought a two-car Pacer was £350,000. Those figures show that there is a huge rate of return, so it is not surprising that both HSBC and the Angel Trains leasing company make £1 million a week in after-tax profits.

West Yorkshire Metro has a blueprint for increasing patronage by more than 50 per cent. over the next 10 years. That involves lengthening existing trains by procuring additional rolling stock and lengthening

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1844

platforms. It will not require a great deal of infrastructure investment. Indeed, that growth, impressive though it would be, could be achieved with a relatively modest investment of between £5 million and £6 million per annum over 10 years.

While I am on the subject of rail, it would be remiss of me not to make passing reference to the Leeds supertram proposals, which obviously have wide-ranging implications for the city of Leeds, West Yorkshire and my constituents because the scheme would provide a public transport alternative to the private car. As part of the wider long-term development of supertram, a route between Leeds and Bradford—via my Pudsey constituency—is emerging as one of the better performing possible routes that could be added to the core system, if that went ahead. I appreciate that supertram proposals are being reassessed in the light of substantial cost increases, but its partners are preparing options—including reduced ones within the figures agreed in 2001—that are still favourable compared with alternative forms of transport. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State to meet Leeds Members, supertram partners and representatives of the business community to discuss the revised submissions because they are incredibly important for Leeds and West Yorkshire.

Let me turn to the impact of air transport on my constituency, with particular reference to Leeds Bradford airport. The Secretary of State's White Paper statement recognised the need for a balance between growth in air travel and its environmental impact on not only climate change, but those living near airports, such as my constituents. He confirmed that we needed to reduce and minimise the impact of airports on local communities and the natural environment.

The White Paper section on Leeds Bradford airport also refers to the need to minimise noise impact and improve public transport and access. It refers to an "airport master plan". The executive summary on page 11 makes reference to airport operators developing "appropriate access plans". Will the Government be issuing clear guidance on what the "airport master plans" or "access plans" might actually contain?

It is clear from the local debate on the White Paper and the consultation that preceded it that the airport consultative committee is not considered as an adequate mechanism for providing continuing dialogue between local residents and the airport. However, that in no way decries the energetic and laudable efforts that the airport's director and management team have made to engage in the local debate generated by the consultation process leading up to the White Paper. They also spend significant time trying to deal with the day-to-day concerns of local residents, but that is invariably ad hoc and reactive.

We need an airport planning process that is based on proper formal public consultation. That should be underpinned by an independent environmental impact assessment, which should include consideration of the impact, prevention and minimisation of air and noise pollution, climate change, and other associated issues, such as operating hours. At the moment, the only time that public consultation takes place is when a planning application is submitted for a specific development, which is usually something like a car park or runway extension, but such a piecemeal approach is totally

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1845

inadequate. It also prompts a question about the local authority determining planning applications for an airport in which it has a clear interest.

If anyone were looking for an airport site today, the location of Leeds Bradford airport would be unlikely to feature in the process. Its limitations must properly be reflected in future plans. Even at current passenger levels, there is a need for improvement to road safety and access. Transport links are poor and the roads are widely regarded as inadequate and unsafe. The implications of growth cannot be addressed without consideration of the impact on local communities and the environment.

I appreciate that people in Leeds and West Yorkshire want to fly from their airport at the cheapest price to the greatest number of destinations. Although my constituents who live near the airport realise that there is a price to pay for the location, they rightly do not want their quality of life destroyed over time by its unrestricted and excessive growth. A fair and sustainable balance must be struck.

The condition of roads is the final issue that I wish to tackle in the whistle-stop tour of transport issues in Pudsey. Like other constituencies in Leeds, mine suffers from a substantial backlog in highway maintenance. That occurred in the years of the Conservative Government when inadequate capital allocations caused difficult compromises. Leeds city council chose to prioritise schools, early years provision and social services, especially services for older people, at the expense of highways.

Although I am pleased that the council has earmarked an extra £15 million for highways over the next three years, its ability to make even more progress depends on the highways formula spending share. Besides maintenance, there are other important aspects such as road safety measures, crossings and speed cameras.

The council's grant was affected when the A1-M1 link was opened. The link obviously led to a reduction in traffic flows on some major routes, but they were never designed to take the traffic that they experienced before the link was opened. Consequently, they needed major repair. The traffic has gone and the money has gone with it, but the maintenance is still required.

The removal of the traffic flow threshold had an impact on Leeds. Previously, average traffic flow had to be above a specified figure before councils received any extra money. Removing the threshold spread the money across a greater number of authorities, to the obvious detriment of areas such as Leeds.

I am aware of the clock, and, given the constraints of time and the need to give my hon. Friend the Minister some time to respond, I shall bring the tour to an end. I anticipate his response with bated breath and I know that he will write to me about any of the issues that he is unable to cover in the remaining 13 minutes.

---