Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
MR ROY
WICKS, MR
GEOFF INSKIP,
MR DOUGLAS
FERGUSON, MR
ROBERT SMITH,
MR MIKE
PARKER AND
MR MARK
DOWD
21 JUNE 2006
Q100 Chairman: Did you want to comment
on that?
Mr Inskip: I would, yes, please.
We do need more powers. We need more powers for network stability,
to co-ordinate services. We need to organise the buses in the
city centres, the town centres and the region, and we need simplified
fare systems throughout the conurbations as well. The only way
to do that is by having greater powers over the bus services.
I do not think we would apologise for wanting to spend more money
on raising the standard and giving people better quality bus services.
Q101 Chairman: Mr Wicks?
Mr Wicks: Mr Inskip has covered
most of the points. The other one I would add is that I think
what the highway authorities want is the confidence to invest
in the reliability improvements and that comes from knowing the
bus service will still be there after they have made the investment.
I think having the powers over the provision of the service reinforces
the investment and reliability.
Q102 Chairman: Mr Parker?
Mr Parker: I think we look very
enviously at the powers of Transport for London, particularly
over the strategic highway network where Transport for London
is able to drive bus priorities more flexibly than we are able
to do in partnership with local authorities. We also need powers
on bus operator performance. Colleagues have mentioned poor performance
before but we have no powers, the Traffic Commissioner has powers
but in terms of Tyne & Wear our local Traffic Commissioner
is based in Leeds and I understand he has two individuals responsible
for looking at bus services between the Trent and the Scottish
borders. We would like powers like Traffic Commissioners to ensure
that bus operators perform and provide the buses that they register.
In Tyne & Wear we have about 4% of bus services, which I think
is quite a good statistic, I am told, but 4% of bus services just
do not operate because either there is not a bus or there is not
a driver. If I do that on my Metro I would be shot.
Q103 Chairman: Mr Smith, same ideas?
Mr Smith: Yes, indeed. I think
what is required is a system where the public sector specifies
what is to be provided and the private sector does what it is
good at which is providing for that specification. It allows bus
operators to concentrate on what they are good at and it allows
local authorities clarity of their particular role.
Q104 Mr Clelland: Finally, are there
any powers which local authorities currently have which would
be better exercised at the PTE level?
Mr Wicks: There is one power in
that Passenger Transport Executives are not actually able to own
buses whereas some Shire counties and district councils have that
power. It ought to be put in place fairly easily.
Q105 Chairman: Unlike somewhere like
Cheshire, you cannot offer a complementary or alternative system?
Mr Wicks: We cannot own vehicles.
It is as simple as that.
Q106 Mr Clelland: What about things
like common rules for bus lanes, for instance, which is a big
problem in some areas?
Mr Parker: Chairman, it is a real
problem when you have got five local authorities in Tyne &
Wear who all have different rules for bus lanes. Trying to get
them all to agree to have the same rules, the result is the police
are more reluctant to enforce bus lanes because they claim that
drivers can always use the excuse that they are confused and they
are not quite sure whether they are in Gateshead or Newcastle.
Q107 Chairman: In what sense can
they not combine them, Mr Parker? You are not saying you have
a bus lane which finishes up in a dead end and then the next one
starts.
Mr Parker: No, no, it is not combining.
For instance, one local authority may have a no car lane which
allows taxis and vans as well as buses and cyclists, another might
not. One might operate between seven in the morning and seven
in the evening, another might operate in the rush hour.
Q108 Chairman: Is there any attempt
to standardise?
Mr Parker: We have tried very
hard, Chairman, but have yet to succeed.
Q109 Clive Efford: Given that many
of you are seeking more powers, am I right in believing that quality
contracts could offer you the opportunity to get more power and,
if so, why have there not been any?
Mr Wicks: In our evidence we have
set out what we think are some of the barriers to quick achievement
of quality contracts. Together with Nexus we started a market
consultation exercise at the beginning of this year when we invited
operators to work with us and understand how a quality contract
could be introduced. Without giving a long treatise on it, there
are two or three very critical problems. First of all there is
the hurdle, the test that we have to pass is to prove that it
is the only practical way. That requires us to put a lot of work
in to demonstrate that that is the right way forward. The second
is really around the process. There are clearly issues involved
in how you introduce quality contracts, the risk of instability
in the short-term to your bus provision. The question mark over
what it might cost. We have done quite a lot of work through the
market consultation to give ourselves comfort on what a quality
contract might cost and we are not unduly concerned about that
in what it might actually cost but clearly there is the risk about
how incumbent operators might price that, whether the public sector
gets value for money. A third issue is contract length. The legislation
only allows a five year contract for a quality contract. All the
people we spoke to on the market consultation exercise said an
eight year contract, or something like that, would offer much
better value for the public sector and particularly on vehicle
costs and things like that there will be significant savings.
There is quite a lot of work going on to look at how one might
be introduced and I think all of us along this table are at various
stages in the process of doing that. Of course, as was mentioned
in the earlier evidence, there is the political dimension to this
which is the elected authorities that we represent have to look
at the consequences of pursuing the quality contract process which
we think in South Yorkshire will probably take three to four years
to implement, even with the accelerated timescales of the legislation.
That may still be better than that which they will get through
continuing voluntary partnership arrangements but it does represent
a substantial risk politically and to the passengers in South
Yorkshire. I think we are seriously working through the legislation
but the hurdle, the risks to the process and the local political
consequences are serious.
Q110 Chairman: I take it most of
you would agree with most of that?
Mr Inskip: Can I just add one
other dimension and that is operator resistance to quality contracts
should not be overstated as well. They will resist quality contracts
all the way through, if necessary taking this issue to court to
prove that there is a different way and that the only practical
way will be tested in court I believe.
Q111 Chairman: Is this because they
cannot be shamed into agreeing that they do not want to comply
with certain standards?
Mr Inskip: We do not believe that
they want them full stop and they would rather have the existing
regime continue.
Q112 Chairman: They just want the
money but they do not want the restriction?
Mr Inskip: They are making 25%,
30% returns on their commercial services currently. If you go
down the quality contract route, let us face it, we are talking
about then only making seven or 8% returns and that is what they
do not want.
Q113 Clive Efford: Greater Manchester
has put in evidence that says they would like to see an enhanced
quality partnership which gives the transport authority more control
over timetabling and fares. What sort of improvements would this
deliver over quality partnerships and what would it deliver that
they currently do not?
Mr Inskip: I think Mr Wicks has
described the difficulties with quality contracts in terms of
process, I have also explained about operator resistance. I think
he has also explained that we think it could take three to four
years before we could get the quality contracts in place. If we
could have binding partnerships with the bus operators which give
us exactly the same thing. If you could achieve that more quickly
and that is what we are suggesting, there could be a path through
to do that. It still requires legislative change, we still need
change in the legislation to do it. We would be offering some
level of exclusivity to the operators but rather than have a monopolistic
position where they are now, where we have got no control, we
would have control over the operators regarding service levels,
standards and the specification that they would operate to.
Q114 Clive Efford: Can I just move
on to Traffic Commissioners. Are the Traffic Commissioners fit
for purpose and do they have enough staff and resources?
Mr Smith: I can help on that particular
one. I think we have a very good relationship generally with Traffic
Commissioners, certainly in the West Midlands we have a good personal
relationship with the Traffic Commissioner. I think he would also
say that the amount of inspection staff that he has at his disposal
is only one for the whole of the West Midlands region which is
clearly inadequate for the purpose of doing anything other than
ensuring the buses are safe to run, which generally they are in
the West Midlands. In terms of his other responsibilities for
checking on whether buses turn up on time and taking care of that,
he has only one member of enforcement staff for the whole region,
not just the conurbation, and therefore he uses our own monitoring
staff. We send out monitoring staff to ensure that buses are running
to time and if they are not we try and identify why that should
be.
Q115 Clive Efford: Any other comments
on that?
Mr Parker: The Traffic Commissioner
has certainly said to us that they will only act if there is a
big upsurge in local stress about the local service but the question
is how do local people know about the Traffic Commissioner, and
frankly they do not. They do not know of the Traffic Commissioner's
existence, the Traffic Commissioner has no responsibility to publicise
him or herself. The point I made earlier is that the resources
are completely inadequate. The whole emphasis is on making sure
bus companies run safely, that is absolutely fine, but actually
making sure they perform is what bus passengers are most interested
about, punctuality and reliability. Frankly, the Traffic Commissioner
is non-existent in Tyne & Wear.
Q116 Clive Efford: Where should extra
resources for Traffic Commissioners come from?
Mr Parker: I believe that the
PTEs could be Traffic Commissioners in their own particular areas.
We are there, we are not bus operators, we are not allowed statutorily
to be bus operators. I do not see why we cannot do that policing
job perhaps as an agent for the Traffic Commissioner.
Q117 Clive Efford: Just referring
back to Mr Wicks, Mr Wicks was suggesting that PTEs wanted to
become bus owners and therefore presumably bus operators, you
are saying they should go down another route?
Mr Parker: I am saying that if
your real effort is to enforce punctuality and performance and
you ask the question about the powers of the Traffic Commissioners,
the Traffic Commissioners are not fit for purpose. I am suggesting
we could do that. Obviously if we were a bus operator ourselves
then that would not be the right solution because we would be
biased.
Mr Wicks: Could I clarify that:
I certainly was not seeking for the PTEs to become bus operators.
Q118 Chairman: No, I think that is
clear, Mr Wicks.
Mr Wicks: It was just the ability
to own vehicles for community transport and those sorts of purposes.
Q119 Graham Stringer: If I can take
us back for a second to quality contracts, did you, Mr Wicks,
listen to or read the evidence given by the Permanent Secretary
to the Public Accounts Committee in January about buses?
Mr Wicks: I did not see the evidence
but I did see the Committee's report.
| 
