Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420-424)
MR KEITH
HALSTEAD, MR
EWAN JONES,
MR STEPHEN
JOSEPH, MS
MEERA RAMBISSOON
AND MR
TOM WYLIE
28 JUNE 2006
Q420 Mr Martlew: On young people,
I have recently had a long debate with some 16 and 17-year-olds
on the issue of concessionary fares for young people, and this
was a major concern of theirs and they came from a rural area
as well. What are the benefits of concessionary fares for young
people?
Mr Wylie: Under the Children Act
which we now have there is one outcome which is about helping
young people to achieve economic well-being. One of the criteria
for that is to enable them to minimise the financial stress on
families, to help them to engage in working life and social life,
so the benefit to the young is that they are more fully able to
take advantage of the opportunities, whether those are leisure
opportunities, employment opportunities or educational opportunities,
and they are not being deterred by the cost of travel. The Government
is thinking about an opportunity card which will give access to
leisure opportunities. One city told me recently that in their
survey of young people about the leisure card, the kids have said
to them, "Yes we do not mind getting into the leisure centres
for nothing but actually it costs us £5.10 to get there on
the bus so we are not likely to use those leisure opportunities."
So the case is essentially a case of social cohesion, economic
development, social stability, because this is enabling groups
to travel and to use leisure, education and employment; everybody
wins. It seems to us just a touch unfair that it should be applied
to older people and not be applied to younger people.
Mr Joseph: We have done some work
with the UK department and we also recently contributed to a discussion
that the Hansard Society, or whatever it is now called, set up.
This came across as a huge issue in those discussions. What we
were able to contribute to that is the fact that there are some
local authorities that have gone beyond the statutory minimum
and they are not always the most expected ones. The Isle of Wight
runs a ticket, which used to called the Youth Mover ticket, which
gives discounted travel for all young people in full-time education
up to 21 and free travel after 5 pm. On the Isle of Wight there
is a good network of buses so that means something, if you see
what I mean. This is seen as a very attractive proposition and
the council pay for it out of the further education budget because
otherwise they would have to pay grants to individuals for access
to education. Similarly, we are aware that Derbyshire do a youth
card which does give youth discounts for young people under 18
in full-time education. The problem here is that there is no sense
nationally that this is an important area. Also a lot of local
authorities are not aware that other local authorities have done
this. Faced as you were with young people in Carlisle talking
about the importance of this you would not necessarily know about
this. We have tried do some work on good practice and spreading
this and in a sense that is a very large gap you are trying to
fill.
Mr Halstead: May I add to that.
We welcome increased opportunities for older, disabled and indeed
young people to travel, but I think the issue as far as community
transport operators is concerned is that the current scheme is
only designated to cover free travel on bus services, and if local
authorities want to fund free travel on other forms of transport
such as trains or community transport, then they have to find
the money from elsewhere. In effect, that creates a postcode lottery,
because somebody living in one authority, North Dorset or South
Oxfordshire for example, can access community transport with their
concessionary fare pass and gain access to the services they need
whereas if they live in another authority they will not be able
to do so. So we would promote equality of access to this particular
scheme which generally we think is a good step forward.
Q421 Graham Stringer: In your evidence
you make a very good case that concessionary fares, because of
the way bus companies change their priorities, can lead to a worse
service. That is actually quite an important point, but when it
comes to bus priority measures you do not make a similar point
that I would have expected you to make, and I would be interested
why you did not in that often when there are bus priority measures,
the bus companies reduce their network and concentrate on those
major rail routes or roads. Is that something you accept as a
phenomenon and is there any particular reason you did not put
that in your evidence?
Mr Joseph: I think the answer
is we do not have evidence of that kind of causal effect. I would
make a general comment that I think the situation—and I
think you heard this in previous evidence—between what happens
in big cities and what happens outside is very different. There
seem to be some examples of where you get good bus priorities
provided that operators used that to enhance services. I think
that the problem you have identified in terms of getting the evidence
for it is difficult because you do not know how much they would
have reduced services anyway because of other cost pressures and
so on. I think it is quite difficult to nail down that because
priorities have been given, operators use the savings to concentrate
on their core routes. I think the issue you have described is
a rather broader one about the way in which buses are treated
in big cities.
Q422 Graham Stringer: This is almost
as much a comment as a question. I do not always agree with Transport
2000 but I always read your evidence with interest and I often
share the analysis if not the solutions. Of all the papers I have
read this is one of the most timid, I thought. Really what you
are saying is more money, more bus priority, better practice,
that kind of thing. Do you really think that this is all that
is required to improve bus patronage in the English regions which
have been in decline now for so long?
Mr Joseph: I had hoped that what
we said was that it would need to be part of a broader package
of measures. I think we did say that and I said that at the start
of what I said. We think—and we have made it clear—that
we need to have experiments with regulation. One of the reasons
for that is we want to see whether that makes it easier for local
authority councillors because they would feel they have more control
to put in the measures that are needed to give priority to buses.
I think we also recognise that because of the costs it imposes,
although in some areas without regulation and quality contracts
bus use has grown significantly but there are also areas like
Northern Ireland where even though it is regulated bus patronage
has declined, we do not think it is the only answer. I know that
in a rather fraught discussion between operators and passenger
transport executives it puts us squarely in the middle of the
road to be run over by both sides!
Q423 Graham Stringer: That is probably
why I thought your evidence was timid.
Mr Joseph: I think we were just
pointing out that there were complications in this. The situation
in, for example, outer London which you heard about last week,
one of the things that happened in London was that there have
been quite strict parking policies applied to new developments
which means that even in outer London there are not large-scale
parking facilities which means the bus in those areas will be
a relatively attractive proposition compared to, for example,
places like Milton Keynes where there is plentiful, uncharged
parking. The point I was making was—and this is why I started
with the opening comment—we do need to think about bus policy
in a broader context. We did make a comment about transport regulation
but we thought that it needed to be done in a context where the
local authority had broader policies going to support bus services
in their transport policies rather than just one that was focused
on buses. We also think there is a case, and we make a point of
this, for some type of regulation of bus services that are not
just about local authorities but around the Traffic Commissioners.
Q424 Chairman: While you are on that
what sort of tougher rules?
Mr Joseph: In London, which is
regulated, bus users have a statutory user watchdog: London TravelWatch.
If there is a problem with buses in London and the bus operator
or Transport for London does not solve it, they have a body they
can go to which is funded by the Greater London Authority and
responsible to the Assembly. Outside London there is no such body
and you have just been hearing the problems the Traffic Commissioners
face in acting as a kind of regulator on the behalf of passengers.
They do not have the information, they do not have the powers,
and we think there is a case, irrespective of whether or not we
go for reregulation and the quality contract process, for remedying
there and creating a kind of bus and coach standards authority
with the aim of raising the standards of the industry and producing
something that can operate in the interests of passengers and
is resourced to do so. We think that some kind of body like that,
which would involve taking the current system apart so that you
would take the safety angles, whether the buses are actually maintained
properly and run safely which are mechanical issues, and split
those off from the passenger issues which are about whether there
is proper information, whether the buses are run reliably, punctually
and so on, and it should be able to do that. I am mindful of the
comments that you made to the previous witness about the need
to encroach on local authorities and their powers. Such a body
ought at least be able to point out to local authorities where
the shortage of bus priorities was a key factor in causing problems
with the bus services in their area.
Chairman: I think that has been extremely
helpful and I am very grateful to you all. Thank you very much
for coming.
|
