Examination of Witnesses (Questions 425-439)
GILLIAN MERRON
AND MR
PHIL WEST
28 JUNE 2006
Q425 Chairman: Minister, you are most
warmly welcome this afternoon. May I begin by apologising to you.
I am very sorry that we have kept you waiting but, as you know,
business managers down on the floor do not always take the needs
of the Select Committee for Transport into account before they
call their votes, so I hope you will forgive me. Can I ask you
if you would identify yourself for the record and then I do not
know if you do have something you would like to see but perhaps
you might like to kick off?
Gillian Merron: Thank you, Chairman,
and I more than understand about parliamentary business, having
had a hand in it previously. I am Gillian Merron, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State for Transport, with particular responsibility
for buses, and I would indeed, with your permission, like to make
an opening statement.
Q426 Chairman: Please.
Gillian Merron: Thank you very
much for welcoming me to my first appearance before the Select
Committee. Can I introduce to the Committee the official who will
be supporting me today: Phil West, Head of the Buses and Taxis
Division at the Department. With your permission, I would like
to call on him to provide supporting detail when and where necessary.
Q427 Chairman: Of course.
Gillian Merron: Thank you. For
the benefit of the Committee I would first like to set out some
context. Bus use has been declining steadily since the 1950s and
the last few years have been no exception. We know that the background
to all of this is sustained economic growth, with an increase
in personal wealth and an understandable desire to own and use
cars, which contributes, of course, to a corresponding decline
in bus use. Whilst prosperity in itself is a very positive advance,
where people do not have cars or in areas where there is congestion,
clearly buses are absolutely essential. Bus services can be made
to work well, Chairman, as we have heard from places like York,
Lincolnshire and London, but outside the capital bus usage is
in general decline. Over the coming months I would like to assure
the Committee that we intend to take a long, hard look at the
issues so that we can come to a decision about what needs to be
done to reverse that trend. No decisions have yet been made and
it would be premature to do so without the evidence. Our job would
be to find the right framework. Local circumstance will always
dictate what works best. If I can just outline the sequence that
we will be following, again for the benefit of the Committee.
First of all, we are gathering evidence. Douglas Alexander and
I have already had discussions with colleagues, with industry
representatives from the Confederation of Passenger Transport
and with individual bus companies, as well as with local government
and stakeholder groups which has included my own participation
in two Core City summits. We aim to continue with all of this
and to undertake fact-finding visits to successful and not-so-successful
bus projects. We will be seeking the views of the Bus Partnership
Forum, which our predecessors set up, to bring together local
government and the industry. We would also wish, depending on
the timing of the report of this inquiry, to take account of the
Committee's findings. In parallel, we have also asked our officials
to carry out more analysis of the legislative, funding and practical
issues and, as I said, Chairman, we intend in the autumn to take
decisions about the future of buses. This will allow us to time,
if we decide it is necessary, to introduce legislation next year.
We will, of course, ensure that any decisions tie in with the
discussions that Ruth Kelly and her Department might be having
with the core cities on their business cases and their proposals
for economic development. In the meantime and notwithstanding
anything we might do in the longer term, Chairman, we have asked
our officials to continue with work to develop enhanced quality
partnerships, ie ways in which partnership schemes and future
developments can deliver a new way of planning and operating the
bus networks in our large urban areas, with local authorities
and bus operators sitting down together to work out what services
can be improved for the benefit of passengers, by mutual agreement.
I believe, Chairman, that this inquiry comes at a crucial time
for the bus industry, and for central and local government in
developing policies for bus users and, importantly, for would-be
users. I welcome the chance to contribute today and I look forward
to your findings. The Committee's inquiry will play an important
part in shaping our thinking.
Q428 Chairman: That is very diplomatic
and helpful of you, Minister, and long may you arrive and bring
us such good news in the future! We shall do our best to promote
your career in any way possible! It is lovely to have you put
into context the importance of this work because frankly, as you
know, the female of the species relies very heavily on buses.
I think that we will have questions to ask you because it is clear
that very interesting problems are arising. Why do you think bus
patronage numbers are in decline?
Gillian Merron: I believe that
there is a whole range of reasons and, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, clearly the increased use of the car and car ownership
is one of them. I also believe that if we are to be serious about
increasing bus patronage, we have to make it an attractive proposition.
There have to be buses available when people want them and of
the right kind of quality. Where we do see successes it is for
exactly those reasons. Having said that, if we look at London,
and I use it as an example, bus patronage there is high for a
whole range of reasons, and I do believe that we can learn from
them. Although I do feel that direct comparisons are not always
very useful, we can learn from them by the use of bus subsidy.
Also I believe in terms of bus patronage, it has increased greatly
because of the integrated approach from the political leadership
that we have seen. For me there is no one reason but a whole range.
I suppose the overall message underlying all that is that I am
very proud of our concessionary fares scheme, firstly because
it is the right thing to do to offer people over 60 and disabled
people travel on the buses, as we do, but also because, without
a doubt, it will and it is already increasing bus patronage, and
that will be to the benefit of everybody, whether they are disabled
or not or under or over 60.
Chairman: I have been very impressed
by the number of my constituents who voluntarily point out to
me what benefits they regard the scheme as providing and how delighted
they are with it. Mr Stringer?
Q429 Graham Stringer: When I read
Mr Rowlands's evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts in
January, it piqued me into writing my own evidence to this Committee.
I found it quite extraordinary. Do you agree with everything Mr
Rowlands said at that hearing?
Gillian Merron: It might be helpful,
Chairman, for Mr Stringer to clarify the particular areas he would
like me to address.
Q430 Graham Stringer: He said that
older vehicles and older buses were not a problem and that the
Routemasters in London had shown the way and therefore the age
of the fleet was not an issue. I could go through them all if
you would like. The thing that really aggravated me and piqued
me was that he compared PTE areas in London and assumed that passenger
transport authorities could make exactly the same choices as London.
London actually has a dedicated fund of money whereas PTEs are
part of a rather complicated competition for funds involving many
local authorities, as well as the fact they are regulated. He
seemed to think it was not so much a role for local government
and he used words that he was "agnostic" about children
paying adult fares. It was an extraordinary performance, Minister,
and I would be interested in what you agreed with, what you disagreed
with, or if you agreed with the lot?
Gillian Merron: Thank you for
the clarification. Perhaps if I can take the three particular
areas that Mr Stringer has referred to.
Q431 Graham Stringer: Five.
Gillian Merron: First of all,
on the issue of children's fares, obviously in London we have
seen advances there. In terms of the Government approach, we have
set a minimum in terms of concessionary fares, as I have referred
to, which is the over 60s and disabled people, and for us to extend
that to children I think would be a very considerable financial
commitment. Having said that, as members of the Committee will
know, it is perfectly allowable and local authorities are free
to go further than the provision that we make, and of course they
may include children. I should say, Chairman, at one of the Core
City events that I went to in Brighton, which was bringing people
in from coastal areas, one of the things young people raised with
me was fares, so it is an issue that young people do want to use
buses but it is whether it is manageable for them. On the issue
of the age of buses—
Q432 Graham Stringer: The real question
is are you agnostic on the issue?
Gillian Merron: With respect,
it depends what you mean by agnostic.
Q433 Graham Stringer: I think it
means he did not have a view one way or the other and he was not
supporting it and was not against it in the context of the answers
he gave, but those were the Permanent Secretary's words.
Mr West: I was at the hearing.
Q434 Chairman: Can you tell us whether
Mr Rowlands was just being Mr Rowlands?
Mr West: He certainly was. I think
the view he took was there were policy decisions to be made and
if ministers decided this is what they would want and were prepared
to make resources available, he was agnostic; he just delivered
the policy that would be decided upon.
Graham Stringer: So are you agnostic
or are you going to tell Mr Rowlands you believe or disbelieve
him?
Chairman: Could we have the record right,
it is Sir David.
Q435 Graham Stringer: I apologise
to both you and Sir David.
Gillian Merron: As you have heard
from Mr West, and in fact I would suggest, perhaps Sir David was
being a good civil servant in the way he was wishing to put it
across. It was indeed, as I have suggested, a policy decision.
What I would say in general terms is of course anything we can
do to encourage bus patronage is a good thing but it is always
at a price and those are the kinds of decisions we are going to
have to take. I think it is perhaps appropriate to leave it at
that point. On the issue of the age of buses, I think that is
an important factor on whether people are going to be using buses
and how they view it. I am aware that many of the people who say
they would not travel by bus have not even looked at one for some
considerable time. In fact, there have been some major improvements
and we have exceeded our target in terms of newer buses which
are far more attractive for the travelling public, for example
for women with children or carrying heavy shopping or those with
disabilities to use them. For me, the age of the buses does indeed
matter and it is something which has been an area of policy discussion.
On the issue of PTE areas, they do have an important role and
I will be meeting with Members of Parliament who are representing
those areas to discuss it in more detail and I would be very interested
in what they have to tell me. I know that there are particular
challenges as to why PTE staff cannot always find a way to move
forward in the way they would wish to. I am very keen we look
at that. I do not feel there is a direct comparison with London
for some of the reasons I have already explained. It is about
bus subsidy, it is about political direction, it is about the
sheer enormity of London and the challenges that it presents but
therefore also the opportunities. The other very major factor
is about integration and demand management through the congestion
charge. It is difficult to draw direct comparisons but I would
want to emphasise for the benefit of the Committee, Chairman,
that I feel there are many things we can learn, and that will
be part of the process we are going through, myself and the Secretary
of State, over the next few months.
Q436 Graham Stringer: I take it from
that you did not agree with everything your Permanent Secretary
said. Your opening statement was interesting, Minister. What I
would like you to clarify is is this the start of a "blue
skies" consultation where everything is on offer and everything
can be changed or are there limits to what you are having discussions
and consultations on before the autumn, because most of the facts
of this industry have been known for a long time. Can you tell
me a little more about what is ruled in and what is ruled out.
Gillian Merron: I think perhaps
it would be only fair of me to say in answer to Mr Stringer that
it would be unwise at this stage (because I am wanting to look
at an evidence-based process) to speak in the fashion which you
are inviting me to do, if I might put it that way. I would say
to the Committee, Mr Stringer, that what I want to see is greater
reliability, greater quality of bus services, and greater bus
patronage; something we all share. It is about finding the right
framework. I certainly do not think I would be at all wise, nor
do I intend to, to prejudge what the outcome is. What I would
assure—
Q437 Graham Stringer: That is what
I am trying to get at. It is not the outcome, it is the start
of the process and how far any others who might want to influence
this process can go?
Gillian Merron: I was just a little
reluctant, Mr Stringer, to trot out what I know you regard as
a mantra which is there will not be a return to 1980s regulation.
To be quite honest, I do not think many people would expect us
to go down that road because we all know that it was not perfect
in that instance. What I would assure you of, Mr Stringer, is
the wish to be as broad as possible in seeking views and experiences
and pulling all of those together, but at this stage I think I
would be very unwise to endorse or reject any particular aspects.
Q438 Graham Stringer: Can we draw
any conclusions from the fact you have put out guidance today
on the statutory qualitative partnership schemes? Your predecessor
in March was talking about statutory quality partnerships and
there has been no move to that.
Gillian Merron: I would not infer
anything specific about that other than to refer back to my opening
statement where I said that in the meantime and without prejudice
to what might happen in the future we had asked officials to look
at enhanced quality partnerships.
Q439 Graham Stringer: That is the
phrase I was looking for, sorry.
Gillian Merron: You are quite
right that we have indeed put out recent guidance to do with quality
partnerships and it was last year that we put out guidance in
terms of quality contracts. Of course we know there are many voluntary
arrangements that are currently in place but, no, I would not
suggest anything in particular could be inferred, other than we
are seeking to use existing mechanisms in the interim to do whatever
we can. In other words, we are not standing still.
|
