| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.29 pm
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I welcome the Government’s consultation document, “Putting Passengers First”, and this debate in Government time. I also welcome the Minister’s clear commitment to further and wide consultation on the proposals, which is the right way to approach making legislation.
For some time, it has been fairly obvious to bus passengers and would-be bus passengers in Sheffield and south Yorkshire—and to the PTA, local councils and local MPs—that the current arrangements do not work. I welcome the Select Committee report that supports that conclusion, and it is nice to see that Ministers now agree that there has to be a change.
I listened with some amazement to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who opened the debate for the Opposition by saying that deregulation had arrested the decline of bus usage in this country. What has happened in south Yorkshire since 1986 has been a complete disaster.
It is probably not surprising that the number of bus passengers is only one third of what it used to be, nor that the total mileage covered by the bus companies is only two thirds of what it was formerly. Since 1986, fares have risen by 1,300 per cent., compared with an increase in the retail prices index of 100 per cent. in the same period. Buses have become a very expensive form of transport, especially for people on low incomes.
The arrangements in south Yorkshire and Sheffield mean that, effectively, there is no comprehensive bus service or network. Because there is no through-ticketing to speak of, there is no integration of service. The original idea behind Sheffield’s Supertram was that local bus services would feed into its route, thus achieving co-ordinated local transport provision. As soon as the tram was built, however, the bus companies altered their routes to compete with it. The result was that they were less user friendly for the local population.
Some of my constituents do not have well paid jobs, but they have to get up early to get to work by 7 am. Having no car, they have to rely on their local bus; yet the bus companies need give only 42 days notice before taking a service away: when that happens, they effectively take away people’s jobs as well. The people who have suffered most in south Yorkshire since 1986 are those who are socially and economically excluded, and that exclusion is often due to the fact that local public transport provision and bus services are so poor.
I accept that Ministers are right to say that local PTAs should be able to choose from a range of options. The partnership arrangements that exist in some parts of the country can work well, although only in certain very particular circumstances. I remember very well the
proposals a few years ago for a transport partnership in Sheffield, which promised improved services in the north of the city. We soon realised that those improvements were being achieved by transferring buses from the south of Sheffield. That was how the partnership was being delivered, and the approach displayed by bus companies in general renders many of us highly sceptical about their intentions when they talk about improving services.
Many of us believe that quality contracts represent the best way forward for our localities. We do not want to go back to 1986, with municipal bus companies and full regulation; instead, we want to draw on the London experience, because we recognise that the capital has certain unique features. I welcome the proposals in the document to remove the “only practicable way” test, as it is clearly a major obstacle to the introduction of quality contracts, and to remove the role of Secretary of State in second-guessing what local transport authorities do. Both proposals are eminently sensible.
Are Ministers sure that they have got right the process for instituting quality contracts in the future? The governance of local transport authorities—that is, whether members are directly or indirectly elected—has yet to be finally determined but, ultimately, those members will be accountable. If an authority decides that a quality contract is the best way to deliver services for bus passengers, and would-be passengers, there needs to be a simple and effective way to introduce such a contract.
What must not happen is that, in five or six years’ time, we find ourselves asking, “Why haven’t quality contracts happened? We know that they are the right way to deliver bus services in many parts of the country, but why haven’t they happened for technical reasons?” Those are the questions that the current legislation has forced us to ask.
Last night I asked the director-general of South Yorkshire PTE about extra resources. A lot of extra money has been spent on delivering bus franchising in London, but he said that he believed there is competition out there if we can tap into it. The steps that South Yorkshire has taken down the quality contract route have shown that a number of bus companies, some of which do not currently operate in this country, are interested in tendering for franchises. He believes that if we move to quality contracts now, an enormous range of benefits will result: a single network, integration between bus services and other forms of transport such as trains and trams, through- ticketing, removal of the oldest buses, removal of congestion on some routes where there is competition and buses are falling over themselves, diversion of buses on to routes to communities that are currently not served at all and smoothed out timetables, such as the one for the route from Mosborough in my constituency, from where four buses an hour run into town but where there is a 25-minute wait twice an hour because the buses run close together and are from different companies between which there is no co-operation. Franchising would provide stability of service for the passenger, thereby avoiding the 42-day change, which costs people their jobs, and ensuring that operators know where they stand.
The director-general also believes that by increasing services we would get better value than we are currently getting from our tendered service, whereby bus operators increase the price every year and fewer routes are run at an increased cost to the PTE. All those benefits could be delivered with no extra funding. If we had more funding, we could do even better. All those improvements—an integrated network, newer buses, better dispersal of buses, better co-ordination of timetables and greater stability—could be delivered for the same sum. We must, therefore, look seriously at that and, if there are obstacles in the way, we must remove them.
I have already expressed concerns, as have others, about the way in which bus operators are using the concessionary fares scheme. We want a really good scheme that is valued by pensioners throughout the whole country. Bus operators are increasing fares cleverly. They are not increasing fares on weekly tickets as much as one-off fares because they know that those who pay for weekly tickets use the bus regularly. They are increasing the one-off ticket fares, knowing that they will get compensation for concessionary travel. They have increased fares by 10 per cent. We know that the PTE will get only a 4 per cent. increase in its grant, so the gap has to be filled by cuts in tendered services. That is what will happen unless we change the scheme.
There is not the same problem in London because the concessionary scheme is part of the package and operators have to tender for the whole package, including the concessions. There is an element of competition for the pricing of concessionary fares, which does not happen outside London, where operators are simply handed a sum of money. They then go to appeal, so it is not even within the control of the PTE to come to an arrangement with operators. It would greatly benefit local bus users, PTEs and the Government in the proper use of public money if we made different arrangements for funding concessionary fares through a quality contract arrangement.
Let us make sure that we get it right. Let us make sure that we do not simply have a good idea that could deliver enormous improvements in bus services for our constituents and could get people who do not currently use buses to use them, but then, for all our good intentions, fail to deliver a workable practicable system.
As I say, I was talking to directors-general of PTEs last night, including Roy Wicks for South Yorkshire. He has been progressive in looking at these issues and I commend him for the initiative that South Yorkshire PTE has taken so far on quality contracts. As professional technical officers, they believe that the process to put passengers first could take even longer than the current arrangements. The best guess is that it would take at least 21 months to implement current arrangements, considering what a PTE and executive would have to go through—probably rightly—followed by the traffic commissioner, followed by an appeal to a tribunal, followed by a potential court appeal and a potential judicial review. That could take much longer than 21 months. If the process even takes 21 months, it will not happen. Other Members have spoken about timetables and it is important for Ministers to address those points.
Before a transport executive decides whether to recommend a quality contract to the transport authority, it should fully assess the transport needs in the area. It should consult the public and local authorities and reach agreement on bus priority measures. It should assess the financial implications, which are important. It is absolutely right to do all that before recommending that the authority go ahead with a quality contract. My concerns are about the next two steps, however.
First, I shall deal with the appeal mechanism. I understand the Minister’s view that appeal by judicial review is a messy, time-consuming business, but will appeals to a transport tribunal be made on the same basis as a judicial review, in that they will not second-guess the policy reasons why the PTE and the PTA came to a view, or will they be held on the same grounds as judicial review? In that case, the appeal would simply determine whether the PTE and the PTA had gone through the right processes to reach their decision. That is a crucial question in terms of democratic accountability, so it is important that Ministers give a more thorough explanation.
Secondly, if there is a mechanism for appeal to a transport tribunal, will there still be the possibility of judicial review, too? I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the expense involved. The transport tribunal appeal process will not reduce costs for PTEs—if that is what Ministers intend—but will add to them if there is still the option of judicial review, because bus operators will use every possible stage of the process to delay something that could cost them profits. We need clarity about the role of the transport tribunal in the appeal process. Will it be on the same basis as judicial review? Will it be in addition to judicial review, and will it also be possible to take the case to the Court of Appeal?
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments about the role of the traffic commissioner. He used the word “appeal”, but according to “Putting Passengers First”, there is no appeal as such—it is simply a required stage in the process—and he used the word “review”, whereas according to the document, the word is “approve”. After all the appropriate consultations and considerations, a scheme decided on by the PTE and the PTA has to go before a traffic commissioner, who, sitting with expert assessors, decides whether to approve it.
The Government are legislating on local government devolution so that powers can be transferred back to elected local representatives. Local councillors on the four South Yorkshire councils were elected on a manifesto that supports the introduction of quality contracts. They formed a passenger transport authority, which instructed the passenger transport executive to go through all the necessary procedures to decide whether quality contracts were right. At the end of the process, having obtained local support, they decided in favour of quality contracts, yet a non-elected, appointed traffic commissioner could overturn that decision and refuse to approve it. After 10 years in office, is that a feasible approach for a Labour
Government who believe in more devolution of power to local representatives and local councils?
I have no problem with giving traffic commissioners extra enforcement powers, but I question their role in approving the policy decisions of elected members. No one is against expert advice, so if Ministers want to keep a role for the traffic commissioner and the independent panel of advisers, the PTE could be asked to consult them as part of the consultation and assessment process. The PTE could take account of those expert views before making a recommendation to the PTA. If the transport commissioner were brought in at that stage—so that they are not second-guessing a democratic decision, but are asked for their advice, which has to be part of the democratic process—that would be eminently sensible and would shorten the process, because it would take place in parallel rather than as an after stage.
I hope that the Minister will take on board those comments not as criticism of the Government’s ultimate intentions, but as helpful suggestions as to how they might better get towards the ultimate objective. In five years’ time, we could come back and look at a piece of legislation and say that Ministers had many good intentions, but the legislation has had no practical effect, or we could find that we have passed legislation that has dramatically improved the quality of life of some of the most socially and economically excluded people in our community. That is the opportunity that we have. I hope that we are going to take it.
4.46 pm
Barbara Keeley (Worsley) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). It was good to have at least some interest in this important subject from the Opposition Benches. Perhaps it was standing in Worsley in the 2001 general election that first ignited the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the subject.
When we start to plan ahead, it is important that we reflect on the day-to-day reality of the bus services that people are living with. The Transport Committee report says that there is a perception
“that bus services are generally unreliable and of a poor quality; that vehicles are old and inaccessible; that drivers are rude; and that passengers are ... uncomfortable.”
My constituents’ current and recent experiences of their local services bears out the Committee’s view. In fact, our services have recently become much worse than that.
Like most MPs, I had a regular low level of grumbling from my constituents about bus services. Bus timings were unreliable and some drivers were rude, particularly when they refused to pick up parents with buggies because they already had one buggy on board. Commuters into Manchester said that they found bus vehicles dirty and cold on many morning journeys. However, that all became much worse when the main provider, First, decided to reorganise the routes and timetables of bus services to and from my constituency. First labelled its reorganisation of bus services an attempt to reach a service that “better matches” user demands. The result turned out to be completely the opposite.
The extensive remodelling of services has had a profound effect on the way in which many of my constituents are able to carry on their daily lives, because in many cases it has proved to be both restrictive and extremely disruptive. A group of hundreds of my constituents were so unhappy about the changes and so dissatisfied with the services that they presented me with a petition, which I presented to the Minister a few months ago.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole) said earlier, older people are among those who most rely on bus services. Many of my older constituents need public transport to complete basic, everyday tasks such as going to the shops and picking up prescriptions or their pensions. I have been contacted by many elderly constituents who have been adversely affected by the remodelling of bus services. They are finding it harder, if not impossible, to continue with their essential, regular local bus journeys.
I will give just one example. The 553 service from Leigh to Bolton has undergone major route and timetable changes. It started as a half-hourly service. It is now only hourly. Furthermore, the service used to travel from Walkden, at the centre of my constituency, to Bolton via Farnworth, a local centre for work and shopping. Since the bus service remodelling, Farnworth has been cut out of the route altogether, thus removing the only means of direct public transport between Boothstown in my constituency and Farnworth. An elderly constituent informed me that many pensioners that she knows travelled from Boothstown to Farnworth because it has the only Asda store locally. However, to get there now, pensioners would have to change buses in the middle of Walkden, cross a busy dual carriageway, and walk 500 m uphill to a different bus stop. As my constituent made clear to me, many elderly people are now simply unable to make that journey to do their shopping, because that changed route is too difficult.
Talking to constituents, I have found that alterations to their bus services are debilitating and that they are effectively chipping away at older people’s independence, leaving many of them feeling isolated and frustrated. Many hon. Members have referred to the welcome concessionary fares, but elderly constituents have been telling me that it is absolutely no good having concessionary fares that allow them to travel for free if there are no suitable services.
The changes are also having a severe impact on people with families, especially those with caring responsibilities. Such people often rely on commuter bus services to get them to work and back home again quickly and reliably. I was recently contacted by a constituent who found that the changes to the services were making it difficult for her to ensure that she could get home from work in time to be there for her children. She is a single parent living in Tyldesley and relies on the bus to travel 10 miles into central Manchester, where she works. She has arranged her working hours completely around the 32 bus service so that she can care for her children herself, which is important to her. The 32 was the only bus that she could take to work following the removal of the 35 late last year. Indeed, it is the only means of public transport from Tyldesley to Manchester—there is no train or tram service.
It now appears that that service, which my constituent tells me is packed full with commuters every morning, is to be withdrawn, due, the bus company says, to falling numbers. With no other way of getting to and from work, my constituent, like many others, is left with the undesirable choice of buying a car, or changing work location—if she can find a more local job. The Wigan area, which my constituency covers in part, is the part of the north-west with the fasting growing car ownership—it is not difficult to see why. My constituent said to me:
“First’s policy in Worsley is an absolute contradiction to the policies of the Government and the Local Authority. What we’ve got needs improving, yet First Bus seem intent on abandoning us altogether”.
It is, of course, unacceptable that families are being forced to make such large changes to their lives entirely because of poorly scheduled or re-routed bus services. It is unfair that hard-working people who are trying to provide for their families are having that task made harder. They should not be put in a position in which being able to travel to work means compromising their family life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said, there is an important economic argument to be made because inadequate public transport provision is becoming a major barrier to people’s ability to work. First has recently withdrawn the Little Hulton stop from its 37 and 554 buses to Manchester and the Trafford centre respectively. Little Hulton is in the top 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards nationally. It has the lowest car ownership figures in my constituency, with only 53 per cent. of people having access to a car. There are very few local sources of employment, so my constituents from Little Hulton have to travel to get to work.
Those two bus routes allowed people in that deprived part of my constituency to travel to work. However, their withdrawal leaves many workers with no alternative but to leave their jobs. Additionally, changes made to our local services by the bus companies are tying the hands of people searching for jobs by restricting their options to those few destinations that have a bus link to where they live.
The only substantial supermarket in the Salford wards of my constituency is in Walkden, a once thriving town that used to have a market and a wide range of local shops. Walkden centre is in need of regeneration and I am determined that that will happen. However, people in three areas in my constituency are unable to travel to Walkden by bus, which is a possible contributor to the further decline of the town’s life as a retail and commercial centre. All that completes the picture that has been painted so often in the debate: bus deregulation did not work.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |