Written evidence from Ian Wright MP (BUS
105)
I welcome the Select Committee's investigation into
local bus services following the Spending Review, and the opportunity
to contribute to it.
Hartlepool is a relatively compact town, with a population
of about 90,000. Its population is predominantly based in the
dense urban centre: the town is made up of a number of distinctive
and close-knit communities in addition to a number of attractive
rural areas and villages such as Dalton Piercy, Elwick and Greatham
in the Borough. The Borough also contains a small suburban seaside
resort, Seaton Carew, with a population of over 6,000.
The town is governed locally through a unitary council,
headed politically by a directly elected Mayoral model.
Despite improvements in recent years, Hartlepool
still has longstanding social and economic difficulties. Of 354
local authorities in England, Hartlepool was ranked 23rd most
deprived in the country. This ranking was an improvement from
14th most deprived in 2004. Hartlepool has 17 wards, seven of
which fall into the top 10% of most deprived wards in Britain.
Five wards - Brus, Dyke House, Owton, St Hilda and Stranton -
fall into the top 3% most deprived in the country. All of these
wards, in addition to others, have been affected by recent changes
to bus services. About 40% of households in Hartlepool do not
have regular access to a car, which means that it is important
to have a comprehensive, cheap and reliable public transport service.
The bus service in Hartlepool, for both commercial
and supported services, is dominated by one large company, Stagecoach.
Stagecoach is the only large provider in the town which has a
depot in Hartlepool.
A number of other bus operators provide a small percentage
of routes: Arriva, for example, tends to provide services within
the town that also incorporate routes outside of Hartlepool, whilst
a number of very small local bus companies, such as Tees Valley
Coaches, which is a company based in Hartlepool, provide several
additional routes. I have seen no evidence of true competition
within the bus market in Hartlepool: there have been no new entrants
into the market in recent years; the market is dominated by one
large national provider; and other providers appear too small
to compete effectively or respect the current established territorial
position. The market in Hartlepool is distinctive in not having
"medium-sized" players offering wider choice and competition.
Ticketing arrangements undermine competition and
choice in Hartlepool. I understand that Stagecoach offer a ticket
discount scheme, but this is only available on Stagecoach buses,
rather than across all bus services in Hartlepool. Anecdotal evidence
from my constituents strongly suggests that passengers who have
purchased Stagecoach discount tickets are dissuaded from considering
other bus operators because of the additional cost of buying another
ticket. For one ticket discount scheme operated by Stagecoach
in the wider Teesside area - the Teesside Daytripper - this is
allowed to be used on Arriva buses as well as Stagecoach vehicles;
however, this is only permitted on buses within the boroughs of
neighbouring Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees.
Hartlepool Borough Council has faced cuts to its
budget from central government of about 9%. The local authority
decided to cut all subsidised buses in Hartlepool by the end of
March 2011, amounting to a saving to the local authority of about
£287,000. It has also decided to scrap the H1 hospital bus
service, running between Hartlepool and the University Hospital
of North Tees, saving £85,000 per year, as well as the "Dial
a Ride" taxi service.
Specific bus routes affected by this change included:
— the
number 1 service, operated by Stagecoach, which ran from High
Tunstall to Seaton Carew, and then onto Middlesbrough, has had
all evening and Sunday journeys withdrawn. In addition, the 0550
and 0635 Monday to Friday departures from Hartlepool have been
cancelled;
— the
516 service, operated by Tees Valley Coaches, which ran from Tesco
Extra to the villages of Elwick and Dalton Piercy, has been completely
withdrawn. This means that the villages have no bus service whatsoever;
residents have a three mile walk to amenities in the town such
as doctors' surgeries, shops or schools and colleges;
— the
527 service, operated by Arriva, which ran from Hartlepool Marina
to the village of Greatham, has been withdrawn;
— the
number 4A service, operated by Stagecoach, which ran from the
Headland to Hart Station, has been withdrawn;
— the
number 6 service, operated by Stagecoach, which ran from Clavering
to Owton Manor, through the town centre, has had its evening service
withdrawn; and
— the
number 7 service, operated by Arriva, which operated from the
Headland to Owton Manor, has had its evening service withdrawn.
I am concerned that these changes will have an adverse
impact upon my constituents. The community of Burbank, which is
in Stranton Ward and which is in the top 1% of deprived communities
in the country, as well as the rural villages such as Elwick and
Dalton Piercy, now have no bus services at all, leaving such communities
isolated. In Greatham, the village was previously served by two
bus services: following the loss of the 527 service, the only
other service, the number 36, stops on the outskirt of the village,
which makes it difficult for the elderly, disabled and others
to walk to the bus stop.
The loss of evening services will have a disproportionate
effect upon the town's social and economic amenities. Entertainment
venues such as the Town Hall Theatre will suffer, as will the
prospect of evening matches for Hartlepool United Football Club.
Jobs in these sectors will undoubtedly be affected. For the resort
of Seaton Carew, which provides seasonal and often low-paid employment,
as well as attracting day visitors from the rest of Hartlepool
and elsewhere, the loss of Sunday bus services will have a detrimental
impact upon the resort's economy and will in all likelihood reduce
the prospect of employment in the area unless one has access to
a car.
Unemployment is relatively high in Hartlepool, and
the town's economy cannot afford the adverse impact on demand
for services that the loss of bus services will produce. There
are areas of potential economic growth through the development
of high value added manufacturing industry, with a particular
focus on renewable energy, on the outskirts of town. However,
economic potential is not matched with transport routes or a suitable
timetable: no buses are available, for example, for early or late
shifts in factories, meaning that people could be left without
transport and therefore unable to take up the offer of employment.
I would like to see the whole business model for
local bus services looked at again. I am concerned that bus companies
can cherry pick the profitable bus routes and force local authorities
to pay ever increasing public subsidies through expanding the
proportion of bus routes which are categorised as supported services.
When this public subsidy is removed, as we have seen in Hartlepool
following the cuts to Council budgets, passengers are badly affected.
I am also concerned that there is limited competition
between bus operators; since deregulation in 1986, we have moved
from a monopolistic situation provided by the public sector, albeit
one concerned with the wider social good, to a monopolistic situation
whereby a dominant private bus operator's main priority is to
widen profit margins and enhance shareholder value rather than
provide a comprehensive service.
I would like to see the possibility of local area
agreements between the Council and bus operators, whereby private
bus companies could be provided with the right for a period of
time to operate commercial services, on condition that loss-making
but socially-important bus routes are also provided. This concept
is similar to the Quality Contract Scheme, as established by the
Transport Act 2000 and refined in 2008, but which has seen little
take-up. Such an initiative could also incorporate the concept
of Quality Partnership Schemes as established under the 2000 Act,
whereby the local authority could promise to provide improved
or enhanced facilities, such as bus priority lanes or electronic
information at bus stops, in return for a more co-ordinated approach
with bus operators for commercial and supported services.
Last month I provided a petition to the House of
Commons, signed by people who are concerned about the poor provision
and loss of bus services in Hartlepool. I have encouraged the
people who have signed the petition to contact the Select Committee
to express their feelings about the loss of bus services.
I look forward to reading the Select Committee's
findings.
ANNEX
PARLIAMENTARY PETITION ON BUS SERVICES/TRANSPORT
SELECT COMMITTEE
I wanted to thank you for signing my petition to
the House of Commons on the loss of bus services in Hartlepool.
I have provided an extract from Hansard, the record of Parliamentary
proceedings. I will let you know once I receive a response from
the Government to the petition.
I still wish to campaign on this important matter.
The powerful Transport Select Committee is looking at the impact
of the Spending Review on bus services outside of London. The
Committee is particularly keen to hear about the experiences of
places like Hartlepool, where cuts to public subsidies to bus
operators are seeing the cancellation of essential services. I
have provided for your information my own contribution to the
investigation, but I would urge you to provide your own personal
experience, particularly in terms of how the cuts to bus services
will affect you.
The Committee will accept written contributions until
Easter by mail to: Transport Committee, Room 101, No 7 Millbank,
London, SW1P 3JA; or by e-mail at transev@parliament.uk.
Thank you again for signing the Parliamentary petition.
I do hope that you feel able to contribute to the Transport Select
Committee's investigation.
April 2011
| 
