|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn to the much neglected subject of buses. It seems to be a subject of little interest to Members of the House, members of the Government and, I suggest, to the department generally. However, buses account for more passenger journeys than any other form of transport. They are available and they require only modest capital investmentas modernisation of the London bus fleet, for example, has shown. Not only was that investment modest, it was made fairly rapidly. Railways and light rail present an opportunity for investment, but such investment is both very expensive and very slow. I am not saying that we should not invest in railways or light rail, but I hope to expose the case for greater investment in and more attention to buses.
Buses are used by the young, the poor and the elderlythree groups whom the new Labour Party says that it represents. Yet it does not do anything about it. We are not talking about a few people living in isolated rural areas; we are talking about the vast bulk of our urban and suburban populations. However, buses suffer from three major problems, the first of which is congestion. Secondly, the wage and insurance costs in the bus industry are escalating very much faster than the cost of inflation. The third problem is competition. I am sure that that is not an exhaustive list, but no doubt my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market will add a few more to the list when she speaks.
If a bus is delayed in congestion, it misses journeys and annoys passengers. It is an inefficient use of both vehicles and drivers. For example, in many cities, 14 or 15 buses are deployed on urban routes that should require only 12 buses simply in order to deal with the problem of traffic congestion.
On 16th January 2002, I asked the then Minister when camera enforcement of bus lanes outside London would be allowed. Since then, I have been strung along with a series of promises, half truths and all sorts of other things, but it has not happened. I have had the usual litany of "shortly", "the end of the year"although another year goes byand, now, "at the end of the year", although it is not clear whether that means this year or next year.
I occasionally use buses. Twice this week, in Oxford, I got off a bus and was hooted atalmost abusedby two drivers who should not have been in that lane. Local authorities have the means of taking the pictures and writing to those people. However, the means of
How can road congestion be reduced? This week, there was a very good article in Transit, the magazine of the transport industry. In it, Peter Huntley, a fairly expert person on such matters, suggests that teams of local authority people, police and bus operators could, in a 12-week programme, very quickly identify the source of congestion and what to do about it. It is essentially a local problem. I commend to the Minister this article which contains a great deal of common sense.
Local authorities, with some notable exceptions, do not help the situation. By providing a lot of car parking at less than cost, they subsidise the relatively well-heeled motorist at the expense of the relatively poor bus usernot all of whom qualify for concessionary fares. That is regressive taxation. When local authorities provide car parking, the charge should cover at least the cost including the estate cost of providing the land. It is quite wrong that car parking is provided at below cost, sometimes substantially below cost.
There is great reluctance to provide lanes or bus priority at traffic lights, particularly when small traders or the local press, who often are quite wrong, protest. The six-monthly report on congestion charging in London has shown that although there has been some diminution of business, it is due more to good summer weather and reduced Underground usage as a result of the terrorism threat. The diminution has very little to do with congestion charging. Small traders always tend to blame parking restrictions at places where they usually leave their own cars rather than the fact that they are selling the wrong goods at the wrong price or giving a thoroughly bad service.
If I may, I should like to make another suggestion, as this is not meant to be an unconstructive speech. Local transport plans should not be boastful shop windows published by local officials to impress the Department for Transport but action plans to deal with difficult problems. I suggest that local authorities with the bottle to take on the vested interests should be the ones that get the money. Instead, the Government tend to spread the jam thinly over everybody instead of concentrating their resources on local authorities that are prepared to do something about the problems. We also have to take account of the election cycle so that the politicians who do the work have some prospect that the improvements will be implemented before they have to face the electorate.
Local transport plans should contain a built-in criterion whereby every city has eight to 10 point-to-point journeys with a target speed between the pointswhich would be in a corridor established in a local plan that could be adopted over a number of years. If the current speed between two points was, for example, 12.3 miles per hour, the plan could be to increase it to 15.4 or 16.1 miles per hour. People could then see results for all the money they are putting in. I suggest that people do not see much happening at present. A lot of money is being spent with very little in return. The Government also need to give attention to the school run issue. They are doing so only very slowly.
I have already mentioned insurance, the cost of which is very high. There are only two suppliers in the market and a monopsony has been created. What are the Government's proposals to deal with that? Costs have been increased also by the claims culture and importation of the American no win, no fee contingent litigation systemwhich, with the desire to cut the legal aid budget, was so favoured by the previous occupant of the Woolsack.
Driving buses is an unsocial and stressful job. Drivers have to drive through traffic and put up with the congestion. Bus drivers spend a lot of time actually driving their bus and not much time in the mess room. Secretaries in the House of Commons, for example, and people in other jobs can manufacture time for a cup of tea and a chat. I am afraid that most bus drivers actually drive buses most of the time.
Drivers may have to put up with appalling abuse and behaviour from some road users and passengers. They get all the stick handed out about unreliability that is caused by congestion. They may also have to deal with late-night drunkenness, which the Government do little to curb. What are the Government doing really to encourage the use of Smartcards so that we can get rid of the inevitable hassle associated with the payment of fares? That would, of course, speed up boarding.
Almost all companies are short of drivers and wage rates and insurance costs are rising far quicker than inflation, yet public transport contracts do not make adequate allowance for that. The rise in national insurance was just one more burden, as is the requirement to make adequate provision for pensions. I do not deplore the fact that bus drivers get good pensionsif they live to enjoy them, good luck to them. However, it is a huge cost to the industry. I should like the Minister to acknowledge the problems and look for some remedies because otherwise the Government will preside over constant decline.
I turn to the Competition Act 1998 and the Transport Act 2000. These Acts pretend that the bus industry is highly competitive, which is only true at the margins. The real competitor is the private car. The worst kinds of competition could easily be dealt with by giving traffic commissioners or local authorities power to alter new bus service registrations by equalising the intervals between departures, thus preventing head running. Tough enforcement standards, which now unfortunately are too lax, would weed out the rogues in the industry.
The OFT seems to me to be obsessed with competition tests and so-called "block exemptions" that effectively make it difficult or expensive to secure joint fares, route sharing and other pooled arrangements which in our view would make the bus easier for passengers to use and encourage co-operation between operators. We do not seek to allow any sort of agreement but simply to allow operators to enter a defence of the public interest. If they are doing what the public want, that should be a sufficient defence in itself. What puzzles me is the Government's attitude. Are we simply going to go on treating small local bus services and marginal agreements as if we were dealing with multi-national companies involved in steel, cement or readi-mix concrete? Such big monopoly businesses need breaking up, but we are spending a lot of time fiddling about with agreements affecting small bus companies at local level.
Before I sit down I want to mention the rural question. I do not think that we can really afford to maintain any kind of network in rural areas. Even concessionary fares are very high and are rising sharply. We have now reached a point where the elasticity and demand in the bus industry are at unity. That means that if you put the fares up by 10 per cent, you lose 10 per cent of the passengers. It is very simple. Once you are in that position, there is no going back: if you put the fares up and the passengers drop away, eventually the service must collapse.
Unless a village lies on or close to a main road, the rural bus service is under severe threat. I wonderthis is a personal suggestionwhether the money would be better spent if it were targeted at those without the use of a car and if taxi provision were thoroughly reviewed. A few more tokens in the hands of the really isolated may be the answer. What is not the answer is cross-subsidy because there what you are doing is calling upon the vast bulk of users who live on urban estates to subsidise services to the leafy suburbs. You are in effect saying to the bulk of bus users, "You will have a worse service that will be more expensive so that someone living in a so-called 'leafy suburb' can have a subsidised occasional service". That is very bad.
The bus industry is, largely, a very good industry, which has the capacity to do a great deal more. Good vehicles are readily available but action is needed by government to realise the potential that is available. That is why we are having this debate. I hope that the Minister has come prepared with some answers.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on securing this debate today. I agree with him that it is a pity that there are not more Members of your Lordships' House taking part. It was a little unkind of him to say that noble Lords on this side of the House do not care about the matter. We have three speakers in the debate, which I believe is as many as the other two parties combined.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, several sections of the community rely particularly heavily on the bus. Forty per cent more females of all ages take journeys by bus compared with males. According to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, they take an average of 71 trips per person per year compared with a figure of 51 for males. The largest age group using the buses comprises the 17 to 20 year-olds. Buses are particularly important for them.
In Londonwhere the figures are even more interestingwomen make up 58 per cent of all bus journeys, and here buses are particularly important for people from low income groups, from ethnic minorities, for those without access to cars and for older people.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to the number of people who travel by bus compared with rail. Two-and-a-half times more people travel by bus than by rail, although because bus journeys tend to be shorter, the distance travelled by rail47 billion passenger kilometres a yearis slightly greater than the buses' 46 billion.
There are loads of similar statistics which give the same message, and I shall not bore your Lordships by reciting them. However, here are just a couple more which I think are interesting. First, 57 per cent of people would support more bus lanes in town centres, with just 20 per cent opposed. Secondly, if bus journey times were cut in half through bus priority measures, 26 per cent of car users say that they would be very likely to travel more by bus. That modal shift would be very much in line with what the Government say that they would like to see happen. Their policy document on buses, snappily entitled, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred: A better role for bus travel, published in March 1999, proposed a range of policy initiatives, mostly designed to make the provision of bus services more joined-up and integrated.
The 10-year plan for transport, published a year and a half ago, set a target for increasing bus use by 10 per cent by 2010. So against that background how have we done in meeting people's expectations, and have we got the right sort of structure for the bus industry? Taking that second question first, I well remember a presentation that I attended at the Liberal Party conference in, I think, 1985 given by Mr Robert Brook, then chief executive and later chairman of the National Bus Company, shortly before Nicholas Ridley's brave new world of bus deregulation started. Mr Brook, who had been in buses all his adult life, observed that they had been running buses in practice for 50 years. Now, thanks to Mr Ridley, they were about to run them in theory. He was not wrong. If bus deregulation was intended to increase passenger numbers, keep fares down and improve customer satisfaction, it has been a failure.
Putting to one side the bus wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s when rival companies stole each others' passengers by operating timetables which got their buses to the stop seconds before their competitors, and offered ludicrously cheap and even free travel in an attempt to drive competitors out of business, what has happened since is that market forces have produced just five big players who have more or less carved up the country between them. As a consequence, there is relatively little competition at the bus stop. I endorse entirely what the noble Lord said about the Office of Fair Trading and the competition issues involved. The Passenger Transport Executives' Group points out that fares have risen by a third since 1985, and bus use outside London has dropped by a third.
I am sorry that the noble Lord did not say more about London, because it is an example where there are positive bus policies at work. The picture there is very different. London has a different structure of control, because there is democratic control exercised by Transport for London and the Mayor over fares, timetables and routes. The operators are paid a flat fee to run each service, and then hand over the ticket receipts. There are around 300 contractors from the private sector, who provide the assets, employ the staff and manage the service.
The results have been startling. Transport for London told me yesterday that it has the highest number of passengers since 1969, and the fastest rate of passenger growth since 1945, 7.3 per cent for 200203. That is an extra 104 million passenger trips. There has been a 16 per cent growth in the number of night bus passengers for last year, and a 12 per cent growth in the number of Sunday passengers year on year. Transport for London is operating the highest number of kilometres since 1963, 397 million last year.
Half of additional journeys are made by Londoners who did not use the bus at all three years ago. Three in five Londoners have increased their bus usage over the past three years. They have indicated that they do so because buses are cheaper than alternatives. When asked, half of them say that bus improvements are the reason for that. Most of those improvements were carried out between autumn 2002 and February this year, to help prepare for the introduction of the congestion charging scheme. New routes and links, bigger buses or more buses were introduced to 75 services, providing 11,000 extra spaces during the busiest hour.
We have debated the congestion charge a number of times in your Lordships' House. I remember vividly the arguments that we had during the passage of the Transport Act 2000, and of the Greater London Authority Act. I recall the words that my noble friend Lord Whitty, then a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, used when talking about the congestion charge. He said then:
So, too, has the Mayor of London. He is not the most popular man in your Lordships' House, but he deserves credit for introducing the charge, and for delivering the improvements in bus reliability and journey speed, which in turn have led to more public transport passengers being accommodated as a result of the increased bus capacity. The charging itself is delivering significant traffic benefits, with reduced traffic delays greater than expected. Drivers in the charging zone are spending less time queuing. Journey times across the charging zone have been reduced by 13 per cent, and journey time reliability has improved by an average of 30 per cent. The amount of time that drivers spend sitting stationary in their vehicles or travelling at less than eight miles an hour has reduced by about a quarter.
Congestion charging is not anti-motorist, and the sooner that Britain's other cities follow the lead set by London and Durham and introduce similar arrangements, the better. It might be an appropriate moment to say that I, for one, would be pleased if Mr Livingstone rejoined my party and became our candidate in the mayoral election next year. I have supported the congestion charge from the beginning, and it is right that its continuation and expansion westwards should be a central part of the Labour Party's election manifesto for London.
I express the hope that my noble friend Lord Bassam, when he replies to the debate, will say something about the possible re-regulation of buses outside the capital. We have seen in London how everyone can benefit from democratic control and accountability over bus services. The benefits spread far beyond just the people who travel on the buses.
Elsewhere, there is a democratic deficit. Yes, there are some good quality partnerships between councils and bus operatorsmy noble friend may say something about how well things work in his home city of Brighton and Hoveand there are good park and ride schemes in places such as Oxford and Cambridge. However, I believe that the people would be served better if councillors felt they had some ownership of the bus services in their area; that is, not legal ownership, but the sort of influence which the Commons' Transport Select Committee proposed in its report published last September. That committee calls for many more bus quality contracts, particularly those which allow for flexibility and innovation and give councillors a say over minimum service requirements and the co-ordination of services between operators and modes of transport.
At the very least, I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend whether the Government will look kindly on the suggestion contained in the report in yesterday's Guardian that there may be three trials for local authority regulation of bus servicesone in a
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, noble Lords have heard two wonderful speeches from real bus enthusiasts. I would like to make a small contribution and join them. As both noble Lords said, the subject is terribly important for many people in this country.
I would like to start by quoting a report produced by Phil Goodwin, professor of transport policy at University College, London, for the All-Party Rail Group. Noble Lords may wonder why I want to quote that, but he starts with the argument that he is convinced that road-user charging will inevitably come in this country nationwide. I think that a number of noble Lords may be moving in that direction. He believes that road-user charging, in whatever way it comes, will have a significant consequence for public transportbus as well as rail.
The report also says that very similar arguments could be put if there were not road-user charging and we just had more and more gridlock. Obviously, that is a generalisation across the country, but it is very interesting that Phil Goodwin is saying that demand will increase more than was expected in the 10-year plan. My noble friend Lord Faulkner gave the example of London and how, because of the way in which the buses have been properly managed, the figures have increased compared with the decline elsewhere in the country.
Perhaps it would be useful to consider different ways in which bus patronage could be increased, which I assume is still part of the Government's transport policy. I shall begin by considering the reasons why people do or do not use buses and list five issues: quality of service; information; reliability; price; and alternative modes.
Those factors vary dramatically around the country, between urban and rural areas and in and outside London. I shall not go into the quality-of-service debate too much as there is a shortage of bus drivers in many places. When one travels on a bus, sometimes it is driven well and sometimes one feels that the driver is doing his best to make sure that the
That issue takes me on to information. The information in London is good, as it is in some PTE areas. In other areas, it can be poor. I received a briefing yesterday from the people at Merseytravel, which said that bus operators can change their route by giving just 56 days' notice and that they do so frequently. It is difficult to provide a co-ordinated information service to passengers, even to local people, when routes are changing every 56 days as they can outside London.
I am impressed by the reliability of some buses. MerseyTravel quotes 96 per cent of its buses as arriving within five minutes. That is a great deal better than the railways are achieving for passengers at the moment. It is about the same as freight, but we are not talking about that.
I am also interested in price. My noble friend Lord Faulkner spoke about the price of bus travel in London, but in Merseyside, the situation is even more interesting. Since 1986, motoring costs have risen by 40 per cent according to the AA; the RPI has risen by 80 per cent; the fares on MerseyRail have risen by 160 per cent; and bus fares have risen by 250 per cent. It is even more interesting if one compares commercial and supported services: fares on commercial services have risen by 290 per cent and those on supported services by 210 per cent. The situation at privatisation that was described by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, when operators competed to win passengers, certainly stopped long ago. An increase of 290 per cent, set against one of 40 per cent for motoring, is hardly an incentive to people to leave their cars at home.
I turn to the issue of alternative modes: cars. How easy is it to use one's car instead, given congestion charging and so on? As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner, bus priority is a key. London has good bus priority schemes and bus lanes in many areas, but in other cities, the situation is quite appalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked, where is the enforcement? As my noble friend Lord Faulkner stated, everybody wants it, so why do we not have it?
It is probably because we are all based in London that we take a great interest in it and that things are done properly. I was travelling down Constitution Hill this morning and saw police checking if drivers had paid the congestion charge. I counted 24 policemen stopping cars. I live in Oxford and it is impossible to conceive of 24 policemen there enforcing anything at all. There are probably not 24 policemen on duty in Oxford. It is wonderful to have so many in London, but why can we not have as many elsewhere? I hope that a lot of people are caught if they have not paid the charge. The police did not appear to have many customers, but that is a different matter.
The fifth factor is integrated transport. We have spoken often about integrated transport over the years. It is still a very good policy. If one cannot be certain about the complete journey that one is about to make, one will not make it. On the whole, the railways are improving integration; on the whole, bus-to-rail and bus-to-bus integration is awful, save for a few exceptions in London.
I shall not detain your Lordships by speaking about solutions. The two previous speakers have spoken about them at great length and I support the various suggestions that they have made. My own solution would be a little more radical, although it is not new.
Let us review the situation in London. There is franchised service there, which is well co-ordinated. Routes are well known and buses are given priority. Machines that sell tickets before one boards a bus have reduced driver times at stops. Traffic flows have increased as a result.
Elsewhere, the opposite is generally the case. Metropolitan areas have suffered. I have referred to the 56-day change notice. MerseyTravel has informed me that it has 38 different private operators in its area. How can it possibly co-ordinate them? The trend now is for commercial operators to de-register and to say, "We are not going to run this service any more unless you pay us a subsidy". When they receive that subsidy, they run the service, but the local authority or PTE has little control over what they do. The result is that traffic flows either remain stagnant or deteriorate.
The only solution is to give local authorities or PTEs the option to switch to the London system of franchising, which would include the control of fares. Surely the London example has given enough people confidence that that will work. Our rail fares are largely controlled, so why can we not have bus fares that are controlled? We have a policy of encouraging people to leave their cars. One cannot leave that entirely to the market.
I understand that the franchised operators in London are generally happy with their operations. That is important. If they are happy and enthusiastic, they will perform better. Since we now have happy customers and happy operators, I think that we can call the system a success. Why cannot we extend the same option to the rest of the country?
In conclusion, there is a problem of image for buses in this country. That of the famous London buses is good. However, it would be lovely to ask one day at Question Time in your Lordships' House how many of your Lordships have recently travelled on a bus. I know that I am not allowed to ask noble Lords to put up their hands, but it would still be interesting. There are not many of us here today, because it is Friday. We are here because we are enthusiastic about buses. One could ask the same question of Members of Parliament, who are opinion formers, and of local authority staff. As long as they have their car park at County Hall, they are all right.
How many of them use buses regularly? That is the key question. In 1997, just after my party had won the election, a discussion was held about the number of people in Greenwich, one of London's poorest
Let us compare that with the situation on the Continent. I have often travelled by bus there. Most of the services, I believe, have some form of a franchise. They are clean, modern, reliable and, more importantly, one knows where and when they are going. Passengers generally have the same kind of confidence in them as they have in a railway timetable.
As previous speakers have pointed out, bus transport is a quick and cost-effective means of implementing the Government's transport policy. It is popular. However, it can be achieved only with some co-ordination. Franchising, on the London model, should have the opportunity to be tried nationwide. Traffic will then increase, as Phil Goodwin has said it will anyway, but it might move much more quickly and suffer less competition from cars. Local authorities and local elected representatives will then be able to deliver.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for introducing this topic for debate today. I want to begin by declaring some interests and as this is a bus debate I shall declare all three at once. First, I am chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive; secondly, I am a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport; and, thirdly, I am a member of First Great Eastern's advisory group.
In terms of debate in your Lordships' House, railways have recently had a fair crack at the whip, usually due to the dogged determination of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but this is the first time since the Transport Act 2000 that we have had a real discussion about the bus industry. I welcome that, particularly bearing in mind that bus journeys account for some two thirds of all public transport journeys. Without doubt, they offer the greatest scope for making relatively quick and cheap improvements to public transport. The bus provides the best opportunity for people on low incomes. In many areas, the absence of good bus services is a major barrier to socially excluded groups.
Starting with the most simple of concepts, it is important to remember that buses play two different, although sometimes complementary, roles. First, they should be able to provide a viable alternative to the private car, offering choice, reducing congestion and helping with the quality of life and environment. Secondly, buses should be able to provide access to essential services for those who for various reasons do not have access to a car. Those two roles are often reflected in an urban/rural split; congestion is seldom a rural problem while accessibility is. That is hardly rocket science, but it is amazing how often we try to frame bus policy with those two different objectives and using all the same instruments. In that sense, we are doomed to fail.
Why is that? Local authorities have identified a number of reasons for that, including the problems that face the bus industry and local authorities. Those have been well covered by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
On competition regulation, I make only one comment. At present, bus operators who may want to have discussions about shared ticketing or co-ordination of routes are precluded from that by competition regulation. One has only to ask: in whose interests are the competition authorities working? They are certainly doing nothing to help the consumers, which should be their overwhelming consideration.
There is a serious problem of costs. The cost of bus fares is rising way ahead of RPI and the cost of running a private car. That is because of the cost of labour and insurance. There is little scope for fare increase here. All those same issues come into play with local authority tendered services. Local authorities are, in the main, spending more than ever on tendered services but they are getting back much less for them. The irony is that because of the openness of our decision-making processes in local government, when local bus operators see that more money is being put into the public transport budget the first thing they do is put up their costs. The situation is extremely difficult.
The concessionary fares scheme, while almost certainly necessary, is something of a blunt instrument. It is highly expensive for the country as a whole and little targeting is involved. My personal bete noire is the fact that my 15 year-old son, who clearly is not going out to work, is required to pay adult fare in the area in which I live. I do not see that as being equitable and it certainly does nothing to encourage him in believing that it would not be a good idea to run a car the moment he is old enough to do so.
As regards congestion, a catch-22 situation is in place. There is the most scope for reducing congestion by bus use in the most congested areas, but in those areas it is hardest to create the necessary priority bus measures. While the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is right in saying that if you ask the public a general question, "Do you support bus lanes?", they of course say, "Yes, we do". Unfortunately, when you ask them if they want that particular bus lane in their particular town, the picture is quite different. I am not suggesting that most local authorities should cravenly give into public opinion and show no leadership, but it is important to remember that they are subject to pressure from the people whom they represent. It sometimes takes a great deal of courage to take on these interests. That is particularly the case when, having gone through the grief of taking such action, they have no mechanism to ensure that the bus company sticks to its side of the bargain and runs the bus service it promised. Furthermore, they have no real means of enforcing the bus priority provisions.
The Local Government Association is undertaking some work, which ought to be welcomed, to try to encourage best practice. It is looking at areas which have been bolder; for instance, Oxford, which for years had a set of policies leading to the closing off of the city centre and all that that entails. As a visitor to Oxford, I find it a much more pleasant experience.
As regards the regulatory framework, there is no doubt that deregulation caused problems, not least the famous "bus wars" of the 1980s. But in some areas there is now a virtual monopoly of provision and in others there is on-road competition, which can be wasteful and does not act in the interests of the passengers. Declining bus use, particularly the sharp decline in commercial operations in our major conurbationsthose covered by the Passenger Transport Executivehas led local authorities seriously to question whether the regulatory framework is the right one.
The deregistration of commercial services has left many suburbs in our major conurbations with no services to city centres after seven o'clock, or on Sundays, unless the PTE steps in to sponsor the service. We should be clear that no responsible local authority representative is suggesting a return to dominant municipal state or local authority ownership and the old system of blank-cheque subsidies and poor service. However, there is a case for examining whether we can adapt our regime to the kind of system which operates across most of the rest of Europe where there is controlled competition and where baskets of local bus routes are franchised for premium or subsidy payments.
I do not believe that we have anything in particular to fear from examining that. We could not, for example, imagine a situation in which we had a deregulated waste collection system, where scores of bin men rush around towns picking up bins so that those in one street are emptied five times a week and a neighbouring street has no provision at all. Rather than having that system, we set the specification and then go out to tender. The competition is at the start of the process and does not continue, as is the case at the moment. Under that scenario, there would be no reason why local authorities could not set a minimum specification. If bus operators could see further areas for commercial gain, they would be free to operate the kind of services that they would like in those areas.
However, it is clear that there is no "one size fits all" policy. The Local Government Association strongly suggests that we should have a series of trials and that we would need to see the differences between a major urban conurbation, a large town and a rural area. I was pleased to read that the Government are giving thought to that and I would welcome the Minister's comments on it.
It is interesting how the Government's mood music on congestion charging has changed since the London scheme began. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in his potted history missed out the bit in the middle when the Government went wobbly on road-user charging. That is fine, but because of what has happened in
We should remember that the costs of the London scheme are very high. It is estimated that the £500 million hole in the Mayor's budget for future years comes from increased bus contracts. That is not necessarily a bad thing; it is almost certainly a price worth paying, but nevertheless we must think carefully about how that works.
I wish to discuss briefly public transport as a social service. There is no reason why private operators should provide for what are essentially social needs. They do so now, but predominantly on a sponsored basis. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, there is a traditional system of running large empty buses around rural areas and telling people that they can go to the doctor but only on Thursday afternoons, and if they are prepared to wait two hours for a bus and then remain in the nearest town for five hours until the bus returns. That is neither cost-effective nor responsive to passengers' needs. We must do much more about demand-responsive services, such as dial-a-ride. Although the demand in rural areas is numerically small, it is crucial to the individuals who need the service.
In the debate to come, it is important that people forget about dogma and getting hung up on words such as "re-regulation". The crucial needs are those of existing passengers, and, almost more importantly, those who ought to be bus passengers but currently are not.
Lord Luke: My Lords, like all other speakers, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter. I wish to reflect on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: why do we not discuss the subject more often? It is clearly of great interest to quite a few noble Lords and many people in the country. Let us hope that we will debate it in future.
Stimulating growth in the take-up of bus services is a huge challenge, but there is much to gain from getting more people on to buses. It is important, not only in environmental terms as a means of cutting car emissions and managing congestion in British cities, but it is of huge significance to many remote rural communities. An effective public transport network in those areas is a vital element of achieving social inclusion. As nearly every noble Lord has said, buses, which carry nearly 70 per cent of all public transport passengers, are the keystone to good transport links.
Unfortunately, the Government have let down our rural communities yet again by failing to recognise that servicing those outside Britain's cities must be a strong priority. Small towns and villages can only watch in wonder as bus services in London are overhauled, with more than 300 hundred extra buses on the roads and passenger numbers at their highest since 1969. That is a matter for congratulation, but it is vital that it is matched by a similar commitment outside London, and so far there is little evidence of that. The focus so far has been very much city based. Far from improving the situation, the Government have overseen a decline in bus usage in all areas other than London, Birmingham and eastern England.
I am surprised that the double-length juggernauts that have recently become such a feature in London have not featured in the debate so far. Would it not be better to spend money on many more small, and hence more flexible, buses? Have any noble Lords come upon one of those extraordinary animals broken down at a roundabout? It results in complete gridlock in every direction, so let us hope that they do not break down very frequently.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page