HC Deb 16 December 1947 vol 445 cc1661-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Solley (Thurrock)

I desire to draw the attention of the House to the state of our public service vehicles. I hope to be able to put before the House facts which will establish that in many cases omnibuses and coaches are put upon the road in unroadworthy condition, to the danger of the public, and that in many cases omnibus schedules are such that they neither comply with the requirements of the public nor are capable of fulfilment because there are not sufficient omnibuses to run the services according to schedule. Before the war, the total fleet of buses and coaches was approximately 50,000. Of this number, an appreciable propor- tion was due for scrapping, but with the intervention of the war years, that proportion which should have been scrapped before the war was not scrapped. The position today is that about 25,000 vehicles are urgently in need of replacement, and many of those vehicles have in fact run far beyond their normal life and are a danger to the public and to the drivers. The figure I have given of 25,000 vehicles in need of replacement takes no account of the additional requirements of the public as a result of postwar industrial needs and the growth of housing estates in different parts of the country.

For example, in my constituency, I have tried to get extra buses for South Ockenden, for the Uplands Estate, and on special occasions for the transport of Roman Catholic children to Roman Catholic schools some distance from their homes. In each of these instances I have come up against the same difficulty, namely, that there are not sufficient public service vehicles to fulfil the requirements of my constituency.

It is interesting to see how this problem is being met by the Government. In 1947, the Government set a target of 8,000 new vehicles, and also proposed a considerable easement in the supply of spare parts. As I shall tell the House in a moment, this figure of 8,000 has been reduced by 50 per cent.; but even on the basis of 8,000, taking into account the fact that buses continue to become obsolete, it would probably take some four or five years to replace the 25,000 buses which are today in a dangerous condition—and that is without taking into account the fact that new vehicles are required for new services. But as I have said, with the Government's new plans, which are the result of our export drive, the production of new buses has been set at the figure of 4,000 a year. Therefore, I say to the House—and I have information from responsible quarters for saying this—that the outlook for the next two years is extremely grave, and the result of this policy may be disastrous in connection with the public vehicles transport system of this country.

So far I have dealt with the national position. Let me now say a few words about the position of the London Passenger Transport Board. According to my information, which I hope my hon. Friend will correct if it is wrong in any material particular, the London Passenger Transport Board has a bus and coach fleet of some 7,000, which is roughly one-seventh of the entire national fleet. Hon. Members may be interested to know that whereas the normal life of a bus is from eight to ten years, of the London Passenger Transport Board's fleet more than one-half has exceeded its normal economic life, and one-third is more than 15 years old; that is to say, one-third of the buses running along the streets of London, are over 15 years old.

What can the L.P.T.B. do about this? They are, by a process of cannibalism, using some buses as a source of spare parts for, the purpose of making other buses serviceable. That is done by the maintenance workers, but their good work must fail in the light of the magnitude of this problem. The L.P.T.B. have the temporary assistance at the present time of approximately 350 single-decker coaches, but that assistance, I am given to understand, will cease next March and the problem then will become even greater. I understand that at the beginning of last year the L.P.T.B., out of the national allocation of 8,000 new vehicles, ordered some 3,000; but very few were delivered by the middle of this ear, and I hope that my hon. Friend he Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me how many will be delivered by the end of this year. In the light of the 50 per cent. cut nationally in new buses, the programme of the L.P.T.B. will be taken far below the danger point.

Having given a picture of the position in London, might I say that, so far as the provinces are concerned, the position is equally bad, or even worse. During this winter, many vehicles will be on the roads in a condition which is a threat to the public safety. I would like for a few moments to speak of conditions as they are in my own constituency. They were brought to my attention as a result of events at Grays. I heard that an unofficial strike had taken place on 5th November among members of the Transport and General Workers' Union branch, and I was asked to try to influence the men to return to work. I went to see them, because it was my duty, but during my inquiries, I discovered that the drivers concerned had gone on strike because they considered that the single-decker Leyland buses in operation in the Grays area were such a danger to the public by virtue of their unroadworthiness and their general condition that it was a public disservice to take them out.

I discovered that these buses were approximately 21 years old, and I found that as long ago as 1944 protests were made to the appropriate quarters urging that these buses should be taken off the road. The vehicles had no independent braking system and frequently accidents occurred which made the buses more unroadworthy. As to the steering, I was told something of which we should take serious note. The major fault with the steering is that, when applying the brakes, the driver is at his wits' end to know which way the vehicle is going to pull. I emphasise that this is no third hand evidence, but direct evidence from the unfortunate drivers themselves. I know of one case—and this was not a single but a double-decker bus—in which it was discovered that one of the wheels was fastened to the chassis by one nut only. The others had worked loose because of the worn condition of the wheel. I was further told that when these vehicles are tested by the public examiner, they are tested empty, and furthermore, the examiner does not drive the vehicle himself. The bus is driven by a garage fitter. It is the general opinion that the tests are quite inadequate.

I would like to cite a further specific example as an instance of the dangerous condition in which these vehicles are at present. I am told that this is typical of the position in the country, leaving out London, where conditions are perhaps somewhat better. In one case, vehicle No. 2796 was tested, after it had been used on the roads of Essex. Travelling at 15 miles an hour, when the brakes were applied there was a 25-feet skid to the offside, and at 20 miles an hour, there was a skid of 45 feet, also to the offside.

Another vehicle, No. 3059, on the same day was tested likewise, and at 20 miles per hour there was a 30-ft. skid to the offside of the vehicle. Had the vehicle been full of passengers, and had there been a crash, the result might have been disastrous. I was told by the men concerned after the strike had terminated—and I hope in part it was because of my efforts—that the management undertook not to use these Leyland vehicles unless it was absolutely necessary. I think that is, in itself, sufficient commentary on the position.

While on the question of public service vehicle examination, I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary the following suggestions: that buses should be tested loaded and not empty; that the examiner himself should drive the vehicle and not sit behind the driver, because I am told no expert could say what the steering was like merely by sitting in the omnibus, but that he himself ought to drive the omnibus. My third suggestion is that examiners should have the power to stop an omnibus en route, and there and then examine it in the same way as examiners have the right to stop heavy vehicles and ascertain whether those vehicles are roadworthy. Only in that way will a fair and independent examination be procured. I am told it is not good enough for an examiner to telephone he is going to carry out an examination of an omnibus. Far too often that omnibus is put into as good a condition as possible in the short time available, and in the circumstances the test is not a fair one.

I have referred to the position nationally; to the position as far as London is concerned with respect to the L.P.T.B.; and the position in the provinces, with particular reference to my own constituency. I would put the following conclusions before the Parliamentary Secretary for his serious consideration. The production drive is seriously hampered by the present inadequate road passenger transport services. It is not sufficient to consider the replacement of the present dilapidated and non-roadworthy vehicles; over and above that problem it is necessary to have increased transport services. Clearly this problem has been enhanced by the recent rail fare increases and the withdrawal of the basic petrol allowance, which intensified the strain upon the public vehicles.

If allocations for new vehicles and spare parts are to be made, I suggest that they be made on the basis of priority for essential industries. I know the central problem involved in all this is the question of obtaining new vehicles and new spare parts, and this conflicts directly with our desire to export as many cars, omnibuses and spare parts as possible. I venture to say that no matter how im- portant our export drive is, far more important is the safety of the public and the necessity to have an, adequate public transport service in our own country. If this is a question of choosing between diminishing the export of motor vehicles and of cutting some of our expenditure in manpower in the Armed Services and our capital expenditure on foreign commitments, I suggest to the Government that the latter course is preferable, for we should consider our own needs at home. I know that this does not come within the departmental jurisdiction of my hon. Friend, but I hope he will be able to take this up with his colleagues in the Cabinet and see that the public is given a square deal as far as-the public transport system of this country is concerned.

12.20 a.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

I want to intervene for one moment to support everything that the hon. Member has said. He has put the case very fully and very ably. I am supporting him because I am interested in one of the biggest suppliers of these buses. I can speak from the manufacturers' point of view and say how very serious is the position with which we are faced. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has spoken of the public need and how operators must have these buses. The manufacturers can produce them, and it is very serious indeed for the manufacturers that the output for this forthcoming year, which could be of the order of some 12,000 buses, is now cut to one-half or to one-third.

These needs were being rapidly met, but the position will deteriorate very greatly, because if a switch is made by manufacturers to exports, there will be a dislocation of production for the home market. I speak, in particular, with relation to the London Passenger Transport Board whose contracts will be interfered with. That means that these buses which are so urgently needed, will come off the production line even more slowly. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to increase the allocation of chassis because that is all that is needed. Manufacturers in this country export very few of the buses overseas. It is not an exportable product. What is needed is just an extra two or three thousand allocations for chassis for home needs rather than for export if these urgent and very pressing needs of the public of this country are to be met. If the Minister can give some satisfactory answer in that direction, I think many of the points made by the hon. Member opposite will be met.

12.23 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan)

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) put his case with vigour and emphasis, but, unfortunately, it was grossly exaggerated. It would be extremely improper if I were not to deny emphatically that there are, if I may quote his words, in many cases buses put on the roads not in a roadworthy condition that are a danger to the public. That simply is not true because—I think that members of the public should be reassured on this matter—I have taken considerable pains to reassure myself before coming down to the House tonight in order to answer this Debate.

I would like to illustrate what I have to say by explaining the procedure that has to take place before a bus goes on to the road. First, it has to have what is called a certificate of fitness. Now, the conditions of fitness are laid down in Statutory Rules and Orders No. 514, of 1941, and if hon. Members care to run through the 15 pages of that order, they will see the extremely onerous nature of the tests that have to be passed by any public service vehicle before it gets this condition of fitness certificate, which lasts for a period of five years. It is an extremely detailed series of tests that has to be gone through, and which the vehicle has to pass before it can go out on the road, as a matter of safeguarding the public.

In addition, there are, through the medium of the licensing authorities in the II regions of the country, something like 20 members of my right hon. Friend's staff who act as certifying officers, and rather over 200 vehicle examiners. They are based at strategical points throughout the country and their main job is to be constantly examining public service vehicles and heavy goods vehicles, in order to test that they are not falling below the conditions laid down and required in the certificate.

It is quite true that during the war there was a considerable decline in the number examined, but since January, out of a total fleet of something of the order of 59,000, over 33,000 vehicles have been examined by the examiners of the Ministry of Transport. Something like 56 per cent. of the total fleet has been examined. Of the number examined, 3½ per cent. have been found to have a defect which brings them below the conditions in the certificate, and service on the road has been immediately suspended until they got back to that standard again. After six years of war, it is a tribute to the high standard of maintenance that has been kept up by operators throughout the country that the percentage of vehicles falling below the very stiff and onerous standards required should be as low as 3½ per cent. It is the Ministry's aim to get back to 100 per cent. examination every year, and to examine every vehicle at least once a year, and they have made a pretty good start. Sixty per cent., I should think, will have been examined by the end of this year.

There is a very great guarantee of safety to the public in this examination, which is continuously undertaken. The members of the staff of vehicle examiners are constantly going around to the garages and making sure that these vehicles meet the standard that is required. I would like to quote one thing that has been said by the chief mechanical engineer of the London Passenger Transport Board, Mr. A. A. M. Durrant. He has put out a very interesting little pamphlet about the achievements of the L.P.T.B., the difficulties they have to face, and the improvisation they have to undertake to keep their fleet going. I would particularly ask the House to note these two sentences, The only exception in the make-do-and-mend policy was on safety. Even at the most difficult times we never relaxed our high standards of road safety. I think it is important that that should be put on the records. It stands in contradiction to the statement that buses on the roads at the moment are a danger to the public. I have consulted with the chief mechanical engineer today, and he assures me that not one vehicle has been involved in an accident in the last 12 months because it has been unsafe mechanically or because of a mechanical breakdown. There have been accidents, of course—people knocked down, and so forth—but in the fleet of 7,000 not one has been involved in an accident because of a mechanical defect. That does not really sound as if there are buses on the road that are a danger to the public. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that there were 25,000 vehicles in need of replacement——

Mr. Solley

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether my allegations about the Eastern National Omnibus Company——

Mr. Callaghan

On the question of the number in need of replacement, there are 25,000 vehicles over the age of ten years. Therefore, on the prewar basis, they need replacement and should be replaced. In point of fact, operators, maintenance men, drivers and conductors, have really been so successful in their jobs that the overall length of life since the war of the public service vehicle is no longer reckoned at 10 years, and they are keeping the buses on the job more than 10 years; but I agree that we ought to get back to the normal prewar period of 10 years which was regarded as the proper life of a public service vehicle. It would, however, be untrue to suggest that the buses on the road are unsafe. Seventeen per cent. of the present bus fleet of nearly 60,000 are less than two years old, and 50 per cent. are over 10 years old. It is this 50 per cent. that constitutes the problem of maintenance, and creates the need for spares to which we at the Ministry of Transport, in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply, are giving considerable attention.

The intake of buses during 1948 is likely to be of the order of 6,000. I agree that that is inadequate. One of the problems constantly confronting me at the Ministry is the requests for new services; but now the fleet is about 60,000, as against 52,000 before the war. Members of the public are demanding facilities—and quite rightly so—that they never had before the war. I agree it is a good thing, and that we should do all we can to satisfy those requests. We are trying to deal with a new problem brought about by people who have called for adequate bus services in country areas. That is a problem facing us.

My understanding of the Grays position is that there were four Leyland "Lion" buses concerned. As soon as we had news of the strike, the examining and certifying officers examined the buses, and found that two were roadworthy, one needed overhaul, and one needed the brakes adjusted. There is really no need for a strike in these matters. If the union branch or the men are dissatisfied with the state of repair of the buses, clearly it is their public duty to say so. If the union branch goes to the licensing authority and asks them for an examination of those vehicles, the vehicles will be examined within a matter of days, if not hours. There is no reason for men to feel that they have to prove their point by refusing to take the vehicles out and striking. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his action in this matter, and I put this point to him if he is called in again for consultation. I will bear in mind the other points he made—testing the bus loaded, with the examiner driving and so on—but he will not expect me to give him an answer now.

It is true, of course, that transport is hampered by inadequate services. Certainly we would like more than 6,000 buses next year, except for the needs for the export drive. This is not the time to launch into a discussion of the merits of the export drive or a transport drive, but we are going on with the job. The number of buses we shall be placing on the roads in 1948 compares favourably with any other year before the war In the years 1933 to 1936, the average was 3,400, in the years 1936 to 1939 the average was 5,000, and now it is 6,000.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.