HC Deb 20 March 1964 vol 691 cc1951-62

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

The matter on which I wish to address the House is unashamedly a constituency one, but I am sure that it will be agreed that this is the appropriate method to raise such problems. I want to draw attention to the plight of a very large number of my constituents in regard to the public transport within the urban district of Hayes and Harlington. The problem affects a very large number of people—men and women going to work, women going to get their shopping, and children going to school.

We start under the disadvantage that in Hayes and Harlington there are only two public transport services. We have the railway, which cuts across the southern end of the urban district, but, for the majority of the inhabitants, the only public transport is the buses. People are almost entirely dependent on the buses, and though I have a brief remark to make about the railway it is about the public road transport that I want mainly to speak.

This urban district is part of a continuous built-up area, but the number of people for whom I speak is just under 70,000. When one looks at the number of long streets in the district away from the main roads, one readily appreciates that the bus service is quite vital if our community is to move about its business.

During the period of 11 years that I have had the honour to represent this area, I have received a number of complaints from time to time. Of course, this is not the first occasion on which have raised this matter here. I have taken part in previous transport debates and I have raised specific matters on other occasions. Naturally, I have been in touch with London Transport and I have always received very full and courteous replies. I have led deputations, including all-party deputations, to the Board. On one famous occasion when a certain route, then known as No. 83, was in jeopardy we appeared before the consultative committee and I am glad to say that that was one of the rare occasions when we managed to defeat the Board's recommendation that the service should be withdrawn.

In all these activities I have been supported by the Hayes and Harlington Urban District Council, and likewise I have backed the urban district council when it has taken the initiative. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for a good many of my constituents over a large part of the area the public transport services are still not very satisfactory. One must remember, even in this Buchanan age, when we sometimes tend to assume that there are a large number of private cars so that the question of public transport is not so important, that there are still far more adults who do not possess private motor cars and that, therefore, the availability of public transport, particularly in great cities, becomes one of the signs whether we have a sane and satisfactory society. If people cannot move about freely unless they have their own private transport, obviously something is seriously wrong with our arrangements.

I should like to give a few examples and make some suggestions. I begin with the railway. The railway, although it only comes across the southern portion of my constituency, plays a useful part, and many of us think it should provide even greater facilities than it does. I am glad to say that there has been a distinct improvement in rail transport since diesel traction was introduced. Trains are much more reliable in their timing and, on the whole, they are faster.

However, our view and the view of those who use the line and have made representations, is that there could be more trains, and that a more frequent service would attract even more traffic. There are more frequent trains during the rush-hour traffic, but often there are only two trains an hour. A regular service of three trains an hour throughout the whole period of normal use would be extremely helpful and induce more passengers. A large number of people in Hayes travel, some as far as Paddington and others to Ealing and Acton, when on shift work, and then, of course, there are those who travel in the opposite direction to West Drayton, Slough and Reading. I recognise that there are not so many passengers in the later hours, but many people will use the train on the outward journey if they know that they can get back on it conveniently. When estimating future needs one has to think of the return journey in order to induce people to use the railway at all. And, of course, there are, the shift workers.

I speak from some experience. I have lived most of my life in an area served by the Southern Railway. The electric service has provided two to three trains an hour. and it is in such areas that the railways have built up a great clientele. There has been an improvement—I am glad to record it—but there is a case here for a more frequent service of trains.

For example, on Saturday morning there is a train at 9.40 but after that one has to wait a full hour. Not so many people work on Saturdays now, but a very large number, both men and women, go shopping, either up to town or to Acton and Ealing, and I should have thought that this was a period on Saturday mornings when, almost straight away, an additional train might be put on, if only as an experiment.

Now, the bus services. Over a long period, I have had correspondence about different bus routes. I shall give some examples. The 98 bus route is an important route in my constituency. I shall nor describe it in detail because I am sure that, after learning that I intended to raise this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary familiarised himself with the various services.

Just before last Christmas, I received a typical letter from a constituent saying, The public are again suffering from the local bus services, especially the 98 route. The timing and frequency of this service has become almost impossible, and I have on some occasions had to hire a taxi in order to get to work. This gentleman is, perhaps, lucky to be able to do that. Many people cannot, and there have been quite a lot of complaints about that route.

Just before Christmas, a lady wrote to me about the 55 route at the other end of my constituency. She uses the bus to get to the station, and she tells me that for a long period the service in the early morning has been extremely erratic. She goes on to say that during the few weeks just before Christmas there have been wholesale cancellations of buses…I know personally of housewives who, laden with shopping, have had to wait anything from 30 minutes to 1¼ hours. She tells me of a gentleman with an artificial lug who has to catch the 7.13 a.m. bus from a place known as Bourne Circus: On at least five occasions during the past few weeks, [...]e has waited until 7.40. This is a very long time to wait, and that particular gentleman, of course, is utterly dependent upon the bus service because he cannot walk any distance.

I took this matter up with the Board and I had the usual thorough and courteous reply. However, as recently as 7th February, I received a letter from the same correspondent telling me that the 55 bus service was still giving trouble. She says: The 55 bus scheduled to leave Bourne Circus at 7.25 a.m., which was the original cause of my complaint, has, to the best of my knowledge run only on ten occasions in 1964. That is up to 7th February. Thus, in spite of all the representations which we have made and the investigations which the Board has pursued, the situation on this route is still very unsatisfactory.

The Ha yes and Southall Trades Council has raised a number of instances. It has referred specifically to the inadequacy of the service on the 105 route. This is the service which replaced thy; No. 83 which was the subject of our battle. The trades council points out that the population of the area is increasing and people are having difficulty in getting to work and getting to the shops. It goes on to say that the service on route 204 is inadequate, with waits of and 20 minutes often experienced in the area known as Judge Heath Lane. The 204 route is very important because it is the only direct link between Hayes and the very large hospital at Hillingdon. I have had pathetic letters from wives of patients who because of the inadequacy of the service, have had to wait in cold and bitter weather sometimes in going to the hospital.

I refer next to the Charville Estate, a new housing development which has been growing for some years and is still growing. It lies in, so to speak, the northern part of the constituency. The Hayes and Harlington Urban District Council has pressed for many years for the bus route to be extended to the estate, but so far without success. The result is that people have to walk from the estate a distance of about 1,600 yards. For a fit person, this may be no great hardship, but for the elderly or for people at the end of a hard day's work it is an additional burden. For the old or the ill this is a serious handicap. The 90 bus route operates during the day, but that involves a walk of 1,600 yards and although the point of the 105 bus route is a little nearer to the estate, I calculate that it is about 900 yards away, this service operates only during peak periods, so that for most of the time people have to walk the longer distance. I hope that now there is a growing population some extension will be possible.

In all these matters I do not want to indulge in any general attack upon the Board. The Board is doing its best and if there is any attack, and this is not the occasion to make it, it is on the Government and their conditions in which the Board has to work. London Transport has to provide an efficient service and pay its way, and it is highly questionable in the conditions of today whether those two objectives can be met.

I was interested to notice that even in the hustings for the Greater London Council the leader of the Conservative Party has said that increased fares will be fought, but that one of the main methods of solving the traffic problem was to have a public transport system which was attractive and efficient in conveying people easily from place to place. I am not at all certain that in the conditions of congestion of a modern city, where public transport is frequently held up and impeded by other forms of transport, so that its working becomes much more uneconomical, we can expect an efficient service to pay its way unless fares are raised considerably. It has been said that if the buses went even 1 m.p.h. faster, throughout the year that would be a saving of about £1 million. We all want to see more developments such as the extension of the Victoria line, but if it is hoped to recoup all the additional expenditure from the public in a short period, far too heavy a burden will be placed on public fares and the Board.

Although this is not the occasion to press it to any extent, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will consider whether it is fair to place on the back of London Transport the obligation every year to put aside £4 million as its contribution to its own capital needs. I understand that in the last financial year the Board made just over £2 million, but I cannot see how we can avoid continuing rises in fares or poor services if the Board is under this kind of financial obligation. It is interesting to note that in Paris, which covers a smaller area than London Transport, public authorities subsidise the public transport system to the tune of £7 million a year. In a larger area admittedly, London Transport not only has to pay its way, but to make a contribution of £4 million. In this respect the Board is under a serious handicap.

One of the other practical difficulties is shortage of staff. I understand from the Board that in the two local garages which serve the area with which I am involved there is a serious shortage of staff. Southall garage is 19 per cent. short of its establishment of drivers and 16 per cent. short of its establishment of conductors. This is true of Uxbridge and other garages.

One has only to look at advertisements to see that even an established bus driver's remuneration is only £14 a week, and when one remembers that the national average earnings are £16 a week, one realises that it is not an attractive proposition for a driver or conductor to work long and difficult hours, at times when other people are enjoying themselves, having to work weekends, and, for the drivers, operating in conditions in London which are a considerable physical strain.

Therefore, one of the answers will be very much better conditions for workers and more men. But the Government cannot expect the Board to make an operating profit if it is to get the numbers of staff it needs to provide an efficient service. These are wider problems than the specific ones I have raised but one cannot hope for better services unless one considers the system under which the London Transport is organised.

On 2nd March, the Middlesex Borough and District Councils passed a resolution urging the Minister of Transport To take all practical action, including, if necessary, the provision of adequate finance, to ensure that the London Transport Executive provides a vastly improved and regular bus service in the greater London area. That resolution expresses the concern about existing services in a wide area and the difficulties under which the Board must operate. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be as sympathetic as he can to the specific problems of my constituency but I hope that he will not lose sight of the wider problems of providing new circumstances in which London Transport can not only operate efficiently but need not put so much money aside that that efficiency can only be purchased at an ever increasing cost in fares.

4.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the scope of public transport services, upon which his constituents depend so largely. This sort of problem affects many other hon. Members and I am not surprised that he should raise it in reference to his constituency. He referred to Buchanan and to the fact that, of course, the possession of private cars is not an excuse for not providing public transport. Rather the opposite.

I must remind him, although I expect he knows it already, that the Government's concern with this problem of public transport and their responsibility for it are only indirect. They are not a transport operator. They do not run buses or trains or tubes. In his constituency, the two services concerned—there are no tubes there—are provided by two of the nationalised transport undertakings set up by the Transport Act, 1962. These are the Railways Board and the London Transport Executive. It is only they which can take the necessary steps, if any such steps are feasible, to alter and improve the present state of affairs which the hon. Member has described so graphically.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly has been in touch with London Transport, which has replied to him about some of the problems. I am sure that it will also take note of what he said today and although I am replying to the debate I must stress again that the responsibility for the quality of service rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the respective boards.

Nevertheless, having made the Government's position clear, I will not sit down and leave the matter there although I think I would be entitled to do so. This would be hardly fair to the hon. Gentleman after his interesting speech, so I will do my best to comment on the points he has made, the gist of which he was kind enough to tell me about in advance and on some of which I also had the benefit of the advice of the Board. I might even add a few remarks of my own which might be helpful to him and to London travellers generally. I deal with the road services first.

London Transport agrees with the hon. Gentleman that the present standard of service is unsatisfactory, especially in the west of London, and it appreciates that this is causing hardship to people in industry and all walks of life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some interesting and controversial things to do with finance. I do not intend to deal with finance now, but I do not, however, entirely agree with everything he said.

The basic cause of the trouble is the serious shortage of bus crews, particularly grave in parts of West London covered by the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The reason for this is that, in this industrial area competition for the limited supply of la pour is most intensive and, as a result, the shortage of bus crews is most acute. We are finding, in fact, that prosperity in some ways, a mixed blessing and the establishment of a statutory monopoly of public transport services in London does not mean that the undertaking will be protected from the effects of supply and demand in the labour market any more than if it were a private concern.

Here I should like to give some examples to show the scale of the difficulties. There are, in the central bus area, where the red buses run, some 70 garages. Over the past year the number of garages where the total staff shortage—that is, of drivers and conductors—is below 10 per cent. of the establishment has increased from 7 to 47 and the number at which the shortage is 15 per cent. below establishment has increased from 5 to 33. These are very substantial figures indeed. The tidiest solution, of course, to cope with these shortages would be to cut out every tenth or seventh bus, but, unfortunately, it is not possible to deal with this problem according to a mathematical formula. It is a human problem. The rostering of hours of duty of drivers and conductors as required both by Statute and by agreement between London Transport and the busmen's trade union is much too complicated for that, and so passengers have these long and frustrating waits, especially in the outer areas, such as the hon. Gentleman's, where the services begin to thin out.

With regard to the vagaries of the timetable and the running frequency to which the hon. Gentleman referred, London Transport always retains for as long as possible timetables for the full services which they consider necessary to meet traffic requirements. If, however, after a period there appears to be no likelihood of being able to implement those services then London Transport revises the schedules and does what it can to reduce the element of uncertainty in the service which is so exasperating to the public and with which I have the very greatest sympathy.

Although, as I said, the government have no direct responsibility in these matters they have recognised the seriousness of London Transport manpower problems. The hon. Gentleman will probably recall that on 20th November my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport appointed a special committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor Phelps-Brown of London University to look into these very problems. The committee, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, published an interim report in December. It recommended certain immediate increases in the basic wages for drivers and conductors, and these were granted by the London Transport Board with effect from 19th December. It is too early yet to estimate what long-term effect the increases will have on the manpower position, but I understand that there has been a halt to the net loss of staff, and that is all to the good.

As to the final report, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour announced in the House on 9th March that this has now been received, and its recommendations are being carefully studied. As the House will realise I am not in a position to say any more about that at this stage.

There are some other suggestions which have been made from time to time that I should like to deal with. What steps, for example, are being taken to give public service vehicles greater freedom of movement on the road? The hon. gentleman touched on that subject. This is something my right hon. Friend the Minister is personally most interested in. He is very well aware of the problem, and he is at present examining points of traffic congestion in suburban areas such as those which the hon. Gentleman represents to see which of the remedial measures are possible, taking into account the reports of congestion which we receive from London Transport. The principal artery through Hayes and Harlington is the A.4, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is already a peak hour Clearway. In addition we are drawing up a programme for comprehensive treatment of the principal radial roads out of London incorporating special peak hour waiting and loading restrictions where we think these will be helpful.

Secondly, we have already introduced a number of banned turns in London to increase capacity at junctions. Some of these have brought advantages both to straight ahead traffic and also to the right turners as, for instance, at St. Pancras Church, where three right turns have been prohibited as a result of which—the hon. Gentleman will be interested in this—journey times through the area at peak periods have been cut by between 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. for straight ahead traffic and by between 28 per cent. and 70 per cent. for the former right turners, who now make a detour round Euston Square. Buses make this detour and they have profited like other traffic.

Where these prohibitions would be a nuisance to buses because of the length of the detours involved, and where the frequency of the services does not create traffic difficulties, buses have been exempted from the ban, for example, in Southwark Street and at Camberwell Green. Similar exemptions at other places, some of them suburban, which would affect the hon. Gentleman's constituency, are being considered by my right hon. Friend.

There are other examples of that kind about which I could tell the House, but unfortunately there is not time to do so, and I just mention them to show that we are very active in considering methods of improving the general traffic flow in London, which has particular relevance to public transport.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the railways which provide a service from Hayes and Harlington. Trains go between Reading, Maidenhead, Slough and Paddington. The most common one originates at Slough. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to British Railways. They have not received any complaints about their passenger service, and they have no grounds for thinking that it is inadequate, though the hon. Gentleman indicated that it was. They have plans for recasting the service which they hope to bring into operation in September. It is too early to give details of the new arrangements but I am assured that they will not mean any reduction in the present service. If the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have complaints to make with regard to railway services, or if they are not satisfied with what British Railways tell them, their course of action is to go to the Transport Users Consultative Committee, and I am glad to hear that on doing that on a previous case the hon. Gentleman's constituents had satisfaction.

The hon. Gentleman may wonder whether there is proper co-ordination and integration between rail and road services. I assure him that that is a matter to which the Railways Board and the London Transport Board pay much attention.

I think that I have covered most of of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. We are very much aware of the problems in his area, and they are certainly not being ignored. The two Boards concerned are indeed active, as are also the Government where their responsibilities are affected, which of course is minimal, and the Boards are doing everything that they can to provide the people of Hayes and Harlington with as good and efficient a transport system as it is possible in the circumstances to provide.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.