§ 1.31 a.m.
§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)At last we have come to the most important part of the day's proceedings, when I can ask the Minister for Transport abut a problem which is causing my constituents a great deal of anxiety—the increase of bus fares in February in Derbyshire, particularly in my part of the county, West Derbyshire.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the extent of the rises in West Derbyshire. The Trent Motor Traction Company has been given permission by the traffic commissioners to increase fares by 34 per cent. overall. That is exactly what has happened. But the company has tapered the increase, so that there is a bigger percentage rise for the shorter journeys. The longer the journey, the smaller the increase.
I shall not weary the House with all the figures that the company has kindly sent me of the various increases. I shall simply say that they range from more than 60 per cent. to a very small percentage rise. All the high percentages—60 per cent., 54 per cent., 40 per cent. and 34 per cent.—are for very short journeys, the ones that are made most.
It would be wrong if the Minister thought that I was talking of only one area, Matlock. The figures I am giving also apply to places in the northern part of my constituency, such as Great Long-stone, as well as places elsewhere in the constituency such as Brailsford and Ashbourne. There is great anxiety. Many constituents, particularly the older people, have complained to me.
I can understand the reasons why the traffic commissioners accepted the case put forward by the company, whose costs had increased by £1,177,550 between last August and the time of its application—a fantastic rise. The Midland General Company also experienced a rise in costs, though not to the same extent.
859 The Trent Motor Traction Company had to fight for an increase in fares. When the case was before the traffic commissioners there were objections from all the local councils. For example, the Great Longstone Parish Council objected, as did the Ashbourne and Matlock councils. There was a great outcry in the area. Nevertheless, the traffic commissioners in their wisdom decided to do this.
The result is these stupendous rises in short journey fares-54 per cent., 60 per cent., and so on. I think that people will start refusing to go on short journeys, particularly in the southern part of my constituency. There are no trains in the area, and because petrol and private motoring is so expensive older people will be much more isolated. I am sure we all want to avoid that happening.
I know that the Minister is in something of a predicament because he does not have extra finance which he can give or promise to give. Because of our present economic situation it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to make any helpful suggestions about providing money, and the same problem faces the local authorities. They are entitled to provide cross-subsidisation from the rates, but in recent circulars the Government have made it difficult for local authorities to come forward with plans to help.
The right hon. Gentleman knows my constituency and he knows what Matlock is like. It is built on a steep hill. Pensioners and mothers with children use the buses for short journeys to go shopping and to get themselves back home up the steep hill, and with these increased fares they will be faced with a considerable financial burden.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will discuss this matter with the Trent Company. I have had discussions with it, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to influence the company more than I have done. I hope he will ask the company to explain the basis on which it has distributed the 34 per cent. overall increase. I accept that the company needs this money, because without it there would be a large deficit and we should probably end up with another nationalised company, and that cannot be tolerated, but the right hton. Gentle- 860 man should invite the company to re-examine its fare structure and try to ensure that these heavy increases are not imposed on short journeys. The geographical features of a town such as Matlock make it essential for transport to be readily available to pensioners and mothers with young children.
There is nonsense going on in connection with the bus services in the northern part of my constituency, and this is becoming a burning issue. I have been informed by Great Longstone Parish Council that the buses which take parishioners into Bakewell to catch a connection to Sheffield or Buxton and Manchester miss the connections by a few minutes because the schedules have been retimed. I have asked the company to reconsider the schedules but it is having difficulty in doing this. I hope that the Minister and the company will examine this problem, because it is a source of irritation to my constituents. The company suggested that my constituents should catch the school bus at about 8.15 a.m., but there is no room on the bus for other than schoolchildren.
Finally, there is the question of school buses and schoolchildren. This has been a sore point for a long time and I do no more than mention it tonight. I raised this problem with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor when we were in government. On that occasion I raised the matter with the then Minister of Education. My right hon. Friend said that an inquiry was being held into how the two or three-mile limit could be replaced and what could be done about school transport. I gather that the inquiry has finished and that the Minister is ready to come forward with new proposals for children going two or three miles to primary or secondary schools.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), who is interested in this matter, asked me to mention this to the right hon. Gentleman. I willingly do so knowing that the hon. Gentleman has another engagement tomorrow morning and cannot be here tonight. This is a burning issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say when the new proposals will come forward. I hope that it will be soon.
I have had correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman's Department about 861 school buses. They are grossly overcrowded. I cannot believe that it is right to have 70 children in a bus going to school. I know that it is within the law to carry children under a certain age three or four to a bench, but I am sure that if the Minister looked at this he would agree that it is monstrous. I hope that something will be done about this, although it will increase the cost to the local authority in providing the transport.
Basically, I am asking the Minister to re-examine the question of the increases which have had to be imposed in the fares structure. This cannot apply only in West Derbyshire but must be happening in other areas. Increases of 50 or 60 per cent. are too much for people to pay, particularly on short journeys. I hope that the Minister and the companies will be able to find a means of alleviating this hardship to many people living in West Derbyshire.
§ 1.42 a.m.
§ The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley)I am sure that the House understands the very real concern of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for his constituents, and I am grateful to him for putting his point so fairly. I know also that he has been extremely active in pursuing these matters. While I am sure that what I say tonight will not remove the concern, because my experience is that people dislike price or fare increases in any event, certainly when they have to be of the magnitude we are discussing tonight, I trust that what I say will contribute to an understanding of what is happening.
As the hon. Member knows, the pattern and level of fares are matters in the first instance for bus operators, whether they are passenger transport executives, municipal undertakings, private companies or, in the case of the Trent Motor Traction Company, the one concerned in this case, subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. They have to provide the services they are licensed to run. They have to meet the costs within the constraints of their own financial structure and with the help of whatever aid they can get from whatever source.
862 Apart from those matters—and I think that fares are subject to greater public and independent scrutiny than almost any other increases—the operators must satisfy the traffic commissioners that their fares are not unreasonable and that any increases applied for are within the terms of the Price Code as applied to the bus industry.
The traffic commissioners are independent statutory bodies charged with the duty, under the Road Traffic Act 1960, of administering the public service vehicle licensing system. In considering applications for licences they have to have regard to the criteria set out in the Act. Where they grant licences they have the power to attach, and usually do attach, conditions to them to ensure that the fares are not unreasonable.
Every time there is a question of a fare increase, the operator has to go to the traffic commissioners to vary the fares conditions. The regulations specify a particular form of publicity and procedures to be followed so that any person who wishes to do so may object. When a decision has been reached by the commissioners, normally, particularly in controversial matters like those the hon. Member has brought to our attention tonight, they can be challenged by the operator, or any local authority objecting, by way of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is the only way in which Ministers can intervene. That is the only occasion when the Secretary of State can intervene directly with operators or the traffic commissioners in the fixing of fares.
Although one would naturally like to help any hon. Member who brings these cases before us, the proposition by the hon. Member that one should seek to restructure the basis of the fare increases is really asking Ministers, without statutory authority, to reopen the matter and do the traffic commissioners' job again when we have no appeal, as far as I am aware, in front of us.
As to the hon. Member's other point about the retiming of services, I confess again that I have no direct day-to-day responsibility for the operating of the companies. He will understand that I am not familiar with the timetables of every bus company in the country, but I 863 can appreciate his feeling that by a re-timing of schedules greater convenience might be served. I think it would be reasonable—I will certainly do this—to draw the hon. Member's point to the attention of the National Bus Company and ask it to look into it. I would guess, however, that there might be other considerations.
It is very difficult to time a route, particularly in uncertain times of traffic congestion, from one end to the other. It could be that at the other end of the route the retiming might create problems of the same sort in reverse if the hon. Member's constituents were provided with retiming to meet their convenience. But certainly I will draw the point to the attention of the NBC, and ask it to see whether ways can be found to meet it. I know that the Chairman of the National Bus Company and his officials welcome very much that hon. Members should get in touch with them on matters of this kind.
Obviously the statutory processes relating to fares are regulated, as I have said, but in terms of detailed operation of the buses I know that the company welcomes discussions with hon. Members and can often, much more readily than I am able to do, give them the detail and discuss with them the reasons why this or that policy has to be pursued.
As the hon. Member very fairly said, the real problem—it is one aspect of the national problem of inflation—is that operating costs have been going up at a faster rate than prices generally. Even the recent fares increase of 34 per cent. is less than the increase in the operating costs of the company. One of the problems is that in the road passenger transport industry labour is a very important and large element of cost. It could be as much as 70 to 75 per cent. of the operating cost and, as the hon. Member will know, wages have gone up by a higher percentage even than the 34 per cent. he has mentioned.
I am sorry to say that the trend—there is no point in disguising the fact—is that fares are likely to continue to rise. It is not just a problem, as the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates, of the Trent Company or of Derbyshire. It is a national problem, and a very serious one. If there 864 is not enough money by way of fares in the fare box, there will be a gap between revenue and running costs. If there is not enough money to pay the wages, it has to come from somewhere, otherwise the service has to close down, because one thing is certain: people will not drive the buses unless they get paid at the end of the week. That being the case, how can the gap be met?
The Government have done something in that the whole of the duty on fuel is repaid, so that the operators have not had to suffer the cost of additional tax on fuel, and 50 per cent. of the cost of new vehicles is provided by way of grant. The Government contribute £60 million a year on these two items together. That is a sizeable sum.
Under the Transport Act 1968 the Government also contributed 50 per cent. of the expenditure of local authorities in grants to assist rural bus services. This was subsumed in the revised grant arrangements following local government reorganisation. The hon. Gentleman will know, because it was the previous Conservative administration who made these changes in local government reorganisation and grant, that local authorities have additional powers to make grants to bus operators and that county councils have new duties to develop policies to promote the provision of co-ordinated and efficient systems of public passenger transport in their areas.
As the hon. Gentleman said, very understandably, there is a local rate problem as well as, nationally, a problem of national public expenditure. As I am sure he is aware, we have suggestions from time to time from his right hon. and hon. Friends that the levels of public expenditure, both central and local, are, if anything, too high. Therefore, if there is no source of Government or local assistance to bridge the gap between what comes in in fares and what it costs to run the operation, from where is the money to come, other than by increasing fares? That is really the problem.
We have tried to assist through the transport supplementary grant system. We were especially concerned because, with mounting costs and the reluctance of many local authorities which were running their own public transport systems to put up fares, very substantial deficits were mounting. These would 865 have meant large demands on the rates. So, for the first time—and this is the only time we have had a grant of this kind—for this year, 1975–76, we are making a special grant towards revenue support. In each case it is based on the local authority's own estimates submitted last July. The authorities estimated that they needed £85 million at November 1973 prices. We have paid to each local authority what it estimated its deficit to be for 1974–75 plus 20 per cent. as a contribution to the increasing costs.
I appreciate that in many cases, especially in rural areas, the local authorities perhaps underestimated what would be involved, and, because of the substantial deficits which had been accumulated by the passenger transport executives and the municipal undertakings, the lion's share of the grant went in the current year—it has all been fixed now—to the conurbations. But we have made it clear that the purpose was to help them to reduce their deficits and that in future it would be right for them to seek to cover increased costs by increased fares and that the Government could not repeat the same level of support in future years.
As the hon. Gentleman will know from the public expenditure figures, this special grant has to be reduced over the next four years to half what it was in the current year in real terms. We have made it clear that in the next transport supplementary grant we shall seek to give greater weight within the total of revenue support to providing or retaining minimum public transport services in less densely populated areas. It would certainly help the hon. Gentleman's constituents if the county council concerned made this one of the items in its transport policy and programme which it will be submitting later this year.
However, I would not wish anyone to think that either from central Government or by persuasion through local government we can find the kind of money which will be necessary to meet the increased costs that are incurred in providing this service. A very substantial part of the cost must come from the people who pay. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the particular problem of old people. To some extent that is covered in some areas—it is a matter for the local authority—by one form or another of con- 866 cessionary fares, although the bus operators need money from the rates to compensate for the lost revenue.
There are very real problems about schoolchildren, particularly with the Trent Company. On a visit to Staffordshire I met a deputation from parish councils about this problem of children going to school. It does not fall within my responsibility. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. However, I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to his attention. I understand the anxiety that the report which is my right hon. Friend's responsibility should be made available as soon as possible. The contracts for the special school journeys to which the hon. Gentleman referred are made by the local education authorities, and it is to my right hon. Friend and not to me that they are responsible.
The same point arises if the bus operators on the normal stage carrier journeys make concessions to schoolchildren. That reduces their revenue and means that perhaps fares would have to be raised to compensate or further money would have to come from ratepayers, because the local authorities have power, if they think it expedient, to subsidise the fares on routes in their area.
However, I undertake to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the particular problems that I understand the company has posed to parents because of the fares arrangements for schoolchildren.
It is important that these matters are ventilated. We understand, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's case, the problems which are compounded by the gradients. I know Matlock and the problems there. But we also appreciate that over the whole country especially in rural areas, this matter poses very serious social problems of isolation and so on. I would very much like to be able to say that we can provide the funds so that fares do not have to rise, and so forth, but in our present economic circumstances it would be quite unrealistic to think that we could continue with rising costs without increasing charges to offset those costs.
That is really the heart of the matter. As I have said, on the detailed arrangements, often for historic reasons, the reason why one section of fares rises by 867 a bigger percentage than another is attributable to local circumstances. But it is for the traffic commissioners, with the opportunity and benefit of local objectors, to argue these things and to try to sort them out. It would be quite impossible to have a uniform system of fares over the whole country. Often the reason why on one route it costs more this time is that perhaps on the last occasion the largest impact on fares was on a different section. That is why we have this 868 particular procedure of the traffic commissioners. On a subsequent occasion perhaps the operator or the traffic commissioner, or the two together, will provide a different basis.
I shall certainly see that the points made by the hon. Gentleman are brought to the attention of the Chairman of the National Bus Company.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.