§ 11.44 p.m.
§ Mr. George Rodgers (Chorley)Today the House has been occupied with large events. It might well appear incongruous that our business should be rounded off by a parochial debate on the cost of public transport in the Chorley constituency. However, it is one of the virtues of our parliamentary procedure that attention can be focused on particular problems that beset one constituency. This issue is of major importance to a vast number of people living in my part of Lancashire.
1100 I appreciate that the cost of travelling by public transport is not unique to the area which I represent. None the less, I am well informed about the misery and frustration that is created by the upward price spiral and the downward spiral of the standard of the services in my constituency. If this anxiety is a reflection of what exists elsewhere, it emphasises the need for urgent action immediately.
In recent weeks there has been a surge of anger and discontent about the cost of journeying by public transport. The anger and dismay are of such proportions that it would be remiss of those in office to evade or avoid the conclusion that a review of policy in this area is an immediate necessity.
In February of this year the Ribble Motor Company, a subsidiary of the National Bus Corporation, which provides a "service"—I put that word in quotation marks, advisedly—in Lancashire, secured authority to increase its fare charges by 33 per cent., a substantial rise by any standards and massive when related to recent improvements in wages and salaries. In September the company was back again seeking permission to impose a further increase in its charges. Again the application was successful, despite the united opposition of every local authority in the area. On this occasion, superimposed on the already elevated rate, it was decided to replace the half fare charge for children between the ages of 3 and 15 with a formula that meant that children paid two-thirds of the full charge for any journey by bus.
The impact of the two increases has been formidable. In many cases as much as one-sixth of available family income is now being devoted to paying for children to get to and from school. To add to the injustice, the bus operators steadfastly refuse to recognise that the minimum school leaving age is now 16. Thus, we have the absurd position of people who are obviously scholars travelling to school yet being charged full adult fares for the journey.
Within the Chorley constituency there are 23 parishes from which children have to travel to school. Schools are usually situated in nearby towns. Should the distance between school and home be less than the statutory distance which enables 1101 free transport to be provided, the cost to the parent, regardless of income, can be £1.40 per week per child. One does not need to be a mathematician to realise the enormity of the financial burden if there are one, two, three or even four school children in one family.
With the approach of winter, the darker evenings and the existence of unlit roads, it would be a folly to suggest that youngsters living in remote districts should walk to and from school. Yet I fear that harsh economic circumstances will mean that many children will be forced to face the hazards of using Shanks's pony instead of the security of the school bus during the coming months.
The school child has become the captive of the bus company. Although the reluctance of parents to expose their children to avoidable risks has been recognised, it has been decided to inflict a special levy on this helpless section of the travelling public. What next? Is it the intention of the accountants to take further advantage of this easy market by levelling the full adult fare on every passenger, regardless of age? The attitude is one of sheer commercial opportunism.
I have spoken only about travel to school, but the area of discontent, financial and social hardships is much wider. In the villages, a new category of disabled person has emerged, comprising those who are immobile and isolated, not by physical handicap but by virtue of an inadequate, inefficient and expensive public transport service. Many villages are without doctor, pharmacist or local authority office, not to mention a post office, welfare facility, or youth club. Those who live in small communities are confined, caged and constricted, because they simply cannot afford to utilise whatever scanty passenger transport provision is still available.
Ironically, the Chorley constituency is straddled by motorways which reach out all over the country, but to partake in a journey from one village to another has become an expensive adventure which almost demands supplies of quinine and fresh water. Certainly it seems that we are devoting lavish sums to accommodating the private car, often at the ex-expense of worsening public transport.
1102 I want to comment briefly on two factors directly associated with the cost of public transport, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister has no direct responsibility for either. It is difficult to discuss the cost of public transport unless we accept that there is an overlap of responsibilities. I plead the fact of collective Government responsibility.
We are all aware that proposals have been placed before local authorities and other interested parties substantially to reform the unfair and obsolete system of providing free transport for schoolchildren who live beyond the three-mile limit. I know full well that if the proposals are implemented they will involve only a redistribution of money already being spent. However, I should be the last to obstruct the redistribution of wealth, and I am anxious that the amended scheme should be introduced as quickly as is feasible, especially since it will require parliamentary time and legislation. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is awaiting the response and guidance of the local authority associations. I urge that steps be taken to bring discussions to a speedy conclusion, so that we may move towards a somewhat saner policy.
On the second point, I shall be even more brief. It is to the eternal credit of a previous Labour Government that the prerogative of providing concessionary fares to pensioners and disabled people was given to local authorities. Many have responded well, and the recipients of passes or tokens have been enabled to travel, often over hundreds of square miles, at little or no personal expense. Unfortunately, confusion has arisen when neighbouring authorities have widely contrasting schemes, or, perhaps, no scheme. The level of fares is now so high that the extent of the provision can enhance a pensioner's income by several pounds a week. All that I seek is that the Government act as honest broker to establish some conformity, preferably at the standard of the more enlightened local authorities.
Those two items having been recorded, I draw to my hon. Friend's notice the curious hotch-potch of bus services in Lancashire, where no fewer than a dozen operators compete for business. It is 1103 hard to believe that that is the road to efficiency. I am convinced that the case for public transport being administered on a county or regional basis is now overwhelming. The National Bus Company could well act as a sub-contractor, carrying out services as requested by the appropriate local authority.
As things stand, the county council is not even consulted before alterations in fare structures are demanded, which is truly astonishing when an increase in fares has such a devastating effect on the county budget. Obviously, when the charge for the passage of children was increased by the bus companies, the county council had to fork out the additional cost for every child qualifying for free travel to school, and the rates precept went up accordingly.
It would be churlish if I did not pay tribute to those actions by the Government and the Department to meet some of the problems of public transport. The replacement of a tangle of specific grants by the transport policy and programme allocation and the supplementary grants system is a firm step towards a coherent policy for public transport.
Equally, the decision to concentrate a greater proportion of assistance on rural services is warmly welcomed.
The language used in the Department's circulars on the subject is somewhat indigestible, and at times almost incomprehensible. When doing my homework on the topic I felt that I was absorbing more than I wished to know about public transport. However, I concede that in the Department there is now an awareness of looming disaster if the situation is not brought under control.
It is easy to be critical, and it is cowardice to point out the defects without offering some possible remedies. I am absolutely persuaded that we must divert resources away from road construction and towards the relief of public transport. We must decide quickly whether licensing concessions are to be provided to allow minibuses to replace the huge and pricey vehicles that trundle, sometimes half-empty, around the countryside. There should be a determined move towards the staggering of working hours and holidays, so that transport services are utilised sensibly.
1104 The attitude of the operators who respond, almost instinctively, to every crisis by putting up fare levels must be firmly resisted. A greater element of democracy should be introduced into passenger transport authorities and traffic commissioners. The capacity of the bus to conserve our supplies of energy must not be underrated. Customer resistance and the diminishing return on the fare increases clearly demonstrate that the simple equation that increased prices mean a greater overall return is no longer valid.
A great number of families, mostly from the low income groups, are totally dependent upon public transport. The car-less ones have had enough. They are being shabbily treated, and it is no wonder that they are angry, frustrated and bewildered. I have received a mass of petitions objecting to the staggering increase in bus fares. I have received letters of protest from borough and parish councils in my constituency. Moreover, I have had correspondence from parent-teacher associations, trade councils and trade unionists. What is most important is that at my surgeries I have met frightened people who can no longer meet the soaring demands of the transport operators.
At a time of grave economic crisis, the Labour Government which took office at the end of the war created the National Health Service and the programme of family allowances. We should now recognise a new area of need and provide assistance to those who rely on public transport. In my view, that would prove a wise investment. I believe that in the final resort the Government must accept responsibility for the provision of a sound public transport system. It makes moral, social and good political and economic sense.
I was saddened by the measures to combat inflation, because, although they offered some modest protection against price increases, especially concerning food costs and rents, they provided no shield against the rising charges for public transport.
Had time permitted, I should have liked to include some observations on the distinct possibility that about 10,000 employees of the transport undertakings face unemployment because of the diminishing number of bus routes. I should 1105 have liked to comment at length on the limitations to labour mobility, due to the financial implications of using public transport to travel to places of work. I long to discuss the rô1e of the railways in creating a fully integrated transport service. Most of all, I should have liked to read some of the many despairing letters which I have received from the victims of those who operate the system. Indeed, I should have liked to find time to pay tribute to the local trades councils, the Lancashire Evening Post and the Leyland Guardian for helping to expose the hardships which have arisen following the outrageous increases in charges. I do not make a practice of casually praising the Press, but in this instance a first-class piece of crusading journalism took place.
Common sense demands that the Minister be given ample opportunity to reply. I hope that my hon. Friend will have words of hope and comfort for those in my constituency and in other areas who are stricken by the savage and continuous increases in the cost of travelling by public transport.
§ 11.59 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)Myhon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) has raised a matter concerning his own area. As he said, considerable concern has been expressed throughout the country about the cost of public transport. I noticed that at the outset he said that up till now he had been dealing with big issues, and he apologised for raising the question of transport in Chorley. He can rest assured that I feel just as concerned about this matter as I do about the issues which were raised in the earlier debate. However, the cost of public transport must be considered in its entirety and against the background which my hon. Friend described.
My hon. Friend properly drew attention to a wide variety of separate issues. If I do not have sufficient time to deal with them all, I hope that he will accept that I shall deal with them later and shall write to him as fully as I can on the other issues that he raised.
The House will know that the Government have made their view clear that in 1106 the face of severe inflationary pressures of recent times fares must keep pace with rising costs.
In our present economic situation the Government's overall policy is to seek to limit both central Government and local authority expenditure. The transport policies and programmes, which county councils submitted to the Minister for Transport last year, estimated that revenue support to buses would amount to £85 million, at November 1973 prices, in 1974–75. If local authorities had continued with their existing fares policies in 1975–76 their revenue expenditure could have been as high as £170 million—that is, double. The Government could not agree to support policies which were likely so rapidly to increase the burden on local authority rates and on the taxpayer alike at a time when there are major claims on public resources from other important expenditure programmes. Nor are low fares an entirely efficient way of helping low income groups, since much of the subsidy goes to benefit the better-off. I have discussed this point privately with my hon. Friend, because I feel strongly about it. Nevertheless, in order to reduce the impact on rates of local authorities' revenue support policies during 1975–76, and to moderate the level of fare increases which would otherwise be necessary, the Government have made a special grant allocation of £90 million through transport supplementary grant towards local authorities' support of public transport. This is, of course, in addition to the sum of over £60 million which is made available to the bus industry generally from central funds by way of new bus grant and fuel duty rebate for stage services.
I am aware that recent fares increases by Ribble Motor Services Ltd., which serves the Chorley constituency, have caused a great deal of concern to my hon. Friend and that he has been particularly worried about the additional increased charges for children from one-half to two-thirds of the adult fare. Bus fares are, in the first instance, a matter for the commercial judgment of the individual operator. This must be so. They are the people who know the costs of providing the services and the operational constraints within which they have to be provided. Fares, however, are subject to the approval of the traffic 1107 commissioners. These statutory independent bodies have a duty, amongst others, to ensure that fares charged are not unreasonable.
In considering applications from bus operators for revisions of fare scales, the traffic commissioners are also, at present, under a statutory obligation to have regard to the Price Code. Fares applications are normally heard in public, and the commissioners may at their discretion listen to representations from interested parties at a public sitting. In certain circumstances there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, but my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene unless a properly constituted appeal is made to him.
As I understand it, Ribble's fare increases have been required to enable revenue to meet costs, but my hon. Friend will understand that I am not able to comment on these matters, since, as I have explained, the Secretary of State has no locus in them. This is more particularly the case with regard to the fares increase and associated adjustments to concession rates which took effect from 5th October, since the period within which appeals to the Secretry of State may be made on it expires on 6th December and I can say nothing which could reflect on the merits of any potential appeal. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that point.
I know that my hon. Friend is also concerned that some people are less able to cope with this higher cost of travel than are others, and this raises what is in many respects the separate issue of concessionary fares facilities.
As regards concessionary fares for children, a distinction must be made between journeys to school and other travel. All local education authorities have a duty to meet the costs of travel to school for children of compulsory school age who live more than a certain distance away. Local education authorities also have discretion to contribute to the travel expenses of other pupils if they consider it necessary and can make the resources available.
The Government are well aware that the effects of the existing statutory arrangements for school transport are causing a great deal of concern not only 1108 in Lancashire but over the country as a whole.
In a report published at the end of 1973 the Working Party on School Transport recommended changes in those arrangements; but subsequent consultations on the recommendations with the local authority associations and other interested organisations showed that there was no general agreement as to the changes that should be made.
As my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport, now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, explained on 29th October, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis)—and as my hon. Friend said this evening—proposals for revised school transport arrangements have been sent in the form of a consultative document to the local authority associations and other interested organisations. It may, however, be some time before all the replies are to hand.
In addition to the statutory arrangements for schoolchildren, bus operators have frequently offered reduced fares for children on their own initiative and commercial judgment. There is nothing in law to require bus operators to treat children any differently from adult passengers and operators are free to decide up to what age and between what hours any fare concession shall apply, within the overall control of bus fares exercised by traffic commissioners. The commissioners may decide that the general public are being penalised because there are so many concessionary fares.
These are the circumstances in which Ribble's concessions to children are set. Bus companies have found this sort of commercial-based concession very difficult to maintain in recent years, and many companies now offer no concession to schoolchildren of any age.
I know my hon. Friend is also concerned about the position of other groups, such as old-age pensioners. Here, again, I can draw his attention to other statutory provisions which give local authorities powers to offer concessions. All local authorities now have general discretionary powers, under the Transport Act 1968, to arrange concessionary fares schemes with operators for the elderly, blind and disabled, and to meet the costs. My information is that Chorley 1109 Borough Council does have such a scheme in operation, by way of a token system.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to require local authorities to arrange concessions or to say what form a local concessionary fare scheme should take. A mandatory or national scheme would require legislation imposing a duty on local authorities, or empowering central Government to arrange and finance whatever concessions Parliament thought appropriate. The position at the present time, I am afraid, is that even within the terms of the legislation now in force, the Government have recognised that the expansion of existing concessionary fares schemes and the introduction of new ones is not possible in the present economic circumstances.
My hon. Friend spoke about introducing a greater element of democracy into PTAs and traffic commissioners. He will know that all the passenger transport authorities are democratically elected, being the councils of the metropolitan counties in each case. Section 15(2) of the Transport Act 1968 provides that passenger transport executives must obtain the approval of their passenger transport authorities
before making, or authorising or consenting to the making of, any alteration in the general level of charges for the transport services provided by the Executive or…for reducing or waiving those charges in a particular case or cases of a particular class".The writ of traffic commissioners runs in passenger transport areas, and although I note that my hon. Friend calls also for greater democracy in these bodies, I should emphasise the manner in which they are appointed.Three traffic commissioners are appointed in each of the 11 traffic areas. The chairman is a full-time salaried appointment, but the other two commissioners are appointed from panels of persons nominated by local authorities. In addition, a number of deputies are selected from these panels each year, in case a commissioner is unavailable or has an undesirable interest in particular proceedings.
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)In his obvious enthusiasm for democracy, does not my hon. Friend feel that it would be advantageous to have 1110 direct elections to these bodies, seeing that they involve the ordinary people who use the services so much?
§ Mr. CarmichaelI am not being terribly enthusiastic about democracy in explaining how the system works. I was explaining that, apart from the full-time members, traffic commissioners are appointed by local authorities—local councillors. That is a reasonably democratic way to appoint them. They are answerable to their local authorities and, through them, directly to the electorate.
§ Mr. George RodgersSurely the central theme here is lack of standard behaviour towards public transport and the question of consumer involvement, which all Governments, certainly this one, have regarded as necessary to the development of all the interests concerned. Will my hon. Friend respond to the point about direct consumer involvement?
§ Mr. CarmichaelThat would be going wider than the subject of the debate. But I am not sure how much more democratic one can get in the PTA, which is an elected local body. Its members are, therefore, people who know what is happening in their areas. The executive appointed by them is not allowed to increase fares or lay down major policy without the authority of the PTA. I do not see at which point the consumer can be much better protected than by the councillors he elects and to whom he can make representations. That is surely a fairly good step on the road to democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is looking for ways to increase the scope of public participation in these things, but surely the present system is a good basis, with its proportion of elected representatives. There would be some resentment if there were selection by some other body. It would certainly be worth considering whether there is any body for the selection of representatives which could be more democratic than an elected body.
My hon. Friend referred to the need to review public transport policy, particularly for developing resources away from road construction towards the relief of public transport. We cannot debate the subject fully now, but I shall write 1111 to my hon. Friend and explain the position. I remind him of my right hon. Friend's announcement on 2nd July that we are working on a thorough review of transport policy and intend—
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and
1112§ the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.