HC Deb 25 June 1984 vol 62 cc721-6

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 39, line 9, after "affected" insert ", with the Passengers' Committee"

6 pm

Mrs. Chalker

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Mrs. Chalker

The house will recall that in Committee we accepted the principle of including the passengers committee among the bodies to be consulted under clause 43. When our proceedings were concluded formally at a late stage in the debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) could not be in Committee and the amendment was not moved. Amendment No. 14 deals with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be glad to support it.

Amendment No. 15 is essentially a correction, the need for which came to light in the preparation of amendment No. 16. It will ensure that local authorities will be consulted under clause 43 about new bus services or variations of bus services even where only part of the particular bus route in question involves their areas.

Amendment No. 16 meets an undertaking given to Lord Carmichael in another place. He drew attention to the fact that London Transport has been obliged since 1971, under a direction from the Greater London council, to consult local authorities over major variations and withdrawals of public passenger transport services. The Bill already sets out procedures for rail closures and for variations of bus services, but we accepted that it did not make parallel provision for consultation over the withdrawal of bus services. We therefore brought forward this amendment to extend consultation under clause 43 to withdrawals. LRT will be required to consult before any decisions are taken on withdrawals of bus services, whether they are operated by LRT, by its subsidiaries or by other operators under clause 3(2) agreements. The amendment represents a further measure to involve local authorities and the passengers committee in proposals that will affect local interests and the travelling public.

I think that that is all I need to say about the amendments. They are all drafted in the spirit that was accepted in Committee. I hope that the House will accept them.

Mr. Spearing

Once again we must be grateful to another place, and especially to Lord Carmichael.

I wish to help the Minister and those who assist her in these complex matters. They may take on a load of trouble if certain policies are pursued. We accept that it is helpful, right and proper for local authorities, the Common Council and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to be consulted about the withdrawal of any bus services. We all know that populations change, and with that the demand for bus services. London Transport withdraws services in one place and adds to services in another. That has been done on the basis of what I call the 1933 settlement. LT was given a monopoly in exchange for providing a public service. The Bill will change that.

Although LRT will have duties and obligations—and I shall not go over the arguments again—the monopoly position and the financial structure will not be the same. With the pressure from the Government to do well financially, LRT may feel unable to put the charges on the boroughs, although it will have the right to impose a precept on the boroughs to run the London services. There may be a temptation for LRT to say, "We want to save money by reducing bus services that are not paying, or even to take away a route which we think does not pay." LRT may even withdraw peak-hour services or Sunday services from certain areas.

Until now, any changes have been dealt with by the GLC-LT network. The appropriate, publicly elected members of County Hall have argued with their colleagues and then crossed the river to 55 Broadway to say whether or not a bus route should be changed. Fortunately, it has not been a matter for the House, and, thank heavens, it has not been the concern of Marsham street. Yet I suspect that when the Bill becomes an Act it will become the concern of Marsham street.

Consultation may be helpful. It may avoid the withdrawal of routes or it may make any adjustment to the optimum, but there may be arguments about money, in the same way as we had arguments about the withdrawal of railway services, how much was being lost, how much being saved and how to calculate that. Will we, through the withdrawal of a bus route, save on the administration of a garage or 55 Broadway? All those points are relevant.

I warn the Minister that although consultation may be helpful, we hope that LRT or any of its subsidiaries will not get up to the sort of financial tricks that we have had from British Rail asking to close rail services. We hope that there will be no arguments about accounts. Of course, if an overwhelming case is made for a change, that will be a different matter.

I hope that the clause will avoid the sort of friction which, alas, will come within the ambit of Members of Parliament. We do not want that—the decision-making should be retained within the existing GLC-LT network.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I, the Liberal party and, I hope, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of greater consultation with the body that will take over the role of representing the passenger faced with the new LRT authority. I must correct the Minister, to my detriment. It is not that I was not present when the original amendment was not moved in Committee, but rather that it was about the 60th in a bank of 90 amendments, which were all moved at such speed that I did not realise that we had passed my amendment until it was half a second too late.

I am grateful for the fact that the amendment has now come forward from another place. It means that when it is proposed either to take away a route or to add to it the new passengers committee will be involved. Of course, as we have always made clear, that is not the same as passengers being represented on the board of LRT. Passengers are excluded from the decision-making body. It will be our perpetual regret, until matters change, that the representatives of transport users can only be consulted and cannot vote or argue behind closed doors with those appointed by the Secretary of State as the management body of LRT.

Until such time as we can persuade the Government that there should be more accountability in the running of London transport, we hope that the consultation on proposed changes to routes will result in a real listening to views. I read in the weekend papers that the Government are trying to change their image to the listening Government. I remember that a bank tried the same tack and that that was met with some amusement from not only its clients but many others.

I hope that if the Government are serious in saying that they will begin to change course by listening to people in London—as the Government well know, the majority of Londoners are opposed to the Government's proposals to take over LRT—they will listen to the consumer watchdogs acting on behalf of the users of the service and do what they recommend. We may then be in for a slightly better deal than the one that we expect will come our way.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I shall comment especially on amendment No. 16 which specifies the consultation procedures involved in the withdrawal of a bus service. Consultation, especially with passengers and borough councils, is much better than no consultation. Consultation is, however, very much second best. My favoured scheme is for the Government to abandon the Bill and leave the running of and decisions by London Transport in the hands of elected people representing Londoners. That is the best form of consultation and accountability.

I shall cite one example from my constituency. The No. 172 bus used to run from the Angel to Archway, providing a much valued and appreciated service to the people using it. It was not the most efficient service in the world. There were many complaints on that score, but none about its existence and the service that it provided. About a year and a half ago, London Transport terminated that service at Kings Cross. The gap between Kings Cross and Archway was left without any bus service for about a year and a half. Strong local protests were made. I took up the case and even tried to persuade the Ministers in the Department of the Environment to allow some partnership money to be spent on subsidising a bus service to cover that gap, but was unsuccessful.

Thanks to the efforts and concern of the GLC, responding to the wishes of its electors, a replacement bus service, No. 153, started only two weeks ago. It is providing a much appreciated service to the people of the area. That is a clear example of the GLC—an elected body—responding to the wishes of its electors and the people who use a transport service over which they have some control.

Although we welcome the Government's acceptance of the provisions inserted by the other place for improved consultation about the withdrawal of bus services, that procedure is very much second best. It is no real substitute for proper accountability and consultation via the ballot box by electors through the GLC.

Mr. Prescott

Inevitably, comparisons were made during this debate with what was said in Committee. Discussions in Committee often began with a consideration of whether the GLC was the legitimate body to be consulted—whether, since its death was nigh, reference to it should be included in the Bill. Increasingly, the amendments refer to the GLC being consulted, and that is, perhaps, a sign—we have noted this from rumours and press cuttings—that the GLC will be given an extended life. The idea of consulting the GLC is embodied in various amendments, although little time was given to that matter at the beginning of the Committee debates. I believe that all hon. Members welcome the fact that there will be consultation with the local authorities involved, including the London Regional Passengers Committee, about route changes and withdrawal of bus services.

A curious point arises. We have just passed an amendment relating to LRT taking control over the London regional rail passenger network within eight years. That is a complicated formula, but the result is that LRT will take over the running of some railway lines.

6.15 pm

A distinction has been drawn between how we deal with closures and withdrawals, and the amendments address themselves to that point. If a railway line is closed, many procedures under the recommendations of the Transport Users Consultative Committee must be followed. The position is not the same with the closure of bus routes. I believe that we all welcome the fact that it is possible for people to express their views on the withdrawal of a bus service.

We should bear in mind the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport of a plan for railways whereby buses will take over from trains. He has suggested that when an appeal is made against the withdrawal of a railway service or an additional bus service taking over a rail service the procedure applying to the railways will be used. That is his intention, whether the service is run by bus or rail. If LRT controls a number of railway lines, what type of procedure will apply—the one applying to the buses or the one applying to the trains? Why should we not put them into the same system?

The Secretary of State said that he had adopted the recommendations of the Transport Committee, which recommended that where a bus service replaced a railway service it should remain in operation for 10 years. That is not the statement given by the Secretary of State hi a parliamentary answer to an hon. Member. If the Secretary of State reads the report of the Transport Committee, he will find that he has adopted its suggestions not its recommendations. The Transport Committee had some encouraging words for the replacement of train services by buses, but it recommended that, if a bus service took the place of a rail service, that form of operation should not be removed for 10 years. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take advice on what was spelt out. I could give him his reply to study.

Since the amendments deal with the distinction between closure and withdrawal of bus and rail services, I hope that I can tempt the Minister of State to say how any new thinking in the Department will apply to that aspect.

I have referred to the separate agreement reached in the provision of transport in Hillingdon. When debating the structure of routes, the Secretary of State confirmed that the obligations imposed on the public sector would be much greater than those imposed on the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman disappeared in a flight of rhetoric without answering my point. Why should there be differing requirements for information on routes to allow people to judge between the public and private sectors, simply because the public sector is controlled by the Secretary of State and the private sector has to secure the agreement of the traffic commissioners? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do so, will the Minister of State justify the reasons why, once again, the public sector, over which the Secretary of State will have direct responsibility because of the LRT measures, is obliged to give information about route structures and closures to local authorities when private operators are not?

Mrs. Chalker

By leave of the House. I understand what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was saying at the beginning of his remarks, but I believe that the consultation will be beneficial. I believe that that is the intention of the amendments. I hope that he is wrong when he talks about a load of trouble. Good consultation often avoids a load of trouble. Lack of consultation sometimes leads to it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for putting me right, but I know that it was late at night and a great deal was going on rather quickly. At least we have amendment No. 14 coming back from another place to deal with that point.

The story that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) told us about the 172 bus may be perfectly correct—I am not seeking to dispute it in any way—but it is a little wearying to hear everything done in the name of London praised when it is done by the GLC although no account is taken of the ratepayers' money. I caution him that there is account at the end of the day of what the GLC costs the London ratepayer and taxpayer.

I shall deal with the slightly convoluted description that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave of rail closures. I believe that I am right to say that if the rail services are being run by LRT, the closures will follow the same procedures as for LRT rail. There is no reason why they should be operated differently and, therefore, consulted upon differently.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the end of last week, I believe, that the rail procedure for closures would apply to buses should British Rail come forward with a subsequent plan no longer to run that bus substitute for a British Rail service. My right hon. Friend was simply agreeing British Rail's detailed plan on that occasion and the rail closure procedure will apply to those buses substituted for railways.

Those were the two main questions that I heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East ask.

Mr. Prescott

What about LRT?

Mrs. Chalker

As I said clearly when I spoke to amendment No. 16, the Bill already sets out procedures for rail closures and other variations in bus services. Without amendment No. 16, the Bill did not set out any procedure for withdrawal of bus services. We have accepted the amendment put forward by the noble Lord Carmichael, with some assistance in drafting, which puts that on an even footing.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me a further question about Hillingdon. LRT will continue to run bus services that are subsidised by the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Those private routes which are not part of a clause 3(2) agreement but which run separately under a road service licence will not be dependent upon the ratepayer or taxpayer. In that sense, they are different, and I accept that they should be treated differently.

Mr. Prescott

The point that I was making about private services was that they will be able to provide a range of bus services within the LRT region in competition with LRT buses or subsidiaries if the traffic commissioner has agreed that that should take place. In those circumstances, with "Jones the Bus" running down Oxford street in competition with LRT buses, LRT is required to give information about the structure of the routes, their closures and withdrawals to local authorities, but "Jones the Bus" is not. Why not?

Mrs. Chalker

The hon. Gentleman will remember from Committee that "Jones the Bus" or, dare I say it, "Evans the Bus" would be operating entirely on their own account. They would not be operating with a subsidy from the taxpayer or the ratepayer. They will be required, as I remember we debated in Committee, to furnish information about bus stops and all manner of ther things. I should have thought it would be completely unreasonable that the traffic commissioners would not have information about variations in services, because they will immediately mean a variation in those matters that the traffic commissioners have to consider. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's point has substance.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.

Forward to