HC Deb 02 April 1985 vol 76 cc1188-93 12.10 am
Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

I beg to ask leave to present two petitions on behalf of the citizens of the constituency of Jarrow. It is appropriate that these petitions should be presented today when there has been a massive demonstration by many old-age pensioners who are concerned about the threat to their concessionary passes, many people from rural areas who are concerned about their evening and weekend bus services, many men in the transport industry who are worried about staff conditions, pensions and jobs and many people who are concerned with public transport, which is threatened by the Transport Bill being considered by Standing Committee A.

One of the petitions was presented by the chief executive of the south Tyneside district council on behalf of many citizens who went to the town hall to sign the forms. The other petition was presented to me by the Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union at the Jarrow depot of the National Bus Company. The petition reads: To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the citizens of the Jarrow Constituency. Sheweth That the proposals contained in the White Paper on Buses will have a detrimental effect on the residents of the Jarrow Constituency who use Public Transport, will put in jeopardy the Tyne and Wear integrated Transport System known as one of the best Transport Systems in the World, will put under threat the concessionary Bus passes used by the pensioners, disabled, unemployed and school children, and will cause further loss of jobs in the Transport industry in an area of already high unemployment and will have damaging effects on the wages and working conditions for those who are left in the Transport industry. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport not to put into effect the proposals of the White Paper on Buses. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)

I wish to present a petition which reads: To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Wigan borough council sheweth: That the Wigan Borough Council have examined the White Paper on "Buses" and the Transport Bill That they fear that, if implemented, the White Paper will mean:—

  1. (a) concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear
  2. (b) that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld
  3. (c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end
  4. (d) many bus and rail services will vanish
  5. (e) the few services that are left will no longer link and services will become less frequent
  6. (f) passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged
  7. (g) operators will compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches
  8. (h) neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services
That there are wider aspects to the proposals. The ratepayers' considerable investments in the Metropolitan Counties on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer. That … Public Transport is needed as a social service. The proposals of the White Paper would destroy both. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses. And your Petitioners will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I wish to present a petition under the common seal of the council of the borough of Chesterfield signed by the mayor and the acting town clerk about the Transport Bill and the White Paper on buses. I do it with some feeling because today there has been a complete stoppage of the Chesterfield bus service to draw attention to the consequences of the policy, and a large number of my constituents came to London to give emphasis to this petition which shows that the borough council has examined the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill. They fear, in my opinion with grounds, that if implemented the Bill will mean a threat to the concessionary passes for the disabled, the elderly and other people in need, including schoolchildren.

The strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles that have been maintained under the present system, and their drivers, may not be maintained.

The Petition continues:

  1. (c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services may end;
  2. (d) many bus and rail services may vanish, particularly those to rural areas and on unprofitable routes;
  3. (e) there may not be a co-ordinated network of services and services may well become less frewquent, prticularly at off-peak times;
  4. (f) there may not be available a comprehensive timetable of services and confusion may arise;
  5. (g) some new operators may compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches;
Neither users nor ratepayers who will be required to invest in the services will have any say whatever about their local public transport services as they do at present, and there may, as a result of these and other factors, be more road accidents as a result of congestion in busy town centres.

The petition continues: Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

I should like to present a petition to the House from Central Regional council to the effect that Central Regional council has examined the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill. It states: That they fear that, if implemented, the White Paper will mean:

  1. (a) concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear.
  2. (b) that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld
  3. (c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end
  4. (d) many bus and rail services will vanish
  5. (e) the few services that are left will no longer link and services will become less frequent
    6. 1190
  6. (f) country and suburban routes will disappear as they will not be cross-subsidised
  7. (g) passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged
  8. (h) operators will compete with old, and/or unsuitable buses and coaches
  9. (i) neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services.
That there are wider aspects to the proposals. The ratepayers' considerable investments in Central Region on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer. That Public Transport is needed as a social service. The proposals of the White Paper would destroy both. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on Buses and the Transport Bill. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

I also have a petition in similar terms from the Strathclyde National and Local Government Officers Association, SPTE sub-branch.

I wholeheartedly support the terms of both petitions because of the detrimental effect that the Transport Bill will have on passengers and employees in public transport, and on the workers in the bus building industry in companies such as Walter Alexander's, one of the few manufacturing bases left in my constituency, where since the Government took power, the work force has been reduced by over 50 per cent., from over 1,000 workers to about 500.

I am grateful for the opportunity of presenting both petitions and adding my wholehearted support to them.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton)

I, too, wish to present a petition along similar lines to those that we have already heard. I do so gladly because of the strong support that I give to the statements that are made in the petition.

This one comes from the East advisory committee for public passenger transport in Greater Manchester. The petition states: the Advisory Committee representing bus and rail users in its area, with advice from local groups ranging from the local Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Trades Councils to Age Concern and disabled people's organisations, as well as Townswomen's Guilds and the National Association of Women's Clubs in the Eastern area of the Greater Manchester County have examined the White Paper on "Buses". That they fear that, if implemented, the White Paper will mean:—

  1. (a) concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear.
  2. (b) that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld.
  3. (c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end.
  4. (d) many bus and rail services will vanish.
  5. (e) the few services that are left will no longer link and services will become less frequent.
  6. (f) passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged.
  7. (g) operators will compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches.
  8. (h) neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services.
That there are wider aspects to the proposals. The ratepayers' considerable investments in the Metropolitan Counties on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer. That the Advisory Committee believe Public Transport is needed as a social service. The proposals of the White Paper would destroy both. As I have mentioned, I strongly support every aspect of the petition. In particular, I am concerned about employment in the north-west of England, where firms are dependent on orders for new buses for their continued employment. The East advisory committee for public passenger transport in the Greater Manchester area has demonstrated its concern for every user and provider of bus services in the area, and concludes by saying: Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses. And your Petitioners will ever pray &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

I beg leave to present a petition drawn up by constituents in Liverpool, West Derby, a constituency in which about 50 per cent. and in some areas 75 per cent. of the inhabitants do not have the use of private cars. They believe that the Transport Bill is iniquitous and contrary to their interests and they call upon the Government to withdraw it.

The petition reads as follows: To the Honourable the Commons of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled The Humble Petition of the Residents of Liverpool West Derby Sheweth that the Bill proposing to deregulate bus services and the breaking up and selling off the National Bus Company, will mean a serious reduction in the quality of service available to the West Derby travelling public and increased fares. Furthermore, the loss of Integrated services that seem to be favoured for the London Regional Transport, but not the North of England, by the Honourable Member Mr. Ridley MP Secretary of State for Transport. Wherefore your petitioners Pray that the Bill proposing to Deregulate and Privatise the National Bus Company, PTE and Municipal Transport be withdrawn and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Harry Cowans (Tyne Bridge)

I rise with some sadness to present this petition because when I first came to the House I firmly believed that it was the Mother of Parliaments and of democracy. Sadly, so much rubbish has been put upon the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport during the proceedings on the Transport Bill that I must put it on record that I speak as the Member of Parliament for Tyne Bridge and not as the Chairman of the Select Committee. Far from any answer to the arguments on the Bill, there has been a blatant attack on an individual Member and that must be placed on record.

I present this petition on behalf of Gateshead borough council. It has been claimed that only vested interests are against the Bill, but the councillors of Gateshead speak from no vested interest. They represent the people of the area — old-age pensioners, people who run buses, businesses and the community—and they have discussed the Bill at great length. They greatly fear that if the Bill is implemented without amendment the Government's proposals might mean a short term improvement of services on the more profitable routes but would result in … destruction of the integrated public transport system in Tyne and Wear, which has been built up over many years and has been tried and proved, and a waste of national resources by duplication of buses on profitable routes; a loss to a large degree of cross subsidy which at present allows more rural areas to enjoy a reasonable service; added congestion on the already congested road network in central areas — particularly over the Tyne bridges. There will be additional administration for annual tendering on subsidised routes … difficulties in assessing payments to various operators because of concessionary fares. That is a real problem. It is no good for the Government to argue that concessionary fares will be available. There is a real fear that the added administration on concessionary fares will take away from the elderly money that should go to them. The proposals will result in the need to enforce conditions relating to safety and routing applied to a variety of operators. That is a matter of real concern. Where there is only one operator, or two, the administrative cost is small. With a multitude of operators, the cost becomes very large.

My constituents plead that if, unfortunately, the legislation is implemented Tyne and Wear should be excluded on the grounds that it has achieved all the objectives set by the Secretary of State for London Regional Transport. Tyne and Wear has achieved all the targets set by the Secretary of State for LRT. It is an anomaly — a nonsense — to destroy Tyne and Wear when it has achieved those targets. Gateshead borough council has made an assessment right across the board.

The petition concludes in the same way as all the other petitions, but the petitioners' voices will not be heard. They say: Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill. Democracy is being negated. The petitioners' voices will not be heard; the voice of the people will not be heard. This nonsensical legislation will be passed.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

I wish to present a petition from the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council concerning the Transport Bill. It has been signed by more than 100,000 residents of the West Yorkshire county council area, and more than 1 million more signatures were presented to the Prime Minister earlier today. The county council, having examined the White Paper and the Transport Bill, allege that: concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear … that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld … that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end … many bus and rail services will vanish … the few services that are left will no longer link and … will become less frequent … passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged … operators will compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches … neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services. The petitioners further allege: The Ratepayers' considerable investments in the Metropolitan Counties on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus-building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer. Those are the main points to which the petitioners draw attention. It is clear from today's lobby of the House and the magnificent demonstration in London that these views are widely supported and that the Bill is deeply unpopular. The petitions urge the Government to withdraw the unnecessary and unwanted legislation as quickly as possible.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the city council of Derby, which is signed by the city secretary and affixed with the common seal of that city. It formally protests on behalf of the people of Derby at the proposals in the Transport Bill.

The petition has tremendous all-party support and cross-community support throughout the whole county of Derbyshire. The Secretary of State for Transport seems to have a rather unfortunate track record in such matters. I have rarely known such a breadth and depth of opposition to the proposals of any Government. That opposition comes from a tremendous variety of groups. Like most hon. Members I have been inundated not with fairly standard letters, as is often the case in matters of great public interest, but with closely argued well-documented cases. They have come from a wide range of groups, each looking at the White Paper from their individual viewpoints, and all finding it wanting.

As the petition shows, they are all worried that strict safety standards will not be maintained, and that the reliability and stability of services will end. They are also worried about concessionary fares and all the other items that have already been well documented, and which are named again in the petition of the city council of Derby as matters that cause concern in many parts of the country.

All those who are concerned about safe and reliable public services, geared to need and run to provide value for money, are concerned at the proposals in the Bill. The council believes that the proposals of the White Paper would destroy public passenger transport both as a transport system and as a social service. The Government's proposals have met with almost universal condemnation and they certainly meet with universal condemnation in the city of Derby. As the city council says in the petition: And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East)

I beg leave to present a further important petition about the Government's bus policy. It comes from Fife regional council, and is signed by the chief executive, the convenor and the leader of the administration. It was prepared after a conference involving community organisations from five constituencies in the county of Fife.

The petition expresses concern at the deterioration in the quantity and quality of bus services, in the regularity and reliability of services, and in the stability and safety of services that will result from the Bill. It also expresses concern at the threat to concessionary fares and at the risk to employment as a result of the Transport Bill. That threat to employment comes in an area which, as the petition points out, already has more than 21,000 unemployed people. Indeed, 4,000 more people are at risk of losing their jobs in the mining industry. About half the population do not have private cars and depend wholly on public transport.

The petition concludes: the Council is therefore totally opposed to the Government's proposals for deregulation and privatising local bus transport as contained in the Transport Bill. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House reject any legislation to implement the provisions of the Transport Bill. I commend this excellent petition to the House.

To lie upon the Table.