HC Deb 14 July 1988 vol 137 cc687-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

12.28 am
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

If one asked anyone to give an impression of London at any time this century, he would be unlikely to omit the friendly image of the red London bus. It is almost as much an emblem of London as Tower bridge or the Palace of Westminster. I raise the subject this evening because the comprehensive London bus service, integrated with the Underground, is under threat and its quality is likely to deteriorate beyond any failings that it has at the moment; I shall deal with those failings later in my speech.

The Government have made it clear, not least through the London Regional Transport strategy document, that they want the separation of bus and Underground—inevitably and mischievously the separation of ticketing schemes such as Travelcard and Capitalcard—and then the fragmentation of London Buses Ltd. into 11 companies ripe for sale or franchise, quite apart from the privatisation of individual routes.

There is no doubt about the path that the Government want LRT to take. Let me illustrate the point. The No. 24 bus route runs past the Palace of Westminster. It is to go out to tender. The company that ran the No. 24 bus route will be split off, sold off and fenced off from the Tube and the ticketing arrangements for the Underground. It seems to me absolutely crazy that all that should be happening in the very heart of London.

The LRT strategic annual review 1988–91 spells out the plan in all its stark madness: One of the main objectives of deregulation is to promote competition and thereby increase efficiency of operation and match services more closely to passenger demands. Although tendering of bus services has introduced competition amongst operators in London, LBL is still very dominant. A high level of competition, therefore, is only likely to be achieved if LBL is subdivided into a number of companies which can then compete with each other. Work is well in hand for restructuring LBL as a prelude to the formation of a dozen or so companies"— it is now to be 11— which could be sold to separate owners"— I emphasise separate owners— after deregulation in order to ensure competition. I do not believe that that is competition. It is transport vandalism on a grand scale. If I want to go from Brixton to Croydon within the area of one fragment company, I do not see how it helps me to know that I can go from Brixton to Tower bridge under the auspices of another fragment company. There is no competition at all.

Still worse, concessionary fares and pensioners' passes —emotive and important issues—services for the disabled such as Dial-a-Ride, common information for tourists and Londoners alike, training and safety standards, ticketing, policing, repairs and recruitment will all become a nightmare. All this havoc will be done for the short-term profit of the new private operators. It will be profit and cost-cutting at the expense of service and to the detriment of London as a commercial, industrial, educational and tourist centre, to which good public transport is indispensible.

London has grown profitable and successful partly because of its public transport services. Every capital city needs a comprehensive and subsidised bus and underground system. That has been borne out by a recent publication by the London advisory planning committee: It is clear that the promotion and accommodation of economic growth has very important implications for transport requirements and the degree of congestion in London particularly Central London. Without substantial new management initiatives and rehabilitation programmes in the short term, and major rail investments in the medium term, investor confidence is likely to drop in London's World City role. That comes from a Government planning committee at the same time as the Government are contemplating the fragmentation of London's bus transport system.

What we need is a better transport system. We need more investment, more new lines, reliable vehicles and fully staffed crews. The pressure on the Underground at the moment is quite intolerable. The lesson is that we need to build on what we have rather than destroying what we have by splitting bus services into 11 units, as LRT proposes, auctioning them off and reducing the service.

Nothing in the splintering will deal with the recruitment crisis facing London buses as a result of wage levels, working conditions and hours, which place busmen at a disadvantage compared with those in other jobs. The new companies will want to drive wages down and demand even more on competition. The explosion in housing costs makes matters even worse. I do not know where a new recruit busman could rent accommodation in my constituency. Accommodation is simply not being provided by local authorities because of cuts in housing investment programmes. I do not know either where he could afford to buy property, given that £60,000 is the minimum price for a flat.

Perhaps I may describe some of the problems in my locality and that of Mr. Speaker, problems that I want to get London Buses Ltd. to tackle rather than giving in to the Government's wishes.

Four months ago, London Buses was almost 1,000 drivers short. In my area of Streatham, there was a shortage of 18 drivers, or 7.4 per cent. of establishment; in Brixton, 12 drivers, or 6.5 per cent.; Stockwell, as many as 41 drivers short, or 13.8 per cent.; Camberwell, 19 drivers; Thornton Heath, 14 drivers; Merton, a high-cost area, 42 drivers, or 14.1 per cent. of establishment; Norwood, 34 drivers, or 16.7 per cent.; and the central London minibus was 23 per cent. short of establishment. Those shortages were despite massive recruitment campaigns and a reduction in both recruitment and training standards.

The staff turnover of London Transport bus drivers is running at about 25 per cent. annually in many garages, reflecting inadequate wages, the stress and strain of driving in London, and the extraordinarily unsocial hours.

The engineering membership of the Transport and General Workers Union suggests that accidents involving buses have more than doubled in the past three years and that lower training standards, with resultant lower driving standards, must be a major factor.

Despite carrying more passengers because of the pressures on London's transport system, the scheduled mileage has been reduced from 166 million miles to 162 million miles, and whereas in 1984–85 94.3 per cent. of the 166 million miles was run, in 1987.88 only 91 per cent. of the 162 million miles was run. As a result, average passenger waiting time increased to 7.4 minutes.

We face the prospect of more passengers paying more money for worse services—and that is even under the existing system. Plans for the coming year are for further cuts in south London bus services on the ground of "spare capacity". The objective is to achieve average loads of from 56 to 60 passengers per bus during the rush hours, but, to obtain that average, more passengers will have to wait for the third, fourth or even fifth bus before they can board.

In the case of my local services, those affected are the route 159 from Thornton Heath to West Hampstead via Brixton; route 59 from Purley to the city via Croydon and Brixton; route 133 from Streatham to London bridge via Brixton; and route 68 from Croydon to Euston via Norwood. On all those routes, unbelievably, the number of buses per hour is to be reduced at peak times because London Buses says that there is "spare capacity". That means that passengers who have paid in advance for their bus passes or Capitalcards will not enjoy the level of service that existed when they paid for them. It is rather like airline passengers, having paid for a flight to Paris, being told once they have boarded the aircraft that their tickets will take them only to Calais. Those changes can mean only more aggravation and stress for drivers, yet London Buses is to be split into 11 separate companies in 1988–89, ready for privatisation in 1990–91.

That fall in the level of services and cost-cutting is to prepare London Buses for its sale as an economic, profit-making company at the expense of the travelling public. The dangers to the public from staff shortages, inadequate training and cuts in services are clear. A safe and efficient bus service is needed if London is not to come to a halt.

Because of falling public transport standards, more private transport is taking to London's roads, and the problems of illegal parking are well known. Average journey speeds in London are now down to 11 mph, and anyone who travels on or follows behind a one-person operation bus will know the reasons for that. Average road speeds in central London during peak times are about 8 mph—the same as when London's traffic was horse-drawn.

We read in the papers that we shall be able to get from the centre of London to the centre of Paris in two and a half hours. If one travels by bus, I doubt whether one could get from Wembley to Purley in the same time, especially if present trends continue.

If livestock was transported in the dangerous and overcrowded conditions that exist on our underground system and on some of our buses, there would be an outcry and laws would be passed to make such conditions illegal.

I want enough safe and competent bus crews to ensure a safe and adequate transport system which will meet the needs of Londoners, with the emphasis on service. The Minister should call for an end to the senseless dicing and slicing up of the London bus system. The Government should call a halt to LRT's increase in bus fares, which will make the 11 companies easier to sell off. Given the fabulous tax cuts for richer Londoners, what justice is there in a fares rise in the current year of 9 per cent. —twice the rate of inflation—and plans for fares to rise by 17 per cent. in real terms in the next 18 months?

London's united red bus network is the blood in the arteries of London. What the Government are making LRT do is little short of cutting London's lifelines. The Minister should abandon the unfair increase in bus fares that will be borne by the travelling public and the senseless fragmentation of London's bus services and should concentrate upon a socially necessary network of buses around London. That network should be determined by a political process and not simply by a removed and unaccountable LRT.

London-wide through-ticketing should be developed and it should be valid on the Tube and the bus. Free pensioner passes and half fares for children should be continued, with the participation of all London bus operators. Transport for disabled people should be preserved and improved by LRT. Fragmentation would do nothing for them. Comprehensive, accurate, up-to-date, London-wide maps and timetables should be provided by LRT for all services. Subsidy levels should be significantly increased to allow for a socially necessary network to plug the gaps in services that will be left by private, commercial operators.

This is an opportunity for the Minister to make an announcement to show that he cares for London more than he cares for his ideology, which involves splitting up London transport for profit at the expense of service.

12.42 am
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (M r. Fraser) for giving me this opportunity to talk about public bus transport in London and to set the record straight on a number of issues on which the hon. Gentleman has been misled or has misled himself.

This is indeed a time of change for London's bus services, and I have strong reason to believe that those changes will be for the better. There are already ample signs that that is so. For many years the story was one of struggle to maintain conventional services in the face of declining patronage—20 per cent. down between 1974 and 1983—and rising unit costs, which increased by 19 per cent. in real terms in the same period. All that has already changed, and the further measures which we and LRT are taking, to which I shall refer tonight, will bring further benefits to London's bus users.

Bus patronage is at its highest for 10 years, at 2,870 million passenger miles last year—18 per cent. up on 1983. Real unit costs have come down by 15 per cent. in the same period. However, a higher proportion of timetabled services are actually being operated—93 per cent. last year, against 82 per cent. in 1979 when the Greater London council was responsible for them. Services are also much more closely matched to demand. Reliability is also much improved. Waiting times have been reduced by over a minute to 7.1 minutes. There are a number of ways in which that has been achieved. LBL's management now adopts a much more professional approach and the passenger is getting the benefit. Long routes have been split up to minimise the effect of traffic delays and so improve reliability, local networks have been created to serve suburban centres, high frequency minibus services have been introduced both by LBL and on tendered services and have proved extremely popular with passengers, and more one-person operated—OPO—buses have been introduced and have proved to be cheaper to run, safer in operation and more reliable.

It is well established that the absence of competition engenders complacency and Inefficiency. One policy that has made an outstanding contribution to all those improvements has been the encouragement of competitive tendering for bus routes. It has given the private sector an opportunity to participate in the provision of bus services, and LBL the stimulus to become more efficient and provide a better service. Tendered services have proved to be more reliable, not less, on average than those operated directly by LBL, they cost less than before—by about 15 per cent. so far—and they encourage innovation, such as the introduction of midibuses. Many of these routes, as a result, have benefited from an increase in patronage. LRT expects to have put out to tender a quarter of bus routes by March 1989, and there will be more to come. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating LRT on the extent to which it has put routes out to tendering and the substantial benefits that have come to his constituents and other bus users as a result.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed restructuring of LBL. There is a limit to what can be achieved while London Buses remains a huge, dominant provider of bus services. The next stage in introducing improvements involves a fundamental change in the structure of LBL, which will aim to facilitate more localisation of services and encourage competition and, therefore, efficiency.

LBL recently announced the formation of 11 new management units with devolved responsibility to replace the existing structure of five districts. These new units, each between three and six garages grouped in a logical pattern, will be able to operate more like local bus companies, smaller and closer to their customers than the present monolithic LBL. Each will have separate management, separate accounts and its own targets to meet. They will be encouraged to compete against one another for business, and will be free to produce their own innovations. They will also benefit in due course from a reduction in costs as central administration is reduced.

There is no evidence of any significant economies of scale in bus service operations. There is certainly no reason why London needs to be served by one huge operation the size of LBL—the largest bus company in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman is stuck in the thinking of two decades ago if he thinks that large means good. Small, with all the flexibility that can bring, has been proved in recent years to be of far greater benefit to the users of these services. The success of tendered services, operated by private operators and semi-independent LBL sub-units, suggests that there is no magic in continuing the old monopoly of service provision.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of predictions about what would happen when LBL is restructured, although I believe that he is actually looking further ahead to deregulation in making those charges, and that is not a matter for debate tonight. We have yet to bring forward detailed proposals for deregulation, and when we do the House will be able to discuss them. The restructuring of LBL is an organisational and managerial change that can be only beneficial.

The hon. Gentleman is in error on two particular points. First, he referred to the colour of buses in London. I am not aware that LBL's plans include any change of colour. It has no monopoly on the colour red.

The hon. Gentleman set up a scare that restructuring would lead to fragmentation of routes. When there is adequate demand for a through route, it is likely to be provided. If the hon. Gentleman wants to travel on more than one route, he must either buy a pass or be prepared to buy more than one ticket. What is wrong with that? If he wants to travel on more than one route now, he must buy more than one ticket—if he does not purchase a pass. There will be no change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put that scare back in the bag and feel that he can reassure his constituents on that score.

Mr. Fraser

Will the fragmented companies, as I have described them, be compelled to take part in a common pass scheme?

Mr. Mitchell

I shall come to that point. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. He is also worried about concessionary fares and travel passes, and I shall deal with them first.

The restructuring of LBL will make not one iota of difference to concessionary fares and travel passes. The concessionary fares will still be funded by the boroughs and organised by LRT. The new LBL units will still be under the umbrella of LRT, and their participation in Travelcard and the like will be unaffected by the change.

On the question of deregulation, we have already said that a Londonwide concessionary fare scheme will be protected in law. There is no reason why operators should not participate in multi-operator travel pass schemes.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to safety. Talk of a lack of safety is a complete red herring. The size of a bus company is no guide to its attitude to safety. In 1984 the Department of Transport's vehicle examiners issued prohibition notices—not warnings—on 50 per cent. of a sample of LBL buses on which it had carried out spot checks. I doubt whether there are many other companies in the country, small or medium sized, with such an appalling problem. Fortunately, London Buses has improved considerably in this respect since then. All bus operators must comply with the same stringent rules on vehicle safety, and all PSV drivers must pass the same test and medical requirement. Those requirements will not be affected by restructuring or deregulation.

LRT is responsible for administering or funding a number of services for the disabled, such as Dial-a-Ride, Airbus, Carelink, Taxicard—which is funded by the boroughs—and the Mobility bus. None of those services depend on LBL, and there is no reason why independent operators should be reluctant to take LRT's money for providing them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that they should be. It follows that there is no threat to the services. Restructuring will have no effect on LRT's statutory duty to have due regard for the transport needs of disabled people.

The hon. Gentleman was rightly concerned about the recruitment of bus drivers. Shortages of staff for London buses are unfortunately not new. They have been with us in varying degrees for 30 years. Earlier this year the effective shortage was about 600 drivers, but that was reduced to just over 500—4.;6 per cent. —by mid-June. Since the beginning of June a vigorous recruiting campaign by London Buses, promoted by Nigel Mansell, has been successful in generating no fewer than 5,500 inquiries—more than four times the usual level—leading to 3,000 firm job applications. I hope that the hon. Member will join me in congratulating LBL on its initiative in introducing that sort of recruiting campaign.

Almost every aspect of London's bus services has improved considerably in recent years, particularly since the GLC ceased to be responsible for them and professional operators have been running the system. Patronage is at the highest for 10 years. Costs have been reduced, and, more important, services have improved. Much of that improvement has been brought about by the management of London Buses Ltd. but much has been stimulated by LRT's policy of seeking competitive tendering for certain bus routes and by the prospect of deregulation, which has been such a success elsewhere in the country. It is, I think, casting its shadows before it in the way that is leading to a recognition in LBL, and among all who are involved, that there are more efficient ways of operating services, which provide higher standards for the customer.

The changes taking place in LBL will now give added impetus to a process that has already started, and are designed to bring further improvements in efficiency, reliability and quality of service, at less cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer. In short, I can reassure the hon. Member for Norwood that London's comprehensive bus service is not under threat, and I trust that he will be able to take that reassurance back to his constituents. I am sure that he would not wish to mislead them into fearing that there might be a threat, which does not exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to One o'clock.