§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.55 pm§ Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate, because the subject is very important to my constituents. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on her appointment as the Minister for Transport in London. I am sure that she will make a great contribution, and I wish her well in the future on behalf of my constituents.
Some weeks ago, commuters on London underground and railway services found their journeys enlivened by sitting next to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who abandoned the aroma of the leather seats of their ministerial Jaguars for public transport. I applaud them for that demonstration that we are committed to building a good public transport system for the 21st century. However, if their ministerial duties had taken them to the isolated villages in my constituency, they would not have been so lucky.
My constituents living in the hamlets of Margrove Park and Charltons have found that they have no bus services in the early mornings, evenings and Sundays, because of the supposed freedoms conferred on them by the previous Government's bus deregulation measures. Other communities, such as Loftus and Easington, have seen big reductions in their services and the loss of school runs. They can only watch bemused as more urban areas of my constituency experience a motley procession of buses, many nearly empty, through their estates.
Stainton village, which adjoins a more urban part of my constituency on the edge of Middlesbrough, has had its direct bus services to the town of Yarm cut. That has affected people's work prospects and dramatically affects school children, even though they live on the edge of a conurbation. Schoolchildren have petitioned me. For example, Carla Sterling, a 13-year-old from the small east Cleveland village of Brotton, tells me that she has to make a roundabout journey of one and a quarter hours to get to and from her school, Huntcliff, in Saltburn. That means that Carla loses two and a half hours a day out of her young life just to make the journey to and from her place of education. That adds up to nearly 400 hours a year, which could make all the difference between a good or poor GCSE grade. That is the human reality of the effect of a poor, deregulated bus service on a family.
Those villages need their services. Many local people find it hard to hold down a job. In an area of high unemployment, a job is a job is a job. Many people do not have access to private transport and in many wards more than 40 per cent. of families are without cars.
Many of my constituents find their social life during the evening disrupted, and local snooker, domino and darts clubs are finding their existence undermined. In the Lockwood ward there is only one church and the Sunday bus service was a lifeline for scattered worshippers. It has now gone. Why? Simply as a result of the impact of 511 deregulation and the measures originally pioneered by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the late Nicholas Ridley. The local bus company, which has a near total monopoly in the rural part of my constituency, has decided that the pickings are richer elsewhere. Those services were formerly underwritten by the then Cleveland county council, and most villagers travelled on buses supported by the public purse.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
§ Dr. KumarThe fact that the former Cleveland county council played a key role in providing support from the public purse to provide excellent services has been recognised by my local newspaper, the Evening Gazette. A debate has now started in our local newspapers. I am deeply grateful for the support that the Evening Gazette has given me on this matter. There was a lead item on it yesterday, Wednesday 2 July. The newspaper rightly recognises that I am highlighting the concerns of many people in east Cleveland who raised the matter before, during and after the general election.
Now, with the advent of smaller unitary authorities and with all the problems that were visited on the fledgling authorities by the final local government settlement of the previous Administration, that support cannot be given to the same extent. Other pressing areas of services, notably school buses, have rightly had to be given priority, but that is no comfort to my constituents. The small print of local council budgets does not relieve their problems. It merely tells them why they are experiencing these difficult problems.
We need to consider as a matter of extreme urgency how we, as a Government committed to public transport, can bring a degree of sanity back into bus operation. We need to look into the quasi-monopoly that has arisen in the bus industry, and at the carving out of local and regional spheres of influence. The local council in the rural part of my constituency in the boroughs of Redcar and Cleveland all too often finds that, when it issues tenders for services, only the dominant operator in the area—Tees and District, part of the Cowie group of companies—bothers to reply. Other regional and sub-regional operators, notably Stagecoach, decline to tender out of their operating area. Smaller, often family-owned coach and bus operators find it difficult to compete for tenders that last only one year. They cannot be expected to buy new buses and hire new staff for a contract that they might lose 12 months down the line.
The problem is not confined to my constituency. It is a national problem. A recent study by Symonds, Travers and Morton transport planning consultancy found that, on average, 16 operators provided scheduled services in each local authority in the United Kingdom. Significantly, it also found that in almost all the areas surveyed just one dominant operator cornered the market, with small niche services existing on the periphery—the minnows following the sharks, perhaps. It went on to confirm the monopoly situation that is prevalent in the bus industry. If we accept the definition of monopoly as a company controlling more than 25 per cent. of the market, we find that no fewer than 94 per cent. of all local authority areas have suffered, and still suffer, from bus company monopoly practice.
512 We need to look long and hard at how the bus industry is to be managed in future. I accept and acknowledge that we cannot return to the position that obtained in 1986, or before that, when there was much that was bureaucratic. It was a system designed for another time, when there was a far lower level of car ownership, different journey-to-work patterns and different expectations of public transport. We must accept, however, that more re-regulation must be introduced. That, and the future for public-private partnerships, was outlined by the Minister of Transport earlier last week. My right hon. Friend argued that debate must begin on the future for local transport. He asked for everyone involved to give his or her views.
I shall make some suggestions to help my right hon. Friend along. My constituency lies within the orbit and influence of the Teesside conurbation. It is not formally designated as a metropolitan area, but it shares many of the characteristics of metropolitan areas such as Rotherham in South Yorkshire or Calderdale in West Yorkshire. There is a dense core surrounded by a string of small settlements.
Both Rotherham and Calderdale benefit from the existence of a passenger transport authority and a passenger transport executive. In a PTA setting, fares can be managed, routes devised and linkages with other transport modes, especially railways, harmonised and, of course, improved. PTAs already have the ability to set up dynamic and successful private-public infrastructure projects.
The success of previous large infrastructure schemes such as the Manchester metrolink, the rail improvements in Birmingham and the Sheffield supertram, all pursued by PTAs, prove conclusively to me that such authorities can manage complex systems and procedures competently and swiftly.
I recall the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, speaking before the general election of possible pilot projects for PTAs in non-metropolitan areas. His statement was greatly welcomed by Teesside local authorities, which would welcome such additional powers. I know that they would welcome also being pilot areas. That, however, is insufficient. We need to go further.
Another respected transport research body, the Public Transport Information Unit, has recently issued a new and important contribution to the debate. Its research work, entitled "Buses for People—Social Provision and Commercial Service" argues the case for complete integration and reform of local transport systems. It argues also for the creation of an expanding public transport market that is based on the European experience. That would benefit everyone, including local authorities, private operators, the franchisee and, most importantly, the passenger. The unit drew on real experiences and from those produced real conclusions. Its words deserve further study and I recommend that further work be undertaken. I commend both studies to the House and to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but the prime lead must come from our local authorities.
Our local authorities, perhaps in areas like Teesside, through new non-metropolitan PTAs, and with the co-operation of the operators, need further powers to plan the shape and extent of the local bus network, to have returned to them the powers to license or to refuse local 513 bus routes, to look to innovative public transport experiments for disadvantaged or remote communities, and to plan for full mobility for the elderly and the disabled.
We should not shrink from examining the physical methods to finance this programme. Possible models have been examined. Why do not we look at the potential earmarking of part of the existing business rate for public transport provision? We should examine financing arrangements that could follow from "network tendering" exercises, where an operator, in return for the knowledge that he has successfully tendered for a service period that could run for up to five years, makes a binding pledge to invest in new buses and guaranteed levels of service.
We are, of course, already looking at new forms of public-private partnerships for infrastructure investment for mass transit schemes in our cities. That model could be transferred to smaller bus enhancement schemes developed jointly by local authorities and bus operators. Timetabling and timetable information systems and good waiting facilities all help to make bus travel more accessible, comfortable and safe.
The role of these local-authority-led partnerships would be to overcome the difficulties caused by the impact of unrestricted deregulation—the wasteful competition, the decline in passenger usage, the honey pot syndrome and the low level of bus investment of the past 15 years—and to build on a foundation which sees public transport as central to the lives of our community.
The development of a new framework for public transport is long overdue. It is time to bury the old arguments that deregulation would free the market. It did not. The Thatcherite model of a free market has failed. It created new monopolies, penalised passengers and isolated both geographical communities and communities of interest.
In conclusion, I return to my constituents. The villagers of my constituency are looking for a lead from the Government. I believe that, with the help of the Labour Government, with imagination and with clarity of purpose, their isolation could be brought to an end.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Glenda Jackson)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate. I am sure that, given the detail and the commitment that he has shown tonight to his constituency and his constituents, he will be returned many times to the House. I sincerely hope so.
The issues that my hon. Friend raised are not of importance only to his constituency. They have a much wider significance in terms of the development of our policy for a balanced and integrated transport system. I share the bemusement of my hon. Friend's constituents that, in many rural areas, public transport provision is either inadequate or invisible. It is surely disgraceful that, in a country as small as ours, and only three years from the 21st century, there are rural communities that not only feel isolated but are isolated. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced last week 514 a review of buses and bus services—an example of the urgency that is needed in this area, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The purpose of the review is to examine how buses can best play their part in an integrated transport policy. We want to see increased use of the bus as a means of reducing congestion and pollution, particularly by attracting motorists from their cars. We recognise that buses have a crucial role to play in providing access to jobs and shops in rural areas—or areas outside the urban core—where car ownership is low. My hon. Friend touched on the harsh realities of unemployment as experienced in his constituency, and the seemingly pointless increase in journey times to schools.
I agreed with much of what my hon. Friend said when he referred to features of bus services that needed fresh consideration. I assure him that our review will be wide ranging. It will look at all aspects of buses, including the scope for more effective use of bus priority measures, including segregation from other traffic; better arrangements for passenger information and ticketing, including inter-modal travel; and regulatory and other measures to improve the quality of bus services, notably through the quality partnership approach between operators and local authorities.
There are some promising developments already on this front in many areas. Only last week, I was privileged to launch a new service in Northampton using gas-powered, low-floored buses. I was much impressed not only by the vehicles but by the steps taken by the local authorities—county and district councils—working together to improve waiting and boarding facilities and to give priority to the bus at major junctions.
Such measures can only help to make bus travel more attractive as an alternative to the private car. That is what we must do, if we are to make our towns and cities better, cleaner and safer places to live in and visit. An integrated approach to transport means that we must also examine disincentives to using private cars where public transport options are available.
My hon. Friend spoke of the need to give local authorities—at least in some areas—the powers to plan the shape and extent of the local bus network. I must tell him that we are approaching the review with an open mind. We do not come to it with preconceived ideas about the scale and nature of the changes that may need to be made. We are certainly seized of the need to make changes, if we are to have a hope of seeing the long-term decline in bus patronage halted and reversed, and of seeing a wider provision of services in areas which need them.
There is a range of possibilities, including radical options such as franchising buses, either by area or by route. Another approach might be based on quality partnerships, but with powers to enforce conditions if voluntary arrangements prove insufficient. I have been impressed by what I have seen up and down the country of such partnerships in action.
We shall be seeking views on these matters from a wide range of interests and intend to consult fully with the industry, local authorities, bus users and other groups. Many of the points that my hon. Friend made tonight will be of great value to that review.
I particularly noted the concerns that my hon. Friend voiced—most succinctly but in no small detail, if I may say so—about the local authority subsidy of socially 515 necessary bus services. The House will recognise that there are many competing pressures on local authority expenditure, and I am, of course, not in a position to offer a new pot of gold to relieve those pressures.
However, the bus review will also address financial issues such as costs and support for the industry. More generally, public transport solutions may—as my hon. Friend acknowledged—require new methods of funding if we are to secure sustainable policies for the longer term. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the White Paper will address that.
The absence of local bus services in rural areas mentioned by my hon. Friend highlights the difficulties in catering for the needs of communities where, in many cases, patronage levels do not attract commercial services. I agree that that is a very real problem, but even new funding arrangements would not make it possible to provide services to meet every aspiration.
My hon. Friend has made some interesting comments on the degree of competition for tendered services. Recent research for my Department has shown that the national average of bids per contract is now just over three bids per tender. That is a decline from an average of around five in the early days of deregulation. The reasons for the decline are complex; they include higher quality specifications set by local authorities as well as the consolidation of ownership within the industry. And the degree of competition still varies markedly from place to place. I accept that there are issues here that we will need to look at in the context of our review.
My hon. Friend has suggested that a way forward would be the establishment of a passenger transport authority to cover Teesside. That clearly is an interesting option which I do not dismiss. We will wish to consider the role of PTAs and PTEs as part of the wider review that will lead to a White Paper on transport, but let us remember that local authorities already have significant powers to promote transport.
Public transport policies are not merely the preserve of PTEs; local authorities have responsibilities for bus infrastructure, the provision of timetable and fares information, and the support of socially necessary bus 516 services, which they can support after competitive tender. Similarly, they can enter into quality partnerships. I take my hon. Friend's point about shortage of cash, but, of course, that also applies to PTAs.
There is no reason now why the new unitary authorities on Teesside should not co-operate with each other, and with the rail and bus operators, to achieve a more integrated transport strategy for the area. The franchising of rail services should not in itself prevent closer working between local authorities and the rail industry. Both Railtrack and the train operators are keen to consider value for money improvements to the rail network. Local authorities should look to opening a dialogue with them and with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising.
Talking of capital investment, I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that my Department provides resources for capital expenditure by Teesside local authorities on their transport infrastructure, under the transport policies and programme system. We have, for example, been funding the Teesside transport package since 1995–96. A total of £3.3 million has so far been allocated to it.
The package strategy puts strong emphasis on promoting alternatives to the car, with relief of congestion and regeneration of the area as the principal aims. I am very keen to see that significant environmental benefits are achieved and that improved facilities for bus travel are a key element. In addition to new busways, rail improvements are among the longer-term features. We shall continue to fund this package in future, as far as resources permit, and providing it delivers the forecast benefits.
My hon. Friend asked for a lead from the Government. He is right to expect it. I can tell him that the Government intend to give such a lead. We will be looking at the future role of the bus industry in the context of a proper role for local authorities. We will be led not by doctrine or dogma, but by our desire to see buses play their full role in an integrated transport policy for the future, and for the benefit of all the people of the United Kingdom.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.