HL Deb 29 January 1985 vol 459 cc561-3

2.56 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the levels of bus and Underground services (in bus and train miles) provided by London Regional Transport, whether LRT have any proposals for reducing their services and, if so, for what reasons.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, LRT's annual business plan, published in December, indicates that LRT propose to increase Underground service levels slightly, from 29.4 million train miles this year to 29.5 million next year, and to reduce total bus mileage by 2 per cent, from 170 million to 167 million bus miles. The increase in Underground train mileage is accounted for by the opening of the Heathrow Terminal 4 extension to the Piccadilly line, and by other improvements to the system. The decrease in bus mileage is broadly in line with the expected decline in demand for bus services of 2½ per cent.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information. Is it not correct that, as from 2nd February, London Regional Transport are proposing to cut or cancel some 40 bus services? Would he not agree that it is rather foolish for any undertaking not to match their services to demand bearing in mind that paragraph 24 of the annual business plan of London Regional Transport states that the demand for services in the current year was 16 per cent. above 1983, the reasons given being the fares policy and the introduction of the travelcard? Does not paragraph 13 of the same report say that the increase in bus usage was 10 per cent. and the increase in Underground usage 20 per cent, according to London Regional Transport's own figures?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, it is true that LRT have announced a substantial number of bus service changes with effect from 2nd February. Where demand has proved insufficient to justify a continued service reductions are being made, but new services are also being introduced where demand has been identified. This represents a sensible adjustment of service provision to match changes in demand.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that efficient transport for London and its surburbs is of the utmost importance? Is he not aware that communications to enable people to get to work and to business, and to arrive home at a reasonable time, are essential from a morale point of view, and that if one interferes with communications in any state or form it is detrimental to our trading arrangements, and that we cannot afford? Can we have an assurance that there will be no reduction in London Transport services or interference in its efficiency unless this is utterly essential in the interests of the nation?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that an efficient system of transport for London is absolutely essential. As I have said, there is to be a small increase in the provision of Underground services and a small reduction in the provision of bus services, but only where the supply has to meet the demand.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, can the Minister say whether any of the reduction in bus mileage is attributable to the cancellation of services which are affected by violence against drivers and conductors, and whether the Government are satisfied with the measures that have been taken, following representations made by the trade unions concerning this problem, to combat the threat to the lives and limbs of bus drivers and conductors, and, indeed, of Underground staff?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, so far as I know, no reductions in bus services have been caused for that reason. I can perhaps remind the noble Lord that I am answering an Unstarred Question from my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton on precisely that subject tomorrow evening.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

My Lords, will the noble Lord say what constitutes demand and what constitutes service? On what basis is lack of demand or increased demand decided?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the reasons for change in demand have been the increase in car ownership and shifts of population. I do not have the figure with me, but I believe that the population of London as a whole has fallen by some 10 per cent. over recent years.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, surely that was not the question. The question was: what were the criteria for determining demand? Do the Government know? If they do not know those criteria, will they make sure that they are told?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the decision to provide the services rests with London Regional Transport. Obviously they look into the situation as best they can to try to meet supply and demand.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, so in effect the Members of this Chamber can take it that the control of the supply of services in London is no longer in the hands of any elected representatives?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

No, my Lords. The overall responsibility for London Regional Transport rests with the Government—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—but, as with all nationalised industries, the day-to-day management rests with the board.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wallace asked: what is demand? Would the noble Lord agree that if a service to a hospital—Claybury; service number 275—is cancelled on a Sunday, then naturally demand is cancelled because nobody can travel on it?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am afraid that I have no details of that particular service. All I can say is that I shall make sure that London Regional Transport are aware of the noble Lord's concern.