§ 12 noon
§ Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the issue of public transport in south Gloucestershire, and in my constitutency of Northavon in particular, because the issue affects the quality of life of my constituents more than many others. Because Northavon is a mixed rural and edge-of-city constituency, car use is not a luxury, but a necessity in many cases. I frequently receive letters about public transport, so I am grateful to have the chance to draw the issue to the Minister's attention today.
At the outset, it is important to acknowledge and welcome what has been done during the past few years. Although I have many criticisms of the current situation, there have been some small steps in the right direction. We were grateful to receive funding through the rural bus grant scheme and the rural bus challenge scheme, which has funded some vitally needed community transport initiatives in south Gloucestershire. Those initiatives have identified an untapped demand and have been overwhelmed by interest from people who need those services, but have hitherto been unable to access them.
A preliminary skim—I confess to no more—of the Transport Bill suggests that its measures on bus services will be a modest step in the right direction. However, my contention is that the measures that have been taken, welcome though they are, are insufficient to deal with the scale of the problem. I shall talk about bus services in south Gloucestershire and say a few words about train services and rapid transit schemes to highlight my concerns, in the hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government's strategy is adequate to deal with the scale of the problem.
One of my main concerns is that bus subsidy arrangements are not providing the taxpayer with good value for money, because bus companies have councils over a barrel. I shall give one example of how I believe that things have gone wrong. Recently, a new out-of-town shopping centre, The Mall at Cribbs Causeway, opened in my constituency. Many of my constituents shop or work there; one of the smaller private bus operators in the area spotted the potential for a new commercial route from Yate, the largest town in my constituency, to The Mall, and it set up a bus service. The dominant bus company spotted this and decided that it, too, would run a service along the same route. Before long the inevitable happened, and the first company was driven—almost literally—out of business.
The slightly sinister twist to the story is that the dominant bus company then decided that it could not continue to run the service either and told the council that it could not keep the service going. The council was then faced with the problem of shoppers who wanted to go to The Mall and workers who wanted to get to their jobs; both groups had established patterns of travel by bus. The council was faced with something similar to blackmail: either it could let the service die, with the result that the shoppers and workers would clog up the roads even more, or it could step in and provide subsidy. Sure enough, public money was found to subsidise what had previously been a commercial service.
Public money should be used to provide better bus services, but it is only lining the pockets of the bus operators. The inequality of power between the bus 196WH company and the local authority greatly concerns me. At the start of the process, the private operator decides which services it can run on a commercial basis. That leaves the council to identify from among the remainder routes where tendering is required, but that tendering process is almost a joke. In parts of my constituency, 80 per cent. of tenders go to one company, so there is one dominant group—the First Group, in various incarnations. That company knows that, if it does not identify a route as a commercial route, there is a good chance that the council will pay it to run a service on that route anyway. I am concerned that, in that way, money that should be used to improve services is being used to help bus companies.
What about the quality of services? There is a traffic commissioner, who, in principle, is supposed to keep an eye on such things. However, I am reliably informed that, if I were to say that he had a handful of inspectors in my constituency, I would be guilty of gross exaggeration. He does not have adequate resources to deal with the task. I am not convinced that public subsidy for bus services in south Gloucestershire is good value for money. I believe that to be is a legacy from the deregulation that took place 10 to 15 years ago. I accept that some modest steps in the other direction may have been taken, but I have reservations about whether those steps have gone far enough.
I have mentioned the rural bus grant, which I welcome, but it takes a long time to change people's patterns of travel, especially in rural areas. People move to rural areas in the knowledge that they can get to work by car, and the availability of a bus service for a year or two will not change that pattern. Only if people know that a service will continue, year in and year out, and be reliable and dependable, will they have the incentive to change their habits. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would outline for south Gloucestershire's residents what the future holds for services provided through the rural bus grant when the money runs out. What will happen in two or three years' time? Will those services simply cease, or can my constituents base their travelling patterns on the assumption that the services will continue?
I understand the need for the rural bus grant to produce new services, but that rule has created some anomalies. I understand that money cannot be used for services that were in place on 1 May 1998, but that services started then and subsequently discontinued can be resurrected under the scheme. That creates an arbitrary distinction between services that are borderline—those which have been running for a few years and need to be kept going in the interests of the public transport infrastructure, but which cannot be supported through the scheme—and new services, for which there is not much demand, but which can be funded. I wonder whether that arbitrary cut-off date should be reconsidered.
Other arbitrary features of the scheme affect south Gloucestershire. The limit on communities numbering 10,000 or fewer has some odd consequences for my constituency. In neighbouring parishes, one can have a bus service and another cannot because of population density. In towns such as Thornbury, which is probably the second largest town in my constituency, the public transport network is poor. The area is rural, on any 197WH understanding of that term, but it cannot benefit from the grant. Clearly, there mut be a cut-off point, but I am not convinced that it has been drawn in the right place.
I should like to make one final observation on bus services before I move on to consider rail issues. The community transport support has been warmly welcomed. The Thornbury-Severn Vale link was opened by the previous Minister of Transport and, as I said earlier, demand for those services has been considerable. However, once again, we are faced with the question of what will happen in the long term. The money has bought the buses, hired the office and provided someone to run the scheme, but what is the future for the pensioners and disabled people who have become dependent on those services? In two or three years' time, will they still be able to go to their lunch clubs, visit their relatives or get to hospital? Some indication of the longterm position would be very valuable. I contend that people will change their behaviour only if they have security, predictability and reliability, and if they know that services will continue, rather than just exist for a while and then disappear. Indeed, the very act of taking away the subsidy at the end of a certain period demoralises people and causes them to think that they cannot rely on bus services.
I have dwelt at some lengths on buses because they are often seen as the poor relation of the transport network, but I want to touch on two other categories of local public transport. The local train services in my constituency—there are stations at Pilning, Severn Beach and Yate—are the Cinderella services. To give one example, when the rugby world cup was held in south Wales, trains were taken off the Severn Beach to Bristol line in order to take passengers to Cardiff. There is often a lack of investment in track and the quality of service is unreliable, so people give up using rail. Once people have given up using the railway, it is an almost impossible task to persuade them to come back. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will offer some reassurance that those local networks that are not mainline networks will have a key place in the future.
In that context, I must mention one issue that affects south Gloucestershire and many areas beyond, where a crisis is imminent. That is the threat by British Rail, or its successor, Rail Property Ltd., to sell off land adjoining stations and land that previously contained rail track. I understand that, in January 2000, 14 sites in south Gloucestershire may be sold off to the highest bidder. I should like to read from a letter from the public transport manager of South Gloucestershire council to the chief executive of Rail Property Ltd., sent in mid-November, in which the public transport manager expressed his concern. It states:
It appears … incongrous and … disappointing to a local authority that two different agencies of central government are working towards apparently diametrically opposite ends. One, the British Rail Property Board … has a remit to sell off former rail land to the highest bidder. The other, the DETR … has objectives of increasing use of the rail network (an objective which is clearly not helped if some of the most valuable land required to expand the rail network has been sold off for other development).Once that land is sold and there are houses on it, it will not be used for rail again and an opportunity will be gone. We need a clear steer from the Government, demonstrating that they are aware of the urgency of this 198WH issue and that they have it in hand. My local council's planning committee will meet on Thursday to consider the issue. All it can do to preserve those sites is to buy them at market value, but there is no money in the budget to do so, so what can it do? Must it watch the sites being sold and lose any hope of improving services, rather than withdrawing them? This is an urgent issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.Finally, I turn to the light rapid transit scheme from south Gloucestershire into Bristol, which has been a long-standing dream of many in the south Gloucestershire public transport sector—although a nightmare for others. Last year, I attended a presentation on that scheme. An experienced councillor said to me afterwards, "That was all very interesting, but I heard the same thing five years ago." People simply do not believe that it is going to happen. Trying to work out the Government's approach to this matter is akin to Kremlinology—we get a nudge here and a wink there. First, the new Government are assumed to be pro-public transport, then we hear that there is no money for light rail; now we hear that an area that might have road charges, such as Bristol, may get some money. We do not know what is really going on or when we will hear for sure. I would be grateful for a clear answer—whatever it is—so that we can plan local public transport services.
The problems I have described have deep roots. There is no overall strategy to address growth in road traffic in south Gloucestershire, yet still more houses are being built, still more people are moving in and dependence on the private car is increasing, not decreasing. I am unclear whether the Government's strategy for south Gloucestershire is that road traffic should fall, remain at current levels or rise by only a certain percentage; I am not even sure that they have said what their current strategy is. The pattern of development—that is, where houses and businesses are located—is reinforcing the pressure on the area's roads. I welcome what has been done so far, and we are grateful for it, but I feel that the scale of what has been done is not up to the scale of the problem. I hope that the Minister can convince me otherwise.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. I am grateful for his reference to the modest benefits and advances resulting from Government policies to date; I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.
Local public transport is a popular and topical theme; indeed, I was dealing with the same subject only yesterday evening in a debate introduced by the hon. Gentleman's west country colleague, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). This debate is also timely in the light of last Wednesday's publication of the Government's radical and wide-ranging Transport Bill. The Bill is a significant step towards a safer, more integrated and better quality transport system. It puts into practice many of the measures that we set out in our White Paper on the future of transport, the first comprehensive Government statement on transport in 20 years, which we published within 18 months of being elected.
199WH Before I discuss the provisions of the Transport Bill, I shall respond to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about transport in his constituency. I am sure that he will know that each local transport authority is now required to prepare a local transport plan setting out its transport strategy and the measures necessary to carry that strategy forward. The provisional local transport plan for south Gloucestershire is being assessed by my officials in the Government office for the south-west, so I must be careful not to comment on the merits of its proposals or to speculate on the likely allocation of resources. I can make some general comments on the plan, but before I do so, it is important to set the scene in south Gloucestershire.
I know that there has been a great deal of new development in the district over the past 20 years, particularly in the north fringe of Bristol. The result has been growing traffic congestion, a trend that South Gloucestershire council is anxious to reverse through a variety of measures designed to increase the use of public transport. The provisional local transport plan identifies a wide range of opportunities to improve public transport in the district, including a scheme—to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—to establish a light rail system from Bradley Stoke on the northern fringe of Bristol to the city centre. It is being promoted jointly by Bristol city council and South Gloucestershire council and is envisaged as the first in a network of such links across Bristol and the surrounding area. The scheme's estimated capital cost is about £102 million, some 60 per cent. of which is expected to come from the private sector. The preferred method of meeting the remainder is through the private finance initiative; both councils are seeking support for that from the Government.
A full assessment of all local transport plans is under way. All major schemes, including light rapid transit systems, are being considered on their transport merits and on how they are integrated with the plans' objectives and strategies. We expect to announce very soon a shortlist of projects that might be supported over the next five years. Although I am unable to give a commitment on this particular LRT proposal, the Government welcome Bristol's innovative approach, especially its interest in piloting a congestion charging system. Given the long-standing enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman's party for congestion charging, I hope that the Liberal Democrat-led South Gloucestershire council will maintain its support for that proposal.
South Gloucestershire council has an evolving quality bus partnership, which is designed to improve the quality and quantity of bus services. In developing that partnership, the council will address issues of fares and through ticketing for multi-stage journeys. Work is also under way in the north fringe of Bristol to establish an infrastructure for bus priority junctions through the introduction of urban traffic control systems. That will lessen delays and enable more accurate timetabling.
I recognise that conventional public transport cannot always meet the diverse accessibility needs of all in our communities. Voluntary action is the strength of local communities everywhere, so we are conducting a review of voluntary and community transport activity to gain a better understanding of the role played by the voluntary sector. We envisage parish councils in England as valuable partners in improving accessibility in rural 200WH areas. We would like them to take an increasing role in community transport and to use their powers to fund community bus services.
South Gloucestershire council is also working with Railtrack and the train operators to improve facilities and services and to investigate the potential for making better use of under-used rail infrastructure. In particular, the line to Severnside could be reinstated to service existing development at Cribbs Causeway. Interchanges between public transport and other modes form the key nodes of the transport system. By establishing and improving those interchanges, the council will try to achieve a more integrated public transport system with a greater focus within south Gloucestershire.
§ Mr. WebbThe Minister mentioned the route to Cribbs Causeway. That would go through Henbury, which is currently closed; moreover, it is one of the sites that the British Rail Property Board wants to sell off. Can the Minister tell me how the council might set about preventing that, given that there is no budget for it to buy the land itself?
§ Mr. HillI fully intend to address the issue of British Rail property in due course.
The council is committed to making information on public transport services readily available through a variety of media in a user-friendly format. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about bus services, I note that he welcomes the benefits that the rural bus grant initiative has brought to south Gloucestershire. The area has received nearly £200,000 through the initiative, which has produced 31 entirely new or improved bus services in country districts. One of the conditions of the new rural bus subsidy grant was that it could not be used to fund services that were running on 1 May 1998; in other words, it cannot be used to fund withdrawn services. Therefore, an operator threatening to withdraw a service could not expect to be rewarded by receiving a contract that is funded by a rural bus subsidy.
There might be cases in which an operator has to withdraw from a contract because it is no longer economic for it to provide the service under the terms of that contract. The 1 May 1998 rule for the rural bus service grant has caused some difficulties, but it is an important principle that new funding must be used to support new services. I do not apologise for that. Local authority associations were fully consulted on all the grant conditions and they specifically supported the 1 May principle.
The Government did not want the new money to leak into maintaining the status quo—for example, operators withdrawing services in the expectation of subsidy, or authorities with many conflicting priorities cutting their subsidy spending. However, we will consider whether the rules should be changed in future. The Government are carefully monitoring the effects of the rural bus grant initiative with a view to taking decisions in due course about its future operation.
201WH Local bus services operate in a deregulated market: 85 per cent. of services are run by commercial operators and only 15 per cent. are subsidised by local authorities. It is for commercial operators to decide which services they wish to operate. Local authorities have the power to plug gaps, but we recognise that they often have to make difficult choices between conflicting calls on resources. The Government also propose to strengthen the powers of the traffic commissioners with regard to bus companies, as part of the new Transport Bill.
The hon. Member for Northavon expressed concern about developments on disused railway tracks. That matter has been considered by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs—a most distinguished Select Committee, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of the Committee's recommendations, we have taken steps to ensure that Railtrack, railway companies and local authorities will be kept informed of land sales, giving them the opportunity to acquire sites that could be used to reestablish the rail network.
The Government have now taken a major step in promoting a more integrated transport system through the publication last week of the Transport Bill. The centrepiece of the Bill is better public transport, which will offer more choice for motorists and for everyone else. The Bill contains radical measures designed to deliver the safe, modern, high-quality transport system that this country needs and deserves. These include promoting the use of railways through the Strategic Rail Authority, improving bus services and reducing road congestion and pollution. The Bill is the most comprehensive piece of transport legislation for 30 years.
The question of the apparent delay in introducing this legislation has been raised. However, there are no instantaneous solutions, and much preparatory work has been required to enable us to identify the policies needed to overcome the failures of the past 20 years. We inherited high and growing levels of road traffic congestion, poor public transport, inadequate provision for pedestrians and cyclists, and significant under-investment in road maintenance. Nevertheless, we have already made significant headway through increased investment, especially in public transport and road maintenance. The measures in the Bill pave the way for the modern, effective transport system that the country needs and deserves.
§ Mr. WebbI sense that the Minister has moved away from the issue of the sale of rail-owned land. He said that the local authorities had been notified about the land sales. Certainly, they have been told that there is a threat of certain routes being sold off, and that they will never be able to use them, but what can they do about that?
§ Mr. HillThe hon. Gentleman raises an important point. However, we do not envisage local authorities acting unilaterally to acquire land that might be used for either rail or alternative public transport purposes. We certainly do not expect the full burden of any financial responsibility accruing from the acquisition of such sites to fall entirely or even largely on local authorities. The 202WH Government's committment in transport policy is towards partnership: we certainly expect local authorities to operate in partnership with private operators, developers and other interested parties in such disposals in future.
The Government recognise that motorists will not readily switch to public transport unless it is significantly better and more reliable. We also realise that we cannot achieve these measures unless we are prepared to put more resources into public transport. That is why the comprehensive spending review allocated a further £700 million over the next three years. We are also spending an extra £170 million on rural buses, which has so far resulted in an extra 1,800 new and enhanced services in England.
A key measure in the Bill is the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, which will make railway regulation more effective and make sure that the fragmented rail companies provide a decent national service. We also recognise that buses are crucial to the success of our integrated transport system and that they can provide a real alternative to car use. Local authorities will be given the tools necessary to develop quality public transport in their areas, and to tackle road congestion and pollution. The Bill will enable authorities and bus operators to deliver more through ticketing, higher quality buses, more frequent services and better information. About 130 quality partnerships have already been established on a voluntary basis with bus operators throughout the country, the result of which has been an increase in bus usage of between 10 and 40 per cent. in the areas involved.
To deal with congestion and pollution, the Bill gives local authorities new powers to introduce charges on congested roads and to introduce workplace parking charges. The money raised will be put back into improving local transport, improving choice and tackling congestion. We welcome the strong interest expressed by the city of Bristol in the opportunities offered by this scheme.
The Transport Bill will set the national framework, but the onus will be on local authorities to put the measures into practice. We believe that local people are best placed to find local solutions to local transport problems. The hon. Member for Northavon will be aware that we have introduced local transport plans as a centrepiece of our proposals. Those set out authorities' strategies for transport and are the key mechanism for pulling all local activity together. Authorities will also have to prepare a bus strategy and will be given powers to make effective changes to benefit bus passengers. Together, the local transport plan and the bus strategy will provide a solid basis for implementing integrated transport policies at local level.
As a first stage in this process, all county and unitary authorities have now submitted their provisional five-year transport plans, on the basis of which resources will be allocated for the next financial year. Authorities will then roll on their plans by one year and submit full plans next summer for the period 2001 to 2006. We are assessing the provisional plans and will shortly announce the allocation of resources for next year.
203WH From the feedback that we have received so far, authorities seem to be responding positively to the challenge of producing local transport plans. They have overwhelmingly welcomed the national policy framework, and the process of preparing plans is acting as a positive force for change.
The Transport Bill now provides a solid framework for creating a more integrated transport system in this country. It will now be up to the local authorities to take measures forward. South Gloucestershire council is clearly committed to creating a more integrated 204WH transport system in its district. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is too early for me to speculate on the outcome of the local transport plan process in south Gloucestershire, but the position will become clearer when the allocations are made for the new financial year.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody)Order. As the hon. Member raising the next Adjournment debate is present, and the Minister is also with us, we shall now move on.