§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking in relation to the suggestion of the Select Committee on Transport about bus substitution for rail services in its second report for Session 1982–83, HC Paper 240; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. RidleyIt is not our intention that British Rail should embark on a programme of major route closures. Within the context of that firm policy, however, I share the Select Committee's view that
there is a strong case for bus substitution in situations where existing rail services are making significant operating losses and where buses can provide travellers with a reasonable alternative service at substantially lower costs of operation.I also agree with the Select Committee that it is essential to give travellers confidence in the continuity of substitute services. I fully support the Committee's view that British Rail should be responsible for the provision of the services. In short, I believe that any bus substitute service must be of good quality, attractive, guaranteed and—where necessary—subsidised.
It was against this background that I wrote to the chairman of British Rail last October inviting his views on the practicability of introducing some guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services where they would be appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
The chairman has welcomed the idea and has stressed that any substitute bus services should be designed as an integral part of the rail network and should be protected by a closure procedure comparable to that for rail services.
The existing law is inadequate for this purpose. The replacement services provided under it during the 1960s were unacceptable. I have decided, therefore, to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity reflecting the comments of the Select Committee and the chairman of British Rail.
The essential features of my proposals are as follows. First, no bus substitute service would be introduced before the existing statutory procedure governing the closure of the rail service concerned has been completed. Secondly, where British Rail considered that a substitute bus service would offer a practical alternative to the existing rail service and provide better value for money, it would make clear in its closure proposal the intention to seek provision of the bus service. I would take account of the bus service proposals in reaching decisions. If I were convinced that the rail service was no longer justified and the proposals 205W for substitute bus services were justified, I would make them a condition of my consent to the closure. Thirdly, the substitute bus service would be protected by a closure procedure similar to that for railway passenger services so as to provide the safeguard for continuity that is essential. Fourthly, if the bus service could not be self-financing, it would be subsidised by the Government through the grant to British Rail for the public service obligation. Fifthly, British Rail would be required to use contractors to provide the bus service and to seek competitive tenders for this purpose.
I am grateful to the Select Committee for the help I gained from its views in framing these proposals.
1974–75 1975–76 1976–77 1977–78 1978–79 1979–80 1980–81 1981–82 1982–83 Northern 40.9 59.3 48.0 26.2 23.2 38.5 58.7 60.0 56.7 Yorkshire and Humberside 60.4 66.3 69.2 84.1 63.9 54.4 52.2 96.1 79.4 North West 66.6 69.0 76.1 50.9 59.0 76.7 101.4 105.1 111.3 West Midlands 52.4 67.0 67.9 46.7 38.4 53.3 43.0 71.2 88.4 East Midlands 22.2 28.0 34.7 19.9 18.2 27.3 40.9 56.1 48.1 East Anglia 24.4 25.5 30.1 39.1 30.2 37.2 28.3 51.5 66.5 South West 65.3 87.2 71.0 41.9 31.5 34.7 50.2 56.4 69.6 South East (inc. London and M25) 69.4 195.7 183.0 139.8 168.9 237.4 309.4 350.8 382.1 Miscellaneous (all Regions) 42.8 43.9 43.3 37.0 37.9 37.4 24.4 84.8 32.9 Total 544.4 641.9 623.3 485.6 471.2 596.9 708.5 932.0 935.0