Buses (Deregulation)

Like all other hon. Members, I wish the Minister well when she stands down from her Front-Bench role. Today is the first and last time that we shall have the opportunity to debate together. I note that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) has been consistent on this subject throughout his long period in Parliament. Today, he has been a forceful advocate for his side of the story—indeed, so far we have heard only one side of the story. I should like not only to address that side but to put forward some countervailing points that we need to bear in mind. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that this is a debate about public transport, and we all support public transport. That is true, but what we are talking about is how it is delivered, and how it might be improved continually. In 2000, having recognised that bus travel numbers decreased in many previous years, the Government produced the 10-year plan, in which they set themselves the target of increasing bus journeys by 10 per cent. by 2010. They also said that they wished to improve the punctuality of the whole service nationally. Against that, they set many years' decline in bus usage, increased prosperity, increasing car ownership, the increasing cost of bus travel and the falling cost of motoring. Clearly, the Government have recognised that the target that they set themselves was unattainable—it has been revised twice. We now have a target for not only buses but bus and light rail, increasing usage by 12 per cent. and growth in every region. I listened with interest to the arguments of the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who quickly dismissed the successes in some other areas, telling us, for instance, why Brighton's success was not applicable to Manchester. I visited the bus company in Brighton two Fridays ago. Just before we dismiss it so readily, let me quote from three paragraphs of a letter from Roger French, the managing director of Brighton and Hove's bus and coach company:"““The key ingredients that we have put into the partnership mixture are frequent services—80 per cent. of our passenger journeys are taken on a bus””" that runs"““at least every 10 minutes; simple pricing offering value for money; continued, sustained investment in new buses taking advantage of constantly improving technology and comfort and a passion for excellent customer service . . . The Local Authority's ingredients are the installation of effective bus priority measures on the road; a robust parking management and enforcement regime; effective enforcement of traffic regulations associated with bus priority measures . . . accessible bus stops which are pleasant to wait at with real time information . . . As we discussed the private sector is best placed to deal with the first 5 ingredients . . . and . . . local authorities are best placed to deal with the second 5 ingredients.””" One of the problems in the deregulated market in parts of the country other than London is that bus companies are becoming increasingly frustrated at what they see as the failings of the local authorities, and local authorities are frustrated at what they see as local bus companies failing to invest or to be responsive. As I listened to the arguments of the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Pudsey, I wondered whether, if they met Mr. French, they might think that a lot of what he said may appertain to their areas. I recognise the frustrations that occur. Although the operators have the freedom to decide when and where to run routes, they are banned from co-ordinating services with other operators. The local authorities can offer subsidised, non-commercial services, but there are restrictions on the deals and on what they can negotiate with regard to service levels. There are many frustrations, but is that an argument for ditching the system, or for improving it? I wait to hear the Minister's response, but I expect that she will bear in mind what the Secretary of State said about buses in Edinburgh:"““the route is more extensive and imaginative now than when the local authority ran the service . . . So I would be wary of saying that we should go back to the pre-1986 situation.””—[Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 404.]" I am listening to the arguments being advanced today on the advantages of the PTEs, but I am guided by a National Audit Office report published in December 2005, which found that the Government were highly unlikely to meet their revised targets. When one considers the NAO's rationale and the points that it makes, one wonders whether it is saying that we should abandon what is in place at the moment, or modify it. The NAO touched on better use of concessionary fares. That subject has already been mentioned this morning. As a result of the Government's initiative, at random, I phoned 25 local authorities around the country. None of them told me that the proportion of the money that was being provided under the new national scheme would cover the scheme in its area. I wonder how many authorities the Government have contacted; how the Government can say that the £350 million that they are going to provide will cover the bus concessionary scheme; how many of those authorities are using a subsidy scheme, or a block payment; and how many people, who were able to do so before, are now prevented from travelling across concessionary areas. What has been put in place will cause a levelling down rather than a levelling up of schemes. The NAO report advised councils that they would do well to consider the way in which they procure services. Had I time, I would quote more extensively from the report, because it is useful to bear that in mind. It says that"““the administration costs of procuring bus services are not high. But . . . if authorities currently tendering for individual routes or small packages of routes adopted a more strategic approach . . . they could achieve average savings equivalent to . . . some £26 million.””" I wonder whether, in the context of improving the system, the Minister will talk about the ability of local authorities to relax the rules to allow scope for greater co-operation across PTEs and concessionary areas. That might make for some efficiency of provision. She will be aware that the NAO report was extremely critical of the Government in certain respects, including their failure to consider the transport plans that had been drawn up, the increase in usage and the need for proper monitoring of provisions that were being put in place. Will she comment on that? I am a London MP, and I have heard much today about the paragon of virtue that is London. Those of us who live in London do not necessarily recognise those virtues. Bus usage is up, but fares are also up by 35 per cent. and that figure hides the cost of the concessionary scheme that Mr. Livingstone has put in place. Those of us who are local councillors as well as Members of Parliament have noticed that every year we are told how much we have to provide for the extra concessionary scheme, and that that usually comes off our social services budgets. That damages our ability to care for people at risk. Mention has been made of Oyster cards. Some of the pricing irregularities are worth noting. London has done away, for no good reason, with the family railcard, so it now costs a family of my constituents, two adults and two children, travelling one stop from Wimbledon Park to Wimbledon something like £9.10 rather than the £3.40 that it cost them less than three months ago. It is also true that our bus services are the most expensive per mile in the UK. Like all other hon. Members, I can quote the routes about whose failings my constituents regularly write to me. Route 200 springs to mind—it is criticised for poor delivery and poor punctuality and because ““it never turns up””. A consultation exercise decisively rejected the number 493, but it was imposed on us. It causes traffic chaos through one of my wards every day and I get at least one letter about it every week.