Buses (Deregulation)

: I understand that. It is part of the argument that hon. Members have been making. However, we must recognise that investment has been made that is not from the public purse. That provides opportunities for us to invest elsewhere. One of the central points that hon. Members made was about the comparison with London. I appreciate and understand, not least as a London MP, that conurbations outside London look enviously at the patronage growth in London under the franchise system. I disagree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond): as a London MP and the proud holder of an Oyster card that I use regularly, I believe that due credit should be given to Transport for London and the Mayor for the governance, supported by Government money, that has brought about the increase in bus patronage. It is not true that it would be possible to duplicate the London experience elsewhere. There are several reasons for that: the demographics, population density and size of London; the limited availability of workplace parking; the historic use of the rail and tube networks, which are part of the general public transport system; and the brave decision to introduce the world's first major congestion charging scheme, which has been part and parcel of the measures to increase bus patronage by increasing bus speeds in central London. All those factors together mean that car ownership in London is far lower than the national average: 36 per cent. of London households have no car, compared with 25 per cent. across England as a whole, and only 20 per cent. have two or more cars, compared with 31 per cent. nationally. Furthermore, although it is true that there is generous Government support for London transport—rightly so, as it is the capital city—about half of the £2.8 billion per year investment in public transport comes from other sources such as the congestion charge and the council tax payer. Hon. Members' comments reflected the fact that experience elsewhere shows that growth can be achieved outside London, particularly if local authorities and bus operators enjoy good relations. I shall not run through the list again because of the risk of irritating hon. Members, but it is not just in historic towns—Brighton and York among others—that we have achieved considerable success. Nottingham is also a good example. Last summer, I visited my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge, who is not in his place, and observed what was then the fastest growing bus route in the whole of England, and the guided bus way in Tyne and Wear, which is a spectacular success and shows what can be done when the challenge of providing new buses and responding to issues around bus reliability is met. Time precludes my running through many of the issues, but let me say a little about bus priority measures. It is absolutely the case that any investment that is made in bus services must be considered in the context of improving bus priority to ensure that speed and reliability are enhanced. All the bus operators tell us that that is one of the key factors that attracts people to using bus services. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley mentioned quality bus corridors. I believe that they are a good way of improving traffic flow for buses. They can bring in more custom and allow operators to increase frequency and to invest in new buses. That in turn can improve custom on other routes, and address some of the concerns that hon. Members have about radial routes operating to the exclusion of other services. In fact, measures that increase bus use dramatically on some priority routes can be a way of improving the service overall. Operators can use profits to cross-subsidise other marginal services, thus creating a virtuous circle of improved bus services. There are many successful quality bus corridors in the PTE areas, and they are often underpinned by quality bus partnership agreements, under which the operator undertakes to provide a higher standard of service. Though voluntary, such agreements have proved to be an excellent channel for improving bus services across the area. We monitor the effectiveness of quality bus corridors through the local transport plan policy and do not rely on inspired guesswork. There has not been much use of the statutory quality partnership power in the Transport Act 2000. That is partly because, where there are effective voluntary agreements, local authorities have not seen the need to use that power, but we encourage its use—