The 'Buses' White Paper, launched by Secretary of State for Transport Nicholas Ridley last July heralds sweeping change for the bus industry. Despite the suggestion that the document was a policy statement with some room for discussion, the paper had changed very little by the time it was presented as a Bill to Parliament earlier this year.
The main proposals of the Bill are as follows: -
The crux of the proposed legislation is the deregulation of local bus services and the removal of the requirement to obtain a mad service licence to operate them. At present, this is awarded at the discretion of the Traffic Commissioners, a body which may be abolished if the Bill becomes law. The licensing authority will have no power, as the Traffic Commissioners have at present, to prevent competition. This could lead to any number of operators being allowed to operate the same service land set their own fares. However failure to operate registered bus services will affect an operator's suitability to run local services, and may result in a ban from bus operation. Operators 'who behave foolishly on the road' will also be banned from running local routes.
Deregulation will allow local bus services to be run by anyone wishing to provide a service, providing standards of safety and driving are maintained, and that the actions of a number of operators do not produce unacceptable congestion. The monopoly of the National Bus Company and Passenger Transport Executives (PTES) would be ended; the assumption being that competition will lead to increased efficiency and lower fares. Local bus services would become in effect, a free for all' market, principals governed by the strength of market forces.
The 1980 Transport Act introduced changes to bus and coach service licensing; it also deregulated long distance services of over 30 miles. The result of this was the emergency of a flotilla of new express coach operators, offering low cost non-stop services between London and the major cities. National Express, who had previously enjoyed a virtual monopoly on such services, responded by cutting their fares and speeding up services. Yet many of the new operators did not survive, despite the attempt by some companies to market their network under a common banner 'British Coachways', and National Express are now still in a leading position. This has been at the cost of services from smaller towns and villages, which could no longer be subsidised by the inter-city coaches.
The consequences of the current 'Buses' Bill would probably be similar. After the 1980 Act, the Government decided to set up three trial areas for deregulation of local bus services; Norfolk, Devon, and Hereford & Worcester. In Norfolk, the County Council reduced the amount of revenue support to bus services from £1.3 million to £500,000 and opted for a lower level of service, leaving many communities without any public transport. The White Paper also admitted that the Devon trial area was 'disappointing', with only two operators competing - both without success.
In Hereford & Worcester, the County Council introduced a tendering system for unremunerative services, similar to that proposed by the current Bill. The results of this were a considerable upheaval in a previously well developed integrated network, and the destruction of established travelling patterns and fluctuation in fare levels. Local bus services passed through the hands of a variety of operators and there has been no permanent improvement in services.
Indeed, 25,000 route miles a year have been lost - a considerable figure in a rural area!
The experience in the trial areas could hardly be described as successful. Had the experiments been successful could the Government seriously apply the results from three predominantly rural areas to a conurbation such as Greater Manchester? It would appear that this is Mr Ridley's intention.
The Bus Bill is complex and it would be difficult to make an accurate assessment of what would happen in Greater Manchester, should it be implemented. Indeed, the Secretary of State appears to have the same problem. At a Conference of Local Bus Services on 6th September, Mr Ridley was asked why more time was not given to presenting evidence to support his proposals. He replied: 'I do not want to dwell too much on the evidence as I cannot be sure what will exactly happen.' Ridley has the same problem in grasping exactly how the present PTEs are run. On a visit to a bus garage in Newcastle, he asked how many of the drivers owned their own buses'
What will happen is that bus services will be cut. Subsidies will be available to pay for socially necessary bus services, but judging from this Government's previous record, that definition will be a limited one. With the break-up of GMT, many routes will be truncated, with some communities losing their bus service altogether, and many more losing their evening and Sunday operations. 80% Of Greater Manchester's bus services do not generate enough income to cover their own running costs. The remaining 20% rely on subsidising off-peak journeys with revenue from peak period operations, and in the face of competition; even these could be threatened. With a number of operators providing bus services, cross-subsidy between economic and uneconomic routes would end, and there would be little hope of an integrated network with travel cards and concessionary fares schemes as exists at present. Local rail services at present integrated with the bus network, would also suffer as a result of competition. Certain lines could be closed, notably the Victoria-Oldham loop (2), the Victoria-Swinton-Wigan line and the Hyde loop. Fares in Greater Manchester which at present, contrary to common belief, are among the lowest in the country, and would almost inevitably rise. The quality of service would suffer, with private operators running old vehicles ill-suited to bus work. There would be an immediate impact on jobs in GMT, followed by redundancies in bus building firms, such as Northern Counties of Wigan (3) as orders for new buses slumped. At present Northern Counties manufacture bus bodies for most of GMT's fleet.
The opposition to the Bus Bill is almost universal. It would appear that bus services are an issue that transcends even party political loyalties. The proposed legislation has brought protests from the Association of District Councils, who warn that the plans will 'inevitably speed up the decline of local services from the Association of Liberal Councillors, who foresee general chaos and from a variety of other bodies including the 50 bus operating district councils, the six English PTEs, the Bus & Coach Council, Friends of the Earth, Association at Metropolitan Authorities and the National Federation of Women's lnstitutes who point out that "expressing a desire for a bus service is not the same as showing a preference for a particular brand of toothpaste". The transport unions, NALGO and the TGWU have both launched campaigns against the Bill. In November, thousands of bus staff attended a rally in London, while in December GMT drivers busied themselves collecting signatures on a petition against the Bill. Further action will follow.
Generally, the Bus Bill is ill conceived and makes many wrong assumptions. The local bus market is not as public-sector dominated, as Ridley seems to imagine. Removing protection from competition will not only damage the public-sector bus companies, but also the existing private operators. Very little seems to have been learnt from the trial areas, which seem to reinforce the case against deregulation rather than provide evidence to support it. So does Nicholas Ridley really know what he is talking about?
At the press conference which launched the White Paper, Ridley was asked whether the new transport board, set up to run Eastbourne's buses, was intended as a model for the companies which would succeed other council bus operations.
'I don't know anything about Eastbourne' he replied!
Nor, does it seem does he know anything about London's buses, which he was describing as the 'GLC's buses' some two weeks after seizing control of them from the GLC. However, the Secretary of State isn't pushing his luck too far. De-regulation will not be extended to the capital. Presumably, a disaster as the one promised for the rest of the country in 1986 would be a little to close for comfort if it happened on the London streets.
Nigel Chatfield
|
•