CLAUSE 10 POWERS GREATEST DANGER THE
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Derek Moses
PUBLICATION of the Transport Bill seems to have been received with a feeling of complacency by some sections of the road passenger transport industry. There is a feeling that it is not as bad as it was expected to be. This, I think, is a very dangerous attitude to take, as there are several sinister implications in the Bill and the White Paper that preceded it by only three days
The Minister has, by dropping the compulsory purchase powers which were expected to be held by the PTAs, perhaps given the impression that any independent operators running services in the proposed conurbation areas will be left alone. This is not necessarily true. Clause 10 of the Bill defines the powers to be given to a PTA Executive.
Paragraph 17 is of particular interest. It reads "an Executive shall have power to acquire by agreement any undertaking or part of an undertaking if the assets comprised in that undertaking or part are wholly or mainly assets which the Executive require for the purposes of their business." And this after Mrs. Castle's promise that "existing operators will be given full protection".
What the Minister gives with one hand, she takes away with the other. The Executive referred to is, of course, a PTA Executive. And, as Mr. Arthur Lainson, chairman of the Passenger Vehicle Operators Association said, this revoking of the right of independent operators is just what the PTAs will do. The only crumb of comfort given is that compensation must be paid for any routes taken away and if this leaves an independent in a non-viable condition, the Executive is required to buy the whole business.
Nor can the majority of independents who operate outside the proposed PTA areas sit back and relax. They have the new National Bus Company (or the Scottish Transport Group) to contend with, which will take over as the holding company for the present THC and BET bus undertakings. This company will have (as did the THC) a standing instruction to acquire, by "voluntary" acquisition, any independent operator which gets under its feet.
Minibuses encouraged Clearly it is the more enterprising and successful independents who have the most to worry about. Mrs. Castle gives the impression that the NBC will not be terribly interested in independents operating in the more remote areas. Admittedly, however, she does plan to help these operators with 50/50 Government and local government grants for services which are unremunerative, if they are considered to be an essential public service. And the operation of minibuses on rural services is to be made easier by relaxed regulations for their construction and operation.
There are many points in the White Paper and the Transport Bill to which I take exception. I will discuss just some of them.
First, in paragraph 12, Mrs. Castle states
"the main network of public transport is no longer an appropriate activity for private companies whose prime duty must be to their shareholders, even though they are subject to public regulation. Indeed it has long been recognized that these basic passenger transport services could only be effectively provided through public ownership—whether local or national."
This is rubbish! The BET companies have carried out their duties most effectively over many years and have shown much more initiative in recent years than their THC counterparts in providing more attractive vehicles with better decor. The standard Tilling bus, for example, although wellfinished constructionally, is plain inside to the point of being drab.
'Cattle trucks'
Mrs. Castle talks about getting away from the "cattle truck" complex towards a "Pullman philosophy". Yet what could be more like cattle trucks than the latest standee single-deckers being introduced by London Transport? These passenger containers have the blessing of the Minister of Transport. They will hardly attract commuters away from the private car.
Then there is the rebate for a standard bus, to encourage the quicker replacement of vehicles by modern, attractive buses designed for one-man operation. What a costly waste of public money this will be. By the time standard buses have been designed, they will be out of date, if London Transport's example is anything to go by. Can a bankrupt country, which has just devalued the pound in an attempt to reach solvency, afford to throw money away by scrapping buses that have not completed their useful life?
Another point which is not at all clear from the Paper or the Bill is the position of NBC subsidiaries in PTA areas. It would appear that in many cases they will act as agents running services for PTA Executives. In paragraph 55 the White Paper states that NBC companies must have a "mix" of more profitable urban routes with rural routes to make them viable companies. Why, then, is it necessary to swallow the municipal transport operators? Could they not also run as agents?
Again, why should ratepayers in urban areas be expected to meet the deficit incurred by British Railways on suburban services? There is also a threat to some urban bus services here. Paragraph 94 states that some rail services which are at present not paying their way may become profitable if bus services are organized so as to make it more convenient to use rail. Why should bus passengers be forced to switch to rail services which might not be so convenient, and also be more expensive?
Another sinister piece of legislation is the proposed establishment of the PTAs as the licensing authorities for their own areas. They will have the right to operate all services within a PTA area. Indeed, any licences held for services running inside PTA areas will become void from the day the Authority is established, according to the Transport Bill. So all operators running into a PTA area will have to apply to the Authority for permission to continue running. They will no longer be able to take their troubles to the Traffic Commissioners. The PTA will be the autonomous body.
Again, why is the fuel rebate to be so belated? To help operators it should surely be introduced immediately.
Finally, the grants to be made towards capital investment schemes, such as new tube railways, guided busways, new depots, bus stations and so on. It is the taxpayer, not the Government, who will, in the end, be footing this bill of some £20m a year.
Mrs. Castle made her new proposals sound like the panacea for all the so-called ills besetting the public transport industry today. We are going to have a new fairy land of superb transport with Pullman buses where we want them, when we want them, and at fares we can afford.
Theorizing is all very well, but how often does theory work out in practice?