1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
Bus 'carve-up' alleged in Bill committee
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• There was to be a "carve-up" between Passenger Transport Executives, the National Bus Company and private operators, when Transport Areas came to be set up, claimed a Tory MP last week. The charge came from Opposition Transport spokesman Mr. Michael Heseltine, during Committee discussion of the Transport Bill.
Mr. Heseltine based his criticism on the fact that when a Passenger Transport Authority and Executive reveal their policies and actions they do not have to give more than "the nature" of any agreements with the Bus Company, the Scottish Group or private operators. He pressed for more details to be required—but amendments which would have brought this about were rejected by the Committee.
They were anxious that the public sector should not be able to negotiate in camera on terms which might differ materially from those available to private operators said Mr. Heseltine. The private operators might be able to do the job cheaper. There was also in the Bill an implication that agreements made with the private sector did not have to have their nature revealed.
He suspected that the NBC wanted the protection of not having to reveal its terms, and in order for this to happen a quid pro quo had been given to the private sector that it too would not have to reveal its terms. "In other words there has been a carve-up in the interest of those people who have the most to gain out of it. The one lot of people who seem to have been ignored in all this is the general public."
Mr. John Morris, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, who dealt with the National Bus Company, said the Executive would be in a weak position if it had to disclose terms. But there would be a general indication of what the agreements were about.
Mr. Stephen Swingler, the Minister of State, said it would not be wise to indicate the nature of agreements before they had been concluded between the Executives and private bus operators. Executives should merely indicate the extent to which such agreements were being made. But they should not indicate the nature of those agreements—that would be contrary to commercial practice.
Mr. Anthony Berry (Tory, Southgate) said there were responsibilities with which the PTAs need not be bothered, but it was most important that it should be the PTAs who decided which responsibilities they kept for themselves and which they—and nobody else—would delegate to the PTEs.
Mr. Swingler replied that if we were to get the best possible public transport organization it was very important to arrive at a correct balance of those matters the Executives were to be required by law to refer to the Authorities for their consent, and the other comparatively minor matters not so required. The Authority did not want to be confronted with .a massive agenda of detailed points which would frustrate their getting on with the job of the general planning and oversight of the public transport undertaking.
The Opposition's concept of the relationship between the Authority and the Executive was quite different from that of the Government, said Mr. Swingler. "Theirs is still the concept of
jungle warfare in the transport world, where people are constantly at odds with one another." Surely the Authority could appoint responsible people to the Executive, people in whom it could place some trust, who would get on with the job of running the undertakings while the Authority retained the powers of general oversight, of policy making, of decision making, over accounts and so on.
Mr. Heseltine noted a clause which says that the Executive can ask the Authority to meet the cost of a service which the PTA wants, but the PTE considers too costly. That was the clearest possible indication that the real power was being placed in the hands of the Executive. The Opposition thought the Authority should have the right to say to its own staff that it was to use the profits from another service to subsidize the new one.
Mr. Swingler replied, "The members of the PTA are the bosses. That is quite clear. ..."
Clearly it was part of the general business of the Executive to organize some cross-subsidizing of services, and it had a duty imposed by statute to break even with its accounts, he said. But where particular transport services which were uneconomic were to be provided it should be arranged for their being provided quite openly and publicly at the direction of the Authority. The Authority has the power to require the' Executive to lay on a service which would make a loss—a loss which ought properly to be attributed to public funds.
Mrs. Castle promised to look again at part of the Bill which allows an Executive to take over any property which the owner disposed of before being acquired by the PTE.
After it had been pointed out that this would present many difficulties, the Minister agreed that there was a conflict of interest. There was a need to prevent deliberate shedding of assets in preparation for the take-over, but on the other hand she appreciated the difficulty that arose from a continuing process of creating PTAs.
The Opposition fought a move by the Government to introduce into the Bill a section providing for local authorities to be liable to pay compensation to people to whom the authority had disposed of property "unreasonably or imprudently"—and which a PTE later wanted.
This could involve many thousands, if not millions of pounds of compensation, payable by local authorities, said Mr. Peter Walker, Tory Shadow Transport Minister. He objected to Mr. Swingler, who introduced the change, saying virtually "I move" and then sitting down. If it had not been for questioning the Opposition would not have discovered how important this change was.
The amendment was accepted by 16 votes to 13.
Another amendment moved by Mr. Swingler —and accepted by 16 votes to 12—says that councils will have to give the Minister what information she "reasonably" requires to make an order setting up a Passenger Transport Area.
Opposing this, Mr. Heseltine said it indicated clearly that the Minister was aware that, when it came to negotiating with the local authorities, she was in for a rough ride. She was trying to arm herself with all the powers she could to ensure that the ride was as gentle as possible. What would happen if a local authority would not co-operate. Would the Minister take it to court, would it be lined, would the leaders be sent to prison?
Last Wednesday's session finished--with signs of frayed tempers on both sides—at 6.50 a.m. on Thursday morning, nearly 15 hours after it began.
During this debate the Tories urged that Traffic Commissioners should still have powers in Passenger Transport Areas.
The amendment retaining the powers of the Commissioners was rejected by 14 votes to 9.
The Government is to look again at the compensation payable to private bus operators whose right to run services in PTA areas is withdrawn, Mr. John Morris told the Committee on Tuesday. He wanted operators to have a square deal. Mr. Swingler also pledged fair compensation.
A Tory amendment, extending from three months to six the period within which an operator had the right to make the Executive buy him out or compensate him for a withdrawn route, was accepted by Mr. Morris.