AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

SOLVING PASSENGER TRANSPORI PROBLEMS IN THE EEC

22nd June 1973, Page 47
22nd June 1973
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 47, 22nd June 1973 — SOLVING PASSENGER TRANSPORI PROBLEMS IN THE EEC
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

DELEGATES to last week's conference of the Public Road Transport Association held at Brighton (papers reported in CM, June 8) agreed that the only way to make British views on public transport known to the EEC is to speak with a single voice. This end was repeatedly urged by speakers from the floor during discussions on Mr T. L. Beagley's paper.

At the same time several delegates disagreed with his main assertion that British passenger transport would be little affected by our entry to Europe.

Mr Beagley, who is deputy secretary at the Department of the Environment, began his paper by saying that he intended to speak frankly. This decision was clearly appreciated by delegates who were often equally frank in their replies.

Dr T. M. Ridley, director-general of the Tyneside PTE, welcomed the onset of the EEC because it had brought the UK industry together for the first time. However, he warned of the dangers of British operators being forced to comply with the strict letter of EEC law when their European counterparts might avoid it. Dr Ridley went on to say that it was very easy for the directors of the State-owned transport organizations to run contrary to the intended UK policy of leaving local transport matters to local government. "We have noticed this already in negotiations with the National Bus Company and British Rail," reported Dr Ridley.

Mr R. St. C. Sandall, of the NBC's Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Co Ltd, complained of the difficulties of getting adequate translations of both written and spoken material from the EEC. The lack of information was one of the biggest problems facing British operators interested in European affairs. Mr Beagley had asked operators to make their reactions to EEC proposals known. "We will give ou reactions to proposals when we know wha they are," said Mr Sandall. He urged th Government to produce regular bulletins a new developments.

Strenuous efforts to get majo modifications to Regulation 543 /69 (whicl governs driving hours) should be made a soon as possible. This was the view of M Denis Quin, director of the Passenge Vehicle Operators' Association. "We ari going to be very considerably affected 13! this regulation," he said. This regulation — which Mr Quin accepted that it would bi difficult to amend — was officially "social" regulation. It was others of tilt same category that would cause trouble These regulations were often formulated 133 the "political civil servants" employed b3 some member states.

Mr David Glassborow, of the NBC': central activities group, was still worriec about the railway protection aspects a. some parts of European legislation. H( felt, too, that some policies on vehicle desig,r were being formulated by people who hac no responsibility for the financial consequences of their actions.

Mr George Carruthers, of the NBC, Was also concerned about the social implications of some EEC policies. However, he agreed with Mr Beagley that the industry was unlikely to be much affected by British entry to Europe. He was suspicious of the activities of the Economic and Social Committee because these two functions seemed to be in conflict. He was also worried about suggestions of increasing worker participation in management. Different interpretations were likely to be placed upon these ideas in different places.

Mr G. M. Newberry, general manager of United Automobile Services Ltd, gave his five-point plan for dealing with passenger transport: 1) mobility — this seemed to be regarded as an end in itself which must now be constrained; 2) motorists — must be brought into any scheme to control passenger transport; 3) manpower — passenger transport did not operate in a vacuum and had to compete for its labour force; 4) management — important at all levels; 5) money — the yardstick for establishing priorities.

Replying to the points raised, Mr Beagley said that the DoE supported the industry's move to get together on Europe. He reminded the delegates that Government representatives went into discussions with national interests in mind. "You should have no anxieties on that score," he said. Mr

leagley attempted to allay Mr ;lassborow's fears on favouring rail -iterests. Although the EEC was still rguing the level of railway expenses which hould be met by Governments the figure vould be less than the amount spent at Iresent. He warned road men not to make he rail issue too much of a bogey subject.

Mr Beagley agreed with Mr Sandal' that ;etting adequate translations was a major problem and one which he was trying to olve, "We are doing our best to consult tou," he told the audience but indicated that DoE European bulletin was unlikely.

Mr Beagley admitted to Mr Quin and pthers that his conclusion that the British ndustry would be little affected by EEC nembership was wrong. "It would be fair to

say that 543/69 will be a major difficulty," he said. He warmly welcomed the, NBC's newly announced intention (CM last week) to run a service from London to Frankfurt. "This is just the sort of thing I like to hear," he said.

Making money count in bus operation AN ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION greeted Mr Guy Neely's paper on "Money". Mr Neely, finance director of the NBC, clearly left many busmen much more kindly disposed to accountants. But this did not mean that all the speakers from the floor refused to take issue with him.

Mr Robert Brook, from Midland Red, said that money was an expensive commodity that was bulky but highly desired. In any reorganization of handling methods it was important not to erode cash control systems and thus worsen security. Mr Brook said there was no difficulty in establishing a standard costing system including an inflation clause. It was a problem of volume not of method, Mr Brook concluded his remarks by saying that if a substantial public transport system was to be retained it was necessary to accept "underpinned" — he refused to use the word "subsidized" — services. But this underpinning needed to be made on a selective and realistic basis and not given in the form of an open-ended grant.

Mr Ronald Cox, director-general of the new Greater Glasgow PTE, was concerned about the costs of coin handling. Though decimalization had benefited the transport industry by producing coinage that was more easy to sort mechanically, the costs were still high. He estimated that each employee so employed could count £1000 of coin per day. If 1600 people were employed to count the industry's annual £400m takings this meant that + per cent of takings were spent on employing counting staff.

On reducing fare evasion Mr Cox was in favour of substantial on-the-spot fines rather than a "lottery" ticket system. He was dissatisfied, too, with bank charges. A two-day a week lapse in handling £500,000 takings, could result in annual bank charges of some £90,000.

He warned delegates that the industry had not escaped the worst effects of inflation, as had been suggested. Mr Cox pointed out that using a lp increase on a 5p fare to counter 5 per cent inflation was a "pretty blunt instrument".

Mr F. E. Dark, general manager of the West Riding Automobile Co Ltd, said that cash handling had not been given sufficient thought to allow proper evaluation of efficiency. But it was noticeable that the industry was ready to invest in sophisticated methods of handling its "payload" but when it came to handling revenue old traditional methods were relied on, "However, we must be sure that new equipment will really enhance efficiency," he said. The industry tended to be too willing to accept the equipment the manufacturer offered rather than designing its own. A firm declaration that the need to make a profit should not dominate the bus industry's thinking was made by Mr J. M. Hill, finance director of the West Midlands PTE. Operators should think of providing a reasonable-cost public transport service without necessarily making a profit. Publicly owned operators need not be subject to the profit motive, he said. Although the profit motive helped low-level management it tended to lead top management to run services that were not always in the best interests of the passengers. Many decisions were taken in ignorance of their social consequences. Mr Hill said that he could not see the logic of providing good rural services in one area because they could be cross-subsidized by profitable urban routes while in another area there were no rural services because the local operator had no town routes.

Mr J. A. Stevenson, of the Lincolnshire Road Car Co Ltd, said that considerable progress had been made in the last 12 months in fare collection methods by manufacturers, operators and Government (by grant assistance). He asked whether a more comprehensive research programme into the scope for reducing cash transactions would not be a good idea.

Mr Glassborow caused something of a stir when he asserted that motorists were not "subsidized" in their use of the roads. He won more approval, however, when he said that the bus was undervalued in the public transport context while trains were overvalued.

Mr F. J. Lloyd, director-general of the West Midlands PTE, said that towns and cities could not exist without an adequate public transport system. Therefore there was every justification for it to be partly financed from sources other than the farebox. But straight cash subsidies were not the only answer and Mr Lloyd quoted the example of a council providing a free site for a new bus station in a town centre redevelopment scheme.

Mr E. A. Lainson, of Premier Travel Ltd, said that every board of directors ought to contain an accountant. More and more operators were coming under the influence of outside financial controls and this would worsen with local government reform.

Mr D. P. C. Fletcher, the Tyneside PTE's director of finance, said that accountants could not teach busmen anything about money. Considering the declining revenue Situation very few publicly owned bus undertakings had gone bankrupt. He likened public transport to housing and said that subsidies should be provided in a similar manner. But, went on Mr Fletcher, it would not be a good idea to disturb the profit and loss account balance sheet because of the discipline it offered.

Replying to the points raised, Mr Neely said that he sensed a "whiff of grapeshot" in the discussion on the money justification of buses. He was convinced that the industry should argue its case in a very much tougher way wherever a concise reason was needed to fight the car. "We must beware of playing God", said Mr Neely, -and let other people judge whether we are providing an adequate service."


comments powered by Disqus