Competition in the Local Bus Market
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
House of Commons Transport Committee Competition in the local bus market Third Report of Session 2012–13 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 28 February,17 April and 16 May 2012 Published on 13 September 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Farrah Bhatti (Second Clerk), David G Davies (Senior Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Adrian Hitchins (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] List of additional written evidence (Published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/transcom) 1 Leven Valley Coaches Ev w1 2 Monica Lilly Ev w2 3 David Cooper-Smith Ev w2 4 Sherborne Transport Action Group Ev w2 5 M Barlow Ev w4 6 Local Government Technical Advisers Group Ev w5 7 Stagecoach Group plc Ev w7 8 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK Ev w10 9 National Express UK Bus Ev w14 10 Dr John Disney, Nottingham Business school, Nottingham Trent University Ev w15 11 Save Our 6 -7 Buses Campaign, Bath Ev w18 12 Tyne and Wear Public Transport Users Group (Newcastle Branch) Ev w19 13 Mr John Fisher Ev w25 14 Mr and Mrs Wilkes Ev w25 15 Nexus, Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive Ev w29 16 Institute of Advanced Motorists Limited Ev w31 17 Centro, West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive Ev w31 18 ATCO Ev w34 19 Campaign for Better Transport (Bristol / Bath travel area) Ev w36 20 TravelWatch North West Ev w38 21 pteg Ev w40 22 Metro Ev w46 23 North East Combined Transport Activists’ Roundtable Ev w50 24 Professor Chris Nash Ev w57 25 Mr Kevin Gaskin Ev w58 26 Transport for Greater Manchester Ev w59 27 National Federation of Occupational Pensioners Ev w63 28 Go-Ahead Group plc Ev w64 29 Rotala PLC Ev w68 30 Mr Thomas J. Wheeler Ev w69 31 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Ev w70 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [11-09-2012 11:41] Job: 022801 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022801/022801_w035_020917_w009_ND_LBS 48 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.xml Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w1 Written evidence Written evidence from Leven Valley Coaches (LBS 02) 1. Leven Valley Buses operate within an established regimen where only our customers’ loyalty has given us support sufficient to survive the last twenty-seven years. Now I find that it is the devious machinations of central and local government that will probably be our, and many other small operators’ nemesis this year. 2. Leven Valley operates within the Boroughs of Middlesbrough, Stockton and Redcar & Cleveland. The main operators and our competitors are Arriva and Stagecoach. 3. I suspect that the biggest impact on services within this area will be because of Government policy (interference). The gerrymandering with BSOG against the wishes of the majority of consultees is jeopardising services. The dreadful English National Concessionary Fare confidence trick has impacted badly. Reimbursed this year at 48% of adult fares who benefits in the long term? We often carry full loads of pass holders. My drivers do not accept 48% of their rates on such journeys! The bus does not use 48% of its fuel! This 48% is down from a 62% reimbursement last year. 4. Since my last pointless contribution to the Competition Commission Leven Valley has lost three contracted routes and it is likely that more will go this year due to council cuts. 5. I do not think that in the current duplicitous government climate that the CC has done anything that will promote bus usage. Two wasted years culminating in suggestions that these troubled financial times cannot accommodate. I can see no effective remedies but much to distress this and many other small operators. It must also impact even more dramatically on the major operators. 6. Sustained head-to head competition is neither feasible nor desirable on an environmental level alone. The bus industry is nothing like any other kind of retail. This is a point that cannot be made enough. 7. Quality partnerships are by and large mere “huff and puff’’. I have the most modern DDA fleet of buses in the North East if not the country. Neither government through their tortuous and never-ending ‘Major Bus Schemes’ nor councils have ever matched the effort that operators make. Simple enforcement of proper road conduct is quite beyond the local authorities where I operate. 8. Franchising is a non starter for the simple reason that unlike the railways, that bottomless pit of money wasting, no operators are going to be waiting around for their possible turn in six or seven years time. First franchises may be good value. All that follow the initial franchise will not be good value. Why? Competitors have been eliminated. (Watch Dorset CC.) The fact that the clueless PTEGasaurs will probably oversee franchises would do nothing to engender good commercial practice. The demise of public buses would come much sooner with the squandering bureaucratic ways of the PTEGs or whatever their successors are called. How and why these unelected interferers still exist beggars belief. 9. Local and central government can only save the current dire station by leaving BSOG alone and making proper restitution to operators for the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme. The only practical way this could be done is by stopping “Domeworthy” vanity schemes such as the ridiculous HS2 scheme, Boris Johnson’s ludicrous “bus for London” and changing the imbalance whereby the North East has £5 per head for transport needs and the London area gets £2,500 per head. 10. The way that things are going is duplicitous in the extreme. Our customers are told that their free passes are safe whilst everything the DfT does is to undermine provision of services by the progressive dilutions of BSOG and ENCTS. 11. Further extended notice periods for route changes make no sense. Eight weeks is already long enough. Most networks were relatively stable until the government’s accepted need to economise happened. To extend this notice period will simply mean more “sudden deaths” particularly amongst small operators. How is that going to encourage competition? 12. Multi operator ticketing is a reasonable idea for passengers but must be safeguarded from being run by the major bus companies. It must be administered by either local authority or outsourced to a firm independent of bus operations so that proceeds are fairly distributed. 13. Mergers must be allowed to proceed as in the current revenue dwindling environment there ARE going to be more operators seeking to rationalize routes or simply withdraw from the industry. 14. You cannot “enhance” competition between a 10-bus company and a 200-bus company. It is a sheer nonsense to imagine otherwise. The small company can only survive amongst the giants by having a distinct and discreet market. OFT bans any common sense cooperation and the large groups, despite some pockets such as Oxford and Tyneside, find this convenient in ignoring small competitors. 15. I am sending a copy of Leven Valley’s current timetable booklet to each member of the Select Committee. I have highlighted the routes that are at risk and am very happy to elaborate on any points that may wish to be raised. My colleagues and I are all very concerned for our futures in providing fine public transport to our cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [11-09-2012 11:41] Job: 022801 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022801/022801_w035_020917_w009_ND_LBS 48 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.xml Ev w2 Transport Committee: Evidence customers and hope that your deliberations will end some of the very extreme disparities of provision between London and Teesside (South and North)! 4 February 2012 Written evidence from Monica Lilley (LBS 03) I believe the report overall is balanced and informative.