Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

Ev 58 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
introduce those zones well ahead of the benefits
actually coming along <strong>and</strong> should the increases not
be delayed until such time as they accept, say, Oyster
pay as you go.
Mr Harris: I do not think it is accurate to say that
the train companies have benefited. We made it quite
clear when we gave a derogation on regulated fares
that the move to zonal fares would have to be
revenue neutral <strong>and</strong> I am not aware of any evidence
to say that it has not been revenue neutral. There
were some people, because of historically artificially
low fares, when the zonal system was introduced
they did find themselves paying a much higher
percentage increase on a one-oV increase. So there
were losers when that happened but there were also
winners. If the Committee has any evidence that the
train operating companies have made substantial
profits rather than being revenue neutral I would be
very interested to see that. My underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the
second point of your question, was it necessary to
move to this right away, I suppose the argument
could be made that it could have been postponed.
There may be a technical reason why it had to be
done earlier—Mr Linnard might want to come in on
this—but I do suspect very strongly that whenever
that change was made the kind of increases that we
are seeing would have happened.
Q475 Clive EVord: Let me give you south east
London as an example. There is no alternative to
travelling into London other than the rail network;
buses are not an option for the length of journey so
far as commuters are concerned in my part of south
east London yet they are paying massive increases
on the basis of the London zones being introduced
with no justification whatsoever.
Mr Harris: The south east, of course, is slightly
diVerent from most of the other franchises because
of their 3% cap on average on regulatory fares
because of the very substantial risk that is going into
rolling stock in that particular area. However, I take
your point that smartcard technology has not yet
been introduced but that one-oV increase—<strong>and</strong> in
some cases a decrease—because of the introduction
of zonal fares. Can I just point out to the Committee
that we have moved from a position where there
were more than 97,000 diVerent fares to a situation
where there are 21 because of the introduction of
zonal fares? I said right at the beginning that part of
the attempt to encourage people onto public
transport is to make that journey more transparent,
more seamless; I fail to see how that can be done
when there are 97,000 diVerent combinations of
fares.
Q476 Chairman: You have done that, Minister, but
you have not actually sorted out the business of the
district councils who have to negotiate with
individual bus companies, have you? Since all of this
is funded at national level why is that not done at
national level? We have taken evidence of the
numbers of individual district councils that are still
negotiating; they are very large.
Mr Harris: You mean on concessionary fares?
Q477 Chairman: Yes.
Mr Harris: There are 291 travel concession
authorities outside London; there are 1500 bus
companies they have to negotiate with. I am not
confident in the DfT’s ability to devote the number
of man hours necessary to achieve those
negotiations.
Q478 Chairman: Could it not be done on a county
level or a regional level because each district council
having to negotiate with bus operators not only
takes up an inordinate amount of time <strong>and</strong>
administration, it does not always produce the result
that people want, does it?
Mr Harris: No, I think that is absolutely valid.
Q479 Chairman: They have no control over the level
of charges, do they?
Mr Harris: That is right. Once the scheme is up <strong>and</strong>
running <strong>and</strong> once we see how it is working if a
consensus emerges that we do want to move to
county level then there are powers within the act for
us to be able to do that. The caveat on that is that we
have just agreed a three year local government
settlement. I think it would be very diYcult to move
to county level before the end of that three year
period. It is not impossible <strong>and</strong> if the authorities are
determined to go down that road I think the
Government have to listen to them, but I think it
would be very diYcult before the end of that three
year period to start disaggregating the capital sums
or the revenue sums that have been given to the
councils <strong>and</strong> start recalculating that at a county
level. That is why I think it is more likely to happen
in three years.
Q480 Chairman: Do you have a workable estimate
of the increase in bus patronage because of the
English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme?
Mr Harris: Not to h<strong>and</strong>.
Mr Linnard: I do not think we have. What we do
know is what has happened since 2006 when the
concession was extended from half price to free <strong>and</strong>
there there has been a substantial increase in
patronage, particularly outside the metropolitan
areas.
Q481 Graham Stringer: Are you going to make any
attempt to keep the statistics that the department
keeps in such a way that you can compare 2009
statistics with 2003 statistics? We are going to be in
a diYculty in looking at what happens to bus
patronage when we get to 2010 or 2009 because we
will have had three diVerent systems over that period
of time. Has the department looked at whether it can
disaggregate the figures so that they can be
compared?
Mr Linnard: It is quite diYcult to do.
Q482 Graham Stringer: It may well be but will you
try?