On the buses

Ellis Thorpe

Free bus-travel plans for pensioners and the disabled appear to have universal approval. They were greeted with cross-party applause in Holyrood when announced appropriately on Christmas Eve. From New Labour's rank and file the Executive's flagship policy has been welcomed as a "progressive" measure.

Such has been the enthusiasm for the "free" national anytime/anywhere plans, later to be extended to young people, it may seem churlish to be critical. However, it is not playing scrooge but a devils advocate to examine the proposals from a Left perspective and consider the alternatives.

Though it is the free market bourgeois economist Milton Friedman who once said "there is no such thing as a free lunch, it is true as Bevan said "socialism is about priorities". The free travel plans must be put in the context that in Scotland, bus travel is supplied by a few UK multinational corporations who already get generous helpings of public money in subsidies for running a public service. No one, at least publicly, has pointed out; these go into the corporate coffers and the creation of surpluses/profits. No one now points out how Labour in opposition was highly critical of Tory "de-regulation and privatisation" policies which saw the wholesale selling-off of public assets to private enterprise. And no one points out how transport unions, like for instance the RMT, are opposed to the privatisation of the public sector.

What those on the Left of the Labour Party find hard to swallow is how New Labour has embraced the so-called neoliberal agenda, not just as a plank of domestic economic policy but also in trade policy and most significantly in foreign policy, with, some would argue, disastrous consequences.

It is not necessarily the case that opposing de-regulation and privatisation means approval for the tight regulatory regime prior to the changes in the early 1980s. Clearly in the case of bus travel, the system of licensing for supplying buses and routes was in need of reform. Fares and timetables were also controlled, whereas now all that is left of the 1930s legislation are rules for bus roadworthiness, driver competence and notification of changes; formalities to the Traffic Commissioner.

Free bus travel for pensioners, the disabled and young people must be warmly welcomed as contributing to the welfare of these groups.

What transformed the bus transport industry was privatisation; the transfer of ownership, control and management of assets from the public to the private sector. There were 72 National Bus Companies, typically run by municipal corporations in towns and cities; with small private bus service suppliers in rural areas. The nationalised industry was broken up and put up for sale and the regulatory regime demolished; beginning with inter-city services and then local and rural. At first, the number of companies that could be owned was limited to three and not in neighbouring towns or cities. Quickly these rules were obsolete as rivalry, mergers, take-overs etc forced many small operators out of business.

What is the situation today after the "bourgeois revolution"? Three large multinational/global transport corporations have over 50% of the UK bus market. The largest has 22% market share, a bus fleet of9,300 and runs 20% of all UK local bus services with 55% of all urban bus revenues 4 a management buy-out to global corporation over twenty five years. The 5 largest started with two buses in 1980 and now has a fleet of 7,200 and 18,000 employees. Today independent operators have 14% of the UK bus market, while the remnants of the public sector, the municipals have 6%. How true Marx's dictum, "Accumulate, accumulate, that is Moses the law and the prophets". Just as the dynamic of modern capitalism is accumulation and concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands. What is of great interest is the turnover of these large transport corporations. From annual reports of the "Big Two" it seems annual UK turnover for the bus divisions is £1.5bn, with a surplus of £186m. Group turnover is £4.3bn with a surplus of £352m.

What about passenger numbers? Has the bourgeois revolution meant a big increase in the number of people using all these additional buses? The "Big Two" boast of how many millions of passengers they carry but surveys show a decline in passenger numbers since 1960. While the Scottish Executive is coy about revealing passenger numbers in its transport evaluation report -there are none -from other sources it seems there was a 27% fall in numbers between 1985 and 1995. However, the Transport Minister does say there is a slight increase in numbers over the last four years. Numbers have been boosted by a 40% jump in journeys made by the elderly and disabled with the 16 free local bus schemes. However, one local authority Public Transport Unit received much publicity, when at the end of the nineties it reported widespread under-use of buses: not only in off-peak periods but also in rural areas at all times during the week and week-ends. Some buses had carried no passengers over six months; others were carrying passengers at a cost in subsidy of £230 per head.

It is necessary to ask: What is the cost to the public purse of the "free" proposals and what is the general level of subsidies?

Again, the Transport Committee is not clear on these matters, but perhaps a request under the Freedom of Information Act could provoke some clarity. what can be estimated from draft budgets is that the new free scheme, when fully up and running will cost a capped subsidy of £230m a year, compared with the current subsidy paid to local authorities of £106m. These are the direct subsidies but there are others, some hidden but some which can be teased out by persistence. There is an 80% fuel duty rebates costing nearly £60m a year and another £30m to run "socially necessary services" and the uneconomic rural buses. Capitalisds contradictions are shown by the fact that at the same time subsidies are paid to run rural buses, subsidies are paid to rural petrol stations to supply fuel to motorists who wont use the buses.

From what figures are made available it seems likely the total public transport spending by the Executive will top £500m over the next financial year.

Free bus travel for pensioners, the disabled and young people must be warmly welcomed as contributing to the welfare of these groups. But at the same time, an economic and political appraisal of public services being supplied by private enterprise must continue to be made by all on the Left, but in particular by those in the Labour Party. First, it is objected that as long as there are many thousands of empty seats being subsidised from public funds no additional schemes, like the "free" travel should get more subsidies.

Second, it is time for the Labour Party to debate again the meaning and relevance of the new Clause Four, as is suggested in the Fabian Review's Clause Four special. Perhaps New Labour supporters ought to recall the words: To work for "high quality public services where those undertakings are either owned by the public or accountable to them".

Isnt it time to evaluate the privatised bus transport industry in terms of cost supply and how accountable large corporations are to the public whose money they receive in subsidies?

Third, in the light of the 1995 Clause Four, no alternative to the private sector should neglect the message of the "old" Clause Four -whatever is proposed, it will be "upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange..."Fourth, as an interim measure, for the public to share in "the full fruits of their industry" the supply of bus service should be split. Private corporations supplY buses to local authorities and community groups, like Dial-a-Bus and Village Hopper but it is the local authority which gets the fares revenues.

Finally two observations from the political economy of capitalism -Marx identified accumulation as the dynamic of capitalist development; look at the bus transport industry. But not only accumulation; the concentration of capital in "the hands of the few not the many". And starkly Marx stated the criticism made by many on the Left of New Labour the executive of the Modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie". This is because as one legal critic of the corporation points out about New Labour's mantra of "partnership of business and government, "when business and government are partners, government effectively abdicates sovereignty over the corporation'.

Ellis Thorpe is a member of Gordon CLP