John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East): In 1984, I stood before this House to condemn the Government's transport policy, which was grounded in an ideological obsession with competition, profit, privatisation, and reduced government financial support. These policies resulted in higher fares, poorer services, massive redundancies, and cuts to rail services and bus routes—especially in rural areas. Under the Labour Government, transport employment increased by 6,000 jobs annually. By contrast, the four years of Tory administration brought a reduction of 30,000 transport jobs each year, totalling a staggering 120,000. Both users and employees were worse off under this approach. The Traffic Commissioners resisted applications from private coach companies operating on profitable routes, knowing it would undermine the cross-subsidised rural and urban transport that had sustained public services for decades. Yet, the London Regional Transport Bill would further deepen the crisis with higher fares, fewer services, and even more job losses.

By comparison, Labour’s successful transport policies in areas like Tyne and Wear and South Yorkshire—where subsidies covered 50–60% of revenue costs—were in line with European standards. This starkly contrasted with the UK's national average, which hovered around 30%. Passenger numbers in Labour-controlled areas grew, reversing years of decline. Meanwhile, the National Bus Company, under forced austerity and high fares policies, saw its passenger numbers fall by 60 million annually under the Tories—a severe escalation from the 7 million yearly decline during Labour's tenure. Though the National Bus Company turned a profit of £40 million by 1984, up from £5 million in 1979, these profits came at the cost of rural services and thousands of job losses. The increase in profits became a prelude to privatisation, while rural communities and public transport users were left to suffer. The Tories lauded increased inter-city services, but it was a hollow victory, coming at the expense of rural areas and driving up competition for inter-city rail services, already burdened with financial difficulties.

Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for Transport: In response, I argued that the motion, accusing the government of causing a "deterioration of British transport systems," was baseless. Since 1979, total passenger mileage has increased by 12%, with private car mileage rising 18%. While it was true that public transport usage had declined—rail passengers by 5% and bus passengers by 17%—this reflected progress. More people had the freedom to travel by car, and that was something to celebrate, not criticise.

Labour's Transport White Paper from 1977 admitted that investment in transport must be balanced by available resources. Where was the extra money to come from? British Rail was not denied any worthwhile investment proposals, and under firm management, had turned a £175 million loss into an £8 million surplus by 1983. Efficiency and customer satisfaction were the true drivers of success—not endless taxpayer subsidies.

What’s Happened Since? Revisiting the Debate with Modern Data

Fast forward to today, many of the trends identified in the 1984 debate have persisted, though with some important twists. Bus services have been significantly impacted by funding cuts, privatisation, and reduced government subsidies, particularly in rural areas.

A 2023 report found that over 3,000 bus routes have been cut in the last decade alone. Rural communities are again the hardest hit, facing ever-reducing services or none at all, echoing the warnings raised in 1984. Fares have continued to climb. According to Transport Focus, bus fares have risen by an average of 55% in real terms since 2010—far outpacing inflation and wage growth, making public transport increasingly unaffordable for many.

The total number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped by over 60% between the mid-1980s and the present day, highlighting an ongoing decline in passenger numbers, while London's bus usage has remained somewhat more stable, thanks to public funding and fare controls. Privatisation, initially hailed for its ability to drive down costs, has largely failed to deliver value for money in public transport. A 2019 report from the Campaign for Better Transport revealed that 56% of people surveyed believed bus services had worsened over the last decade. The emphasis on profit continues to drive rural services into the ground, leaving isolated communities further disconnected from essential services and economic opportunities.

John Prescott's criticism in 1984 of competition and privatisation seems prescient in light of these developments. While Nicholas Ridley’s argument about efficiency and customer focus holds some truth, the failure to sustain public funding and investment in essential transport infrastructure has left many areas struggling. Today, the debate over how to fund and manage public transport rages on, with calls growing for renationalisation or a return to higher subsidies, particularly in light of the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions.

The conversation, it seems, is far from over.