| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): My hon. Friend has put her finger on the problem with the Bill. First, it is necessary to establish the category of exemptions, how broad a category it should be and precisely how it should be defined. Does she accept that that in itself is problematic, before one even begins to look at the other vexed question of defining exempted and non-exempted use?
Judy Mallaber: I am quite sure that Ministers and civil servants are perfectly capable of producing some fairly robust definitions. I would be happy if the provision applied simply to community transport in Derbyshire, although we are unlikely to get away with that.
There are a number of possible definitions. One is in the Transport Act 1985 in relation to organisations that are eligible for permits. We would also need to specify exactly which services qualified. I am not particularly hooked on the Bill; however, the issue will be raised in the forthcoming community transport report which the Government have commissioned.
I am happy for any mechanism to be considered. The Bill is an opportunity to raise the problem of the genuine discrimination between the services. If some other mechanism is used to address that issue and another way of providing better services for those with disabilities is found, I shall be equally happy. My aim is to get the issue on the agenda and push it forward. Much as the hon. Member for West Derbyshire would like the Bill to become law, I do not have any expectation of that happening, but it has given us an opportunity to ask for the issue to be taken seriously.
I should like to mention one other issue on the transport White Paper that community transport groups have raised with me, which relates to alternative methods of developing an integrated transport system. Local authorities have been asked to draw up local transport plans. The draft guidance puts strong emphasis on the importance of involving cyclists and walkers from the beginning. I hope that similar emphasis will be put on involving community transport at the start of the development of local transport plans. That may answer some of the questions that have been raised and make the financial mechanism in the Bill less necessary.
Community transport is important and provides a valuable service; I have not heard anyone argue with that. I support the principles of the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that public transport is not open to all members of the public and that there is discrimination against people with mobility problems. The Government have recognised that in the White Paper. I ask her to pass on to Transport Ministers how pleased we are that they will take the issues seriously. If she cannot accept the mechanism in the Bill, will she discuss with her colleagues alternative measures on the fuel duty rebate? If they cannot accept that, will she encourage Transport Ministers to consider alternative ways of assisting the
community transport service? I have every confidence that that will be done, because we are committed to a fair public transport system. I am confident that Ministers will look seriously at community transport issues.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham):
On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate myhon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing a place in the ballot and on introducing a measure to address an apparent anomaly in the funding of local bus schemes that discriminates unfairly against crucial community bus links.
The Bill raises some important issues with which all hon. Members can be sympathetic, whether they represent rural or urban constituencies. The distinguished cross-party sponsorship of the Bill shows the wide support that it has gained. I hope that it will strike a chord with the Government's apparent policy on public transport, as articulated so often by the Deputy Prime Minister, when he is in the country.
We support a Second Reading for the Bill and believe that the problems that it highlights deserve close scrutiny in Committee. It should be for the Committee, when the issue can be given a full airing, to decide whether the method of supporting community transport schemes set out in the Bill is the most practical way to tackle the problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. Many of the queries about eligibility and gateways raised by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) can be dealt with in Committee.
I am sure that, like me, all hon. Members have first-hand constituency experience of the essential service provided by community bus schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire has said, in rural areas, up to 20 per cent. of the population have no access to a car and local shops can be few and far between. For those people, such bus services are a lifeline.
In urban areas, too, elderly people in particular can be stranded if they live a mile or so away from essential services, as is so often the case. Such people obviously need links with shops, banks, post offices, doctors' surgeries, health centres and hospitals for appointments. In the Worthing and Adur districts in my constituency, local community bus schemes are run by very dedicated staff to provide links with just those essential services. Without such schemes, and if scheduled bus services do not pick up close by, people are reliant on friendly neighbours, family or expensive taxis, which are often out of their price range.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
Is my hon. Friend aware of the most recent Rural Development Commission survey of 1997, which showed that 75 per cent. of parishes do not have a regular scheduled daily bus service? In view of the astronomical hike in petrol duty of 17p a gallon and the 28p a gallon hike indiesel, will not rural people particularly be severely
Mr. Loughton:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This week's Budget did no service to people living in rural areas. The anomaly in transport provision in such areas has been exaggerated even more by Tuesday's events. I reiterate, however, that we are not just talking about rural communities.
Even more crucial than the plight of elderly people is that of disabled people, who are obviously even less mobile. Scheduled bus services are often unable to cope with wheelchairs, although, in some areas, low-floor buses are making wheelchair access easier. It therefore seems absurd that community buses, which are tailor-made to cope with the needs of elderly and less mobile people in particular, suffer discrimination at the hands of the taxation system--a system through which, by offering scheduled bus services a fuel duty rebate that is worth £270 million already and is likely to rise, owing to measures in the Budget, to around £320 million, the Government already recognise the work and worth of public transport systems. Through what appear to be minor technicalities, that system excludes arguably the most community-oriented and public-spirited of all bus services.
The existence of more than 5,000 community transport schemes in the United Kingdom bears testimony to the take-up rate. Many operate on a shoestring, often only through the goodwill of volunteer drivers and charitable fund raising, which pays for the maintenance and purchase of the buses. Many more community bus services are needed, and I am sure that many more would start up if given a level playing field on fuel duty rebate.
The main reason that community buses are excluded from the fuel duty rebate is that most schemes are either not available to all members of the public or, as a door-to-door service, cannot supply a schedule of stopping times and places. Typically, that excludes hopper bus dial-a-ride schemes, which are targeted specifically at elderly and disabled people. The provision of disabled access and wheelchair lifts is proving particularly costly, never mind their on-going maintenance.
In October, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury rejected an extension of the criteria for granting the fuel duty rebate on the grounds that it would entail extra expenditure or a lower rebate overall, and that the provision of dial-a-ride services should be left to each local authority. Much local authority transport spending is taken up by the transporting of school children, especially those who attend special educational needs schools, as well as by many other competing causes. That is understandable. Given the Government's pump priming of local authority bus service provision in rural areas, it would be only consistent to allow local authorities to promote community bus services as well--if they enjoyed the same fuel duty rebate. I know that my local authorities would like to be able to do just that. Community buses do not stack up the raw miles or passenger numbers of the scheduled services, as they are closely targeted and localised, but that should in no way diminish the vital role that they play.
The total amount involved has not been quantified by the Government, but it need not be excessive. It could be merely a matter of the redistribution of the existing rebate funds of £320 million, part of which is being used to fund empty or almost empty buses, which does not seem to be the most efficient subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire said that services in his county travel about 1.2 million miles a year, carry 443,000 passengers, use more than 265,000 litres of fuel and, if the Bill had been law, would have been able to claim a rebate last year of about £80,000. The figure would of course be much greater after the Budget. We are talking not about small tin-pot schemes but about major contributions to community transport, carrying a great number of people who would otherwise have severely limited transport choices.
The sum is not enormous in the great scheme of things or in the context of bus subsidies overall, but it is an enormous amount to the small community bus service operators and could make the difference between survival or otherwise. The measure is timely, in the wake of the Budget, which brought about an enormous increase of 11.6 per cent. in road diesel duty, bringing it up to 51.1p a litre: the highest duty by far in Europe, and perhaps the highest in the entire world.
That is another substantial stealth tax hike and it is already having serious repercussions for the road freight haulage industry, part of which is already looking to reflag its vehicles and operate from the continent. Tax on diesel is 2.5 times lower in Germany, which is the next highest charger.
The Government seem content that competition will now come from French, German and Belgian lorry drivers filling up on the continent and coming here to take British loads on British roads to British destinations. By no stretch of the imagination will there be similar competition from dial-a-ride--or should I say telephone-un-bus?--services operating from Paris and Brussels. I fear that they will not penetrate as far as Derbyshire. Schemes will be severely financially penalised.
Apart from the effects on the freight industry, the diesel duty rise may have disastrous consequences for the economics of many ordinary bus services, let alone the community schemes, which under current legislation will suffer the full brunt of the increases.
As the green tax Minister, the Economic Secretary may be interested to know about the implications for environmentally friendly road fuel gases. Many of us were pleased that in the Budget the Government revived the previous Government's initiative to promote liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas over fossil fuels by substantially reducing the duty on them, although even after the 29 per cent. cut the duty on road fuel gases in this country remains the highest in the European Union. The changes suggested in the Bill could go some way towards providing further financial incentives to promote the use of road fuel gases in community buses converted for the purpose. That should and could be considered more closely in Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |