| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: I cannot believe what I am hearing, especially the hon. Gentleman's latest excuse. The state pays for the emergency services: it pays the whole of their fuel duty. Admittedly, they pay part back to the Treasury, but it is all the same money, going round and round. To suggest that one cannot subsidise community transport because the ambulance, police and fire service would want similar subsidies is scraping the bottom of the exhaust pipe.
Mr. Dismore: That was an interesting intervention. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with my point. The subsidy might affect the balance between local and national Government--in terms of where the money comes from. I also mentioned the position of general practitioners, who obviously use their cars a great deal for community benefit. I do not recall the taxpayer ever picking up the petrol bill of a GP at the filling station. The same is true of community nurses. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it can be developed.
That begs the question whether the existing system works effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley pointed out the many flaws in the existing public transport system. If the fuel duty rebate were such a good way to support public transport, we would have better bus services. She mentioned constituents who benefit from community transport schemes. Perhaps I may respond by mentioning constituents who suffer real problems with their bus service, which already benefits from the fuel duty rebate. For example, consider the 113 service in my constituency. A constituent writes:
The head teacher of one of my local secondary schools wrote to me complaining about the school bus service provided by Arriva on behalf of London Transport. She tells me of the problems of almost 100 students who have to travel towards Edgware and leave the school from 15.30 onwards. The buses, scheduled at 15.31., 15.41 and 15.57, should serve the needs of the school adequately.
Liz Blackman (Erewash):
My hon. Friend seems to be arguing that the fuel duty rebate has an inverse relationship to the quality of service. Is he really prepared to sustain that argument?
Mr. Dismore:
My argument is that the fuel duty rebate has little impact on the quality of service from what I can see in my constituency of the public bus network. I get many complaints about the bus service in my constituency. I mentioned the 113, which is one of the greatest culprits.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I have indulged the hon. Gentleman long enough. He is stretching his remarks way beyond the confines of the Bill.
Mr. Dismore:
I shall refrain from quoting further examples of the rotten bus service in my constituency. I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) that there is no relationship between the rebate and quality of service.
Mr. Loughton:
Before the hon. Gentleman reads out the entire timetable of the outer London bus service, is he saying that bus fuel duty rebate should be scrapped altogether to create a level playing field for community bus services? If he is, has he cleared with it with the Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Dismore:
I was not saying that. I was saying that I welcome the review of the operation of such schemes. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to remind him of the contents of the White Paper, I would be happy to read out the extracts again.
Mr. Loughton
indicated dissent.
Mr. Dismore:
The hon. Gentleman obviously remembers what the White Paper says. I am pleased that the Government will consider the schemes in the round, not only from the point of view of the existing narrow schemes but in respect of the more environmentally friendly fuels that we were discussing in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. There is a possibility of greatly developing those schemes. As that happens, I would like to think that we could consider community transport in the round.
Page 111 of the transport White Paper shows that the Government are acting on local transport. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) made a valid point when he said that we are not only discussing rural transport but urban transport. I am pleased that the White Paper talks about local authorities needing actively to involve local people, businesses, transport operators and other organisations, such as those providing health care, in drawing up plans.
That is important in my area because one of the biggest single complaints concerns the health service. People in my constituency in Colindale and west Hendon have difficulty travelling to hospital. Since the previous Government closed Edgware hospital, they have had terrible trouble trying to get to the alternative acute facilities at Barnet because it can require three bus changes. I am pleased that as we develop local transport plans, the health service will be involved. I know from discussions with the chair of my local health authority that there is commitment to working with partners such as the local authority to solve this thorny problem. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is trying to make an intervention. The Government are making great progress on rural transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. These general remarks about local transport and national transport are outside the scope of the Bill, which is about exemption from fuel duties.
Mr. Dismore:
The reason why I raise the issue of rural transport is that the proponents of the Bill relied in their arguments on the need to support community transport services. It is appropriate for me to respond to those arguments by questioning the need for the Bill and saying what the Government are already doing for rural transport.
In the Budget, the Government stressed their commitment to improving public transport in rural areas. Last year's Budget allocated an extra £50 million for transport in rural areas, the majority of which was used to provide additional bus services in England. In the Budget statement on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor allocated an extra £20 million to the rural transport fund and £10 million to the capital modernisation fund--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has heard me. We are talking about whether certain categories of vehicle should be eligible for the exemption from fuel duty. General arguments about rural or any other form of transport are not pertinent.
Mr. Dismore:
In those circumstances, perhaps I can conclude by saying that the Bill does not provide a complete answer to a real problem. Support for rural transport can be provided more satisfactorily through some of the initiatives announced by the Government in the transport White Paper. The Government have already addressed many of the problems, but the Bill does nothing to deal with environmental concerns.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
It is a pleasure to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I apologise that I missed part of his speech; I was tied up in another meeting. I am grateful to him for the excellent brief that he has provided on community transport. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I must confess--as a former law and order Minister, it is dangerous to make such confessions--that, as a young child, on occasion I misbehaved by sticking a
The Bill is an innocuous little measure. It is a simple one-clause Bill. All the points that the hon. Member for Hendon raised were suitable for Committee. One heard cynics say before we came into the Chamber that the Labour party was opposed to the measure. I said, "I don't believe it. It cannot be." The measure is right up the Labour party's street. It is exactly the sort of measure that Labour Members used to advance just before the election.
The Bill is about three things close to the heart of Labour Members--buses, communities and subsidy. In those circumstances, I cannot imagine that any Labour Member opposes it. I heard the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) support my hon. Friend. I am glad to see the same all-party support for the measure that we had for the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill earlier this morning.
As the Bill has already had a good airing this morning, and can safely be sent up to Committee before we end our proceedings today, I shall be relatively brief. There are more than 5,000 community transport schemes across the United Kingdom, which offer a vital service to sections of the community, such as the elderly and disabled people, who might otherwise be denied access to essential day-to-day amenities. It enables them to get to shopping and health care facilities or simply to visit friends or other community groups. It gives them a chance to participate in things that they would not otherwise be able to do.
That is not an exaggeration. The Rural Development Commission--which the Government are abolishing--said:
It was a pleasure in the Budget debate to follow the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who made a passionate plea on behalf of those people in rural areas who are not wealthy but need to have a car--yes, perhaps an old car, perhaps a slightly smoky car, but, if they do not have a car, they do not travel. It is not that their choice of buses is limited to those at 8 o'clock, 8.5, 8.30, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock and so on; there are no buses whatever in large parts of the rural areas.
The unfortunate, often inadvertent, discrimination that those people face is that Government Departments--we find this in the health service--look at the structure of the country and say, "There is an area with a lot of buses. People therefore must be poor, so we shall allocate more money. There is an area with a lot of cars; they must be wealthy, so we shall allocate less money." In rural areas, there can be as much poverty and deprivation as in urban areas, but motor vehicles are essential if people--including those who are trying to return to work--are to find a job. I believe that the new deal will reveal how difficult it is, in rural areas, to get transport to work.
Community transport fills a vital role, as it has since its inception. The hon. Member for Hendon made a surprising speech. No doubt, I shall get a letter from London Transport next week, correcting me, but, as a
rural Member, I can say that, if buses in the lake district mountains emitted the smoke that I often see coming from London buses, we would make pretty sure that they were put out of action straight away. It sits ill in the mouth of a London Member to suggest that community buses in our rural areas might be more polluting or dirty than commercial buses. That comment--and a few others--may prove a slight source of embarrassment to the Government and to other Labour party members when we have the benefit of analysing Hansard on Monday.
It beggars belief to suggest that a rebate for community transport on the same basis as the rebate for commercial operators would be too complicated for the Treasury to operate. A Department that can apparently make sense of self-assessment has some pretty clever civil servants in it--civil servants cleverer than this taxpayer trying to complete the forms--so the argument that the Treasury would not be competent to administer such a scheme is not persuasive.
"The buses are still a disgrace, both in presentation and maintenance along with a service which is unreliable and inconsistent."
I can only share those sentiments. The problems have clearly not been cured by the availability to Metroline, the bus company in question, of the fuel duty rebate. I question whether such relief would achieve some of the objectives claimed for it by proponents of the Bill.
2.7 pm
"75 per cent. of parishes had no daily public bus service in 1997".
Upwards of 20 per cent. of people in rural areas have no access whatever to a car.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |