| Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 53) on Rural Bus Subsidy Grants for 2000-01 (HC Papaer No. 302)
|
|
Mr. Hill: I am grateful for the general positive response of the Opposition to our proposals. I am required to reply to 23 questions or points of interest and I cannot guarantee that I shall be able to do so this afternoon. If I do not, I hope that members of the Committee will identify those questions that I have failed to answer and I shall write to them. I shall deal with the points sequentially, starting with those made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who spoke for the official Opposition. I am grateful to him for the welcome that he gave the reports, even if it was slightly qualified. He launched into a not unfamiliar Labour spin-doctor-style condemnation of our so-called obsession with newness. There is nothing wrong with newness. This is a modernising Government, and we shall introduce new provisions wherever appropriate; it is not newness for its own sake—certainly not with regard to the rural bus initiative. It would be an easy source of finances for services that have otherwise been provided or could be provided from local government funds if we said that such grants would be available for existing services or those that have been recently withdrawn. The object of the rural bus initiative is to reach those parts that existing or tendered services have not managed to reach. We make no apology for targeting new or enhanced existing services. The hon. Gentleman asked about community transport. I commend the excellent role that so many local communities play as they band together to provide various forms of community transport, many of which are highly innovative. I am sure that he welcomes the fact that we shall have the power to make grants available for community transport under the Transport Bill. The hon. Members for Eastbourne and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) expressed concern about the segregation of different transport services. I assure them that the Government are reviewing school transport, which represents an enormous Government investment nationwide—by which I mean Scotland and Wales, as well as England—amounting to about £650 million per annum. It is important to determine whether that money is wisely spent. We welcome the fact that some challenge schemes involve integration between school buses and other bus services. Inspiration has now winged its way to me on PSV. We are not sure exactly what is meant by the notion of a qualifying number of passengers. That problem has arisen during our consideration of the Transport Bill. PSV licences can apply to vehicles of any size and are issued to operators who initially take a commercial decision on whether they can make a service work. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne does not find that explanation helpful, I should be happy to write to him. The hon. Gentleman asked when we would move away from providing annual grants for rural bus services. I am delighted to say that the Transport Bill provides for that. I dare say that it will be a source of immense regret for hon. Members present that this is likely to be the last time that we shall debate rural bus grants. The hon. Gentleman was rather naughty to suggest that the Government intend to abolish the fuel duty rebate. Come, come. He knows that they do not. Subsidising bus services is the subject of an inquiry by the Commission for Integrated Transport, the findings of which we shall consider in due course. The Government do not intend to remove FDR, so I have no means of explaining the possible costs of removal. Mr. Waterson: The Minister is being patient in answering my questions. I listened carefully to his comments, and even read his lips carefully. I take it that he is not deploying his legendary sense of humour in making that commitment, and that it is a serious one. Mr. Hill: I ought to be flattered by the reference to my legendary sense of humour, but, read my lips—we have no present intentions to abolish fuel duty rebate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned changing the bus challenge scheme criteria in order to encourage previously unsuccessful bidding authorities. Each year will inevitably result in winners and losers, and some authorities that did not win last year are likely to have won on previous occasions. All the provisions are subject to continuous monitoring and scrutiny. We shall examine carefully how the projects have worked, and if it is necessary to change the criteria, we shall do so. Our aspiration is that the scheme will continue. Obviously, it is everyone's aspiration that it can continue and be enhanced. It has certainly been successful so far. The hon. Gentleman was also rather naughty to charge the Government with removing decision making from local government in this case, and, he suggested, in many other cases, too. On the contrary, the Government are restoring decision making to local government. Over their 18 years, the Administration that he supported introduced no fewer than 60 Acts of Parliament that removed powers from local authorities. I realise that a change of heart has taken place on that issue, as on many others, as the Opposition adjust to the reality of opinion polls. However, they will need to establish rather more of a track record in their new-found enthusiasm for local government before they become persuasive to either hon. Members or local government. The basis of the Government's policy on local government, especially in relation to transport, is our belief that local people should find local solutions to local problems. In our challenge and bus grants policy, rather than removing powers from local authorities, we face a slight dilemma in that, as the hon. Gentleman must realise, the entire thrust of Government policy on local government finance is towards a single local government financial pot. That raises interesting issues about the future of such schemes. Finally in response to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I should rebut his suggestions that we are removing powers from local authorities. Local authorities bid for bus grants services and challenge schemes—they identify and we respond. In no sense can we be said to be removing power and authority from local government. As I have tried to point out, local authorities have had considerable success when we have responded to them. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the challenges faced by local authorities regarding bus services in Essex. Just three weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting the Dengie peninsular in that great county to observe the effects of a local bus scheme implemented on the basis of the rural bus grant. The bus service had been carrying 5,000 passengers a month at the end of October, before the implementation of the new and enhanced local community bus services. At the end of January, it was carrying 9,000 passengers a month. That is a brilliant success for the Dengie community transport scheme and a powerful sign of the overall success of the Government's rural bus grant initiative. I express my gratitude for the more wholehearted welcome that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall gave to the reports. I am delighted to say that, as he will have already spotted, we have been able to approve two or three initiatives in his county under the rural bus challenge schemes for this year. He asked about monitoring. We are monitoring and we expect local authorities to monitor; we are asking them to let us see the results. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the take-up of rural bus grant moneys. As was to be expected given the need to consult and to seek the powers to make payments, some authorities did not take up the full grant in 1998–99. I am pleased to report that almost all authorities are drawing down the full grant in 1999–2000—the first full year. I hope that that includes North Yorkshire, which failed to take up the offer of about £100,000 for the introduction of new and enhanced rural bus services in the first year of the scheme's operation. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will exercise appropriate influence in appropriate quarters to ensure proper take-up in future. I understood the hon. Gentleman's comments about setting targets for bus use. The Government have set about 4,700 targets in different areas and, as I have been wont to say, I hope that we shall be able to meet at least some of them. We shall not set targets for the rural bus initiative. We are content that 1,845 new and enhanced services have been introduced, carrying an extra 10 million passengers in the first year of operation. That is a significant achievement. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the provision of rural bus services. I am conscious of his recent parliamentary question on the availability of bus services in different sized parishes, because I had to approve the answer. Although there is some lack of reach, especially to the smallest parishes, it may be of comfort to know that the Department's national travel survey shows that 85 per cent. of rural households in 1996–98 were within 13 minutes' walk of a bus stop with a daily or better service. Interestingly, that datum was the same for 1985–86 before deregulation and privatisation. The survey also includes the encouraging fact that 16 per cent. of rural households in 1996–98 were within six minutes' walk of a bus stop with a half-hourly or better service, which is up from 12 per cent. in 1985–86. In this case—as in so many others—things are getting better. The hon. Gentleman asked about the integration of bus services and main line railway stations. That is not a matter for direct Government intervention, but it is critical to the concept of public transport integration and it forms part of the guidance that we offer to local authorities when developing their local transport plans. He will be aware of the good work that his county of Cornwall has done to secure bus links between railway stations at Helston and Redruth. He also asked about driver training, community bus drivers and associated costs, to which I do not have an answer. I shall endeavour to write to him and other Committee members. Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for decent schools transport. I was fascinated by his observations that the school run is proving to be as burdensome to rural traffic conditions as it is in urban areas. I must confess that I had thought of the school run as an urban phenomenon. During peak periods it accounts for 25 per cent. of all traffic on the roads in our major cities. We are working hard to encourage children to use modes of transport other than the car. It is interesting to note that 80 per cent. of primary school children and 67 per cent. of secondary school children live within two miles of their schools. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I were, in our youth— which in my case was many years ago—willing to use modes of transport other than the car to get to school. I cannot help but think that the same opportunities for relatively easy access to schools exist for many children. Two and a half months ago I had the pleasure and privilege, along with my junior counterparts in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, of launching the report of the school travel advisory group. It contains many positive recommendations for encouraging children out of cars for their journeys to school, promoting walking, cycling and the use of buses. We included those recommendations in local transport guidance. Incidentally, they also form part of the Government's recent announcements on road safety. We are working hard to encourage children to travel to school by modes of transport other than the car for their health and to reduce congestion. I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the large number of points raised. Resolved,
|
| |
| Prepared 20 March 2000 | |
