Supplementary memorandum by the Social
Exclusion Unit (Bus 52A)
The Social Exclusion Unit gave evidence to
the Transport sub-committee's Bus Inquiry on 21 May. During this
hearing we agreed to provide supplementary evidence in response
to specific questions on our research from Mr Gregory Campbell
and Mr Bill O'Brien. This additional information is attached at
annexes A and B.
Catherine Doherty
Social Exclusion Unit
11 June 2002
Annex A
This evidence has been provided in response
to a series of questions from the committee member Mr O'Brien
to which the SEU undertook to provide an additional note.
"Arising out of your report, and I notice
there has been a lot of research done, which areas are you concentrating
on for research? In what areas did you canvass people?" (Question
509/10 in the transcript for 21 May)
DETAILED LOCAL
AREA STUDIES
As part of establishing a secure evidence base
for the transport and social exclusion project the SEU commissioned
five local area studies. The idea was to produce both quantitative
and qualitative evidence as to the extent to which the current
transport system reduces people's access to essential services
including work, learning and health care.
The areas were chosen as exemplars of different
types of settlements, including both rural and urban, and because
they contain high levels of deprivation across the whole area
or in "hidden pockets" within it.
The research, carried out on the SEU's behalf
by external consultants, involved five key elements:
— mapping key local services and transport
provision;
— in-depth interviews and focus groups
with both users and non-users of transport;
— interviews with transport providers,
local service providers and employers;
— evaluation of new transport initiatives
in each of the areas;
— all of these strands will feed into
an analysis of the costs and benefits of developing low, medium
and high levels of improvement to transport services within the
areas studied.
A summary report comparing the findings of the
five areas is currently being prepared. We will arrange for copies
to be made available to the committee upon its completion.
The individual characteristics of the five areas
studied
1. Liverpool (Metropolitan)
North Huyton
— 10 kilometers from Liverpool City
centre;
— Princess ward, Knowsley MBC;
— Eighth Index of Multiple Deprivation
(IMD) 2000[35],
New Deal for Communities (NDC) area; and
— Merseytravel are responsible for
transport.
2. Nottingham (urban)
Bulwell
— 6 kilometres from Nottingham City
centre;
— Bulwell east and west wards, Nottingham
City Council (Unitary);
— Bulwell east 395th IMD 2000, Bulwell
west 604th IMD 2000;
— Nottingham City Council are responsible
for transport.
3. Newcastle (post-industrial suburban)
Moor Park
— 12 kilometres from Newcastle City
centre;
— Collingwood ward, North Tyneside;
— Nexus PTE responsible for transport.
Lemington
— 7 kilometers from Newcastle City
centre;
— Lemington ward, Newcastle Upon Tyne
MBC;
— 1460th IMD 2000 (ie not in 10 per
cent most deprived but pockets of hidden deprivation within a
relatively affluent area); and
— Nexus PTE responsible for transport.
4. London (inner city)
Broadwater Farm Estate:
— 13 kilometres from centre of London;
— West Green ward, LB Haringey;
— 857th IMD 2000 (ie not in 10 per
cent most deprived but Broadwater Farm estate is recognised as
closer in socio-economic character to the adjacent Bruce Grove
ward 207th IMD 2000); and
— Transport for London responsible
for transport
5. Devon (rural)
East and West Worlington, North Devon:
— 22 kilometres from Tiverton and 14
kilometres from South Molton;
— 3337th IMD 2000 (ie not in 10 per
cent most deprived but accessibility ranking is only 325th and
since 2000 the only bus service has been withdrawn);
— Devon County Council responsible
for transport.
Stockland, East Devon:
— 10 kilometres from Honiton;
— 5566th IMD 2000 (ie not in 10 per
cent most deprived but accessibility rank 178th and recently introduced
Fare Car scheme);
— Devon County Council responsible
for transport.
OTHER SOURCES
OF INFORMATION
The Consultation
The transport and social exclusion consultation
ran from July 26 to late October. Over 3,000 consultation letters
were distributed to people and organisations with an interest
in transport and social exclusion issues, including local authorities,
commercial operators, academics, local residents, user groups
and non-transport service providers (NHS trusts and colleges,
for example).
To support the consultation process, a series
of consultation events were held—from Truro to Sunderland—where
an SEU speaker discussed the work and heard about local problems
and potential solutions.
Over 850 responses were returned. These have
been an important source of information for the project.
Office of National Statistics (ONS) Omnibus survey
The SEU commissioned the ONS to undertake a
series of questions on our behalf as part of their Omnibus survey.
These were designed to ascertain the extent to which people experience
difficulties accessing services as a result of the current transport
system. This provided us with nation-wide data from a reliable
and representative sample.
The Omnibus survey is run eight months of the
year and modules can be commissioned in one or more months. The
survey asks a variety of questions of a representative sample
of adults aged 16 and above. In the SEU commissioned modules,
respondents were asked if they used services, how they travelled
there and whether or not they found it difficult to access services.
The overall response rate for the modules commissioned was 64
per cent, giving a total sample of 6,991 respondents.
Visits
Since the project started, members of the SEU
have been on visits both in the UK and abroad—to identify
areas of good practice, see innovative solutions and listen to
the views of people who suffer from the problems inflicted by
poor transport. For example we have visited Cheshire, Edinburgh,
Manchester, Lewisham, Newcastle, York and Copenhagen.
Many of the ideas and thinking behind the projects
visited have been included in our interim report.
Outside expertise
The SEU recruited help and commissioned research
from outside of Government to inform its thinking as the project
progressed.
Academics with a transport background and experts
with extensive experience of planning transport were asked to
offer their advice and opinions.
Annex B
This evidence has been provided in response
to a question regarding the reclaiming of hospital travel costs
from the committee member Mr Campbell, to which the SEU undertook
to provide an additional note.
"In some regions where there is a free transport
scheme, have you any evidence of marginalised communities who
live in the area but do not have access either to rail or buses,
that they are marginalised further because of the difficulty that
would pertain in terms of reclaiming their hospital travel. Is
there any evidence of this?" (Question 527 in the transcript
for 21 May)
RECLAIMING HOSPITAL
TRAVEL COSTS
1. Many of the consultation responses we
received mention the difficulties individuals face when trying
to reclaim their travel costs to hospital, either as a patient
or a visitor. This can be due to not knowing the entitlement exists,
not knowing how to claim or feeling stigmatised as a result of
the process, or because the journey involved to claim the reimbursement
would prove too onerous.
2. We have also incorporated evidence from
the National Travel Survey (NTS) in our analysis of the problem.
They found that the service people have most difficulty accessing
is healthcare and in particular travelling to hospital . The NTS
found that between 15 and 20 per cent of people find it difficult
to travel to hospital. For people without a car a much higher
proportion of people—31 per cent—experience difficulties.
3. On the issue of whether or not we have
direct evidence that people in isolated communities are
disproportionately affected by the arrangements for receiving
financial support, we have only limited anecdotal evidence. For
example one consultation response states that
"We have heard from the residents of Skelmersdale
that often they have to return to claim the money, which they
cannot afford." (West Lancashire Primary Care Trust)
4. However the problems people encounter
reclaiming expenses on the day of the visit (perhaps because the
hospital admin. office is closed) coupled with the general uneven
pattern of transport provision, suggests that marginalised communities
are likely to face additional difficulties claiming this entitlement.
35 The Index of multiple deprivation is a ward level
index made up of six ward level indices: income, employment, health
and disability, education and training, housing and geographical
access to services. There are 8,414 wards in England. The most
deprived ward is ranked number 1. Back
| 
