---

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Chair does not have responsibility for the answers that Ministers give. I suggest that he consult the staff in the Table Office, who may well be able to assist him.
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1605
 

Orders of the Day

School Transport Bill

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2003-04, HC 509-I, the Draft School Transport Bill, and the Government's response thereto, Cm. 6331. The Eighth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2003–04, School Transport, HC 318, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6254.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment on the Order Paper.

1.52 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have the honour to present an important and interesting Bill. It is important because it attacks a very significant social and economic problem that needs to be challenged: the school run, with all its negative effects on environment and health, such as congestion in many of our towns and cities. It is important because it gives local authorities freedom to do what they do best—to innovate, and to address and solve problems in their local communities. It is important because it finds ways in which to loosen the legislative straitjacket that has prevented any reforms in this area for many decades. It is interesting because it has the strong support of local government represented by all political parties, who know that the problems in their areas, for which they are responsible, must be solved.

We know that it is for that reason that many local authorities are ready to submit bids to "pilot" their areas, including authorities led by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It is interesting, too, because we have the understanding of the churches, for which this has been a difficult question. They have made representations to me since I became Secretary of State, saying that these issues need to be dealt with so that their interests can be protected. We have talked to them at length, and we believe that our proposals do just that.

It is also interesting simply to observe the sheer naked opportunism of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, whose intention is to reap political benefits by sowing misleading and even untrue ideas about the consequences of the Bill.

Let me set out the history. Over a year ago the Government published "Travelling to School: an action plan" setting out a series of measures to encourage more walking, cycling and bus use. At around the same time the Local Government Association published "Children on the Move", which called for greater flexibility and the piloting of new approaches to home-to-school transport. As I said earlier, I am very grateful for the cross-party support from local government.

Since the publication of that document, we have engaged in extensive discussion and consultation on the proposals. They have been the subject of two substantive hearings by Select Committees, the
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1606
 

Transport Committee and—with pre-legislative scrutiny—the Education and Skills Committee. Let me express my appreciation to both Committees for the careful attention and consideration that they gave our proposals. They both said that they saw an urgent need for the issues to be addressed, and indeed urged us to take some of our proposals further. I think I can claim that we listened carefully to the Committees, and we have made changes—especially to the prospectus accompanying the Bill—to reflect the different views and concerns expressed by members of the Committees and in the hearings.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): We did urge my right hon. Friend to go further, but we also urged him to go faster. If there is a problem and it will take 10 or 11 years for him to tackle it, that is too slow in our opinion. The environment, global warming and children's health are not things that can be put aside for 10 years.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right, and—if I do not misrepresent them—that was also the view of members of the Transport Committee. That is why, although the arrangements will be entirely voluntary—there will be no statutory requirement on a local authority—it will be possible, if authorities present proposals faster than is allowed for by the Bill, to use secondary legislation to enable us to move more quickly. I can assure my hon. Friend that that deals with his Committee's fear that we may be "frozen" at 20 pilot schemes. What we will not do is establish a statutory scheme that would compel an authority to institute a scheme of this kind. It must be for individual authorities to present their own proposals.

Mr. Sheerman: Is it possible for every authority in England and Wales to produce a proposal so that we can get things moving now?

Mr. Clarke: The suggested 20 pilot schemes are dealt with in secondary legislation. If more than 20 were proposed, it would be open to the Government to provide for us to move faster by means of secondary legislation. What there would not be is a primary legislation gap that would stop things going further. The primary legislation jump that we have not been prepared to make would be the establishment of a statutory scheme requiring my hon. Friend's local education authority, for example, to behave in a certain way. The arrangements are based on voluntarism rather than compulsion.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Can the Secretary of State give any guarantee that rural local authorities in particular will not be put under financial pressure to go ahead following the pilot schemes, particularly if the schemes indicate genuine difficulties for people in rural areas?

Mr. Clarke: I can give that assurance. I shall deal with the money aspect in a moment. The sums spent on school transport by local authorities such as the right hon. Gentleman's are immense. A large part of our plan is to give his local education authority, and other rural authorities such as mine in Norfolk, more flexibility to deal with school transport in a more effective way.
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1607
 

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): Is the Secretary of State not being rather disingenuous when he says that he will not force local authorities? In fact the Treasury will withdraw the necessary funds, and either parents will have to pay charges amounting to several hundred pounds a year or everyone else will have to pay more council tax.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. I can assure him that that pressure will not be imposed. That is the sort of scaremongering that I mentioned earlier. There is no possibility of such action. What is a possibility is the provision of better local schemes to provide better services for communities more effectively.

Let me say something about the principles behind the Bill. Increased car use on the school run contributes to congestion and pollution. Encouraging more walking, cycling and use of public transport will bring both environmental benefits and health benefits to pupils, but the key point is that the issues faced vary from area to area: the solutions are different in rural, semi-urban and urban areas, for obvious reasons. So we argue that local education authorities need the flexibility to respond to local need, rather than being tied into a straitjacket that prevents the possibility of their addressing such questions effectively.

We do believe—this view is widely shared—that the current system is inadequate. It serves an average of only 10 per cent. of pupils across the country, but it is also inequitable. As research undertaken by my Department shows, families from lower income groups are more likely to have to pay than those from higher income groups. Again, we argue that LEAs need flexibility in this regard.

So the purpose of the Bill and its content is to enable LEAs to pilot school travel schemes. In the light of some of the remarks made, I emphasise that the Bill will force no local authority to take any action that it does not wish to take. It will be for LEAs to produce their own proposals—they will have to meet certain tests for approval, which I shall set out shortly—to enable them to deal with their own particular circumstances. Initially—this relates to the point touched on by my hon. Friend—the Bill allows a limited number of LEAs in England and Wales to run pilot school travel schemes. The details will be set out in draft regulations, which are available to the House.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): The right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier the position of rural authorities such as his and mine, which spend a very large part of their budgets on school transport. As a result of the Bill, will there be any additional money to provide school transport in our authorities, other than that coming from charges applied to parents and families who currently have free transport?

---