| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman take my point that my local authority wanted to be innovative and to offer the yellow bus service to pupils whose journey to school was less than 2 or 3 miles, but it simply could not afford to do so?
Mr. Chope: This is an issue that the Government could address nationally, without any of the measures in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman wants his local authority to provide that service, but why does he think that it should also have all these other constraints imposed on it, such as applying to take part in a pilot scheme with no certain knowledge that its application would be successful? It would also have various other constraints imposed on it.
The Government's explanation for the Bill is that the 3-mile limit for walking to school should be maintained. I think that they state in the explanatory notes, or perhaps in their response to the Transport Committee, that they are sticking to their guns and doing nothing to discourage people from walking or cycling to school when the distance involved is less than 3 miles. The hon. Gentleman thinks that adopting this Bill will help his local authority but, in the light of the Government's avowed policy on transport to school for those living within 3 miles of the school gates, I doubt that that particular scheme would find favour with the Government.
The Government have been forced to defend themselves against all those who oppose the Bill by using hysterical charges of dishonest opportunism. That is why I was particularly interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who said that it was an overstatement to say that this system would be a nightmare, because it would be tightly controlled by the Government. He also said, however, that the Bill was a missed opportunity. He put the whole issue into context by saying that the £200 million that was being spent on home-to-school transport was at stake. The Government seem to think that that money
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1657
should be taken away from rural authorities and reinvested elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman said that that amount paled into insignificance when compared with the £13 billion that the Government were spending on computers, a large amount of which is perhaps being wasted. To make another comparison, taxpayers in this country are already subsidising to the amount of £88 million tobacco growing in the rest of Europe. The Government have their priorities absolutely wrong.
We are against the Bill because it removes the right to use free school buses if the journey is too long, which has been enjoyed by English and Welsh people for more than 60 years. It means more means-testing, higher costs for hard-pressed parents and, worst of all, it is a new stealth tax on families living in rural areas.
5.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. We will reflect on the intimation of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in his latter comments that schools were wasting money on computers. I am sure that many in the educational world will have taken that to heart and noted it down.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to wind up the debate for the Government, and in doing so demonstrate the joint commitment of the Departments for Transport and for Education and Skills to this important Bill. I also welcome the opportunity to respond to many of the good comments made on both sides of the House about the Bill. I want to put the Bill firmly in the context of our wider work on the safety and sustainability of school transport.
Just over a year ago, the travelling to school project was launched by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Transport. It reflected a wide consensus that school transport is a problem in need of urgent solution. As we have heard in the debate, twice as many children are now driven to school compared with 20 years ago. Most of those journeys are less than 2 miles, meaning a falling number of children walking and cycling. As many Members will know, some children, particularly in some urban areas, travel just a few hundred yards to school by car, which has unacceptable effects.
The decline in walking and cycling to school contributes to an overall lack of physical activity by our young people. The health consequences of physical inactivity are well known: moderate activity is known to reduce the risks of heart disease, stroke, obesity, type-2 diabetes, osteoporosis, some cancers and hypertension. While in itself, especially for younger children, the school run may be a small part of their daily activities, it contributes to the culture of car dependency and inactivity, which can be difficult to tackle later in life.
The school run can also be unpopular with local residents, particularly those who live near schools. In some places, it causes localised air quality problems and traffic congestion, and compromises road safety around the school gate. We also know that many parents and pupils would prefer to walk or cycle if they felt that they could do so in safety, and wanted to make sure that it is a realistic option for as many of them as possible. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1658
(Valerie Davey) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) also made the good point that at this time of year—the school half-term—far fewer cars are on the road and there is much less congestion.
In our action plan, which we published last September, we set out a comprehensive programme of action to tackle car dependency in relation to the school run, by improving the opportunities for pupils to travel to school on foot, by bike or by bus. Across the board, the action plan recognised that to make progress, we would need to meet three key tests. First, we would need to deliver a more effective partnership between national and local government in the provision of school transport services. Secondly, we would need to increase the scope for innovation in planning and service delivery. And thirdly, we would need to ensure that we can learn from the experience and share it with others.
The Bill that we are discussing today is an important element of our school travel initiative, and is intended to meet each of those three tests. First, the Bill will support much closer joint working between central and local government in the development of approval of pilot school travel schemes. Secondly, the Bill will encourage innovation by removing the Education Act 1996 constraints on local flexibility that have been in place for 60 years. Thirdly, the use of pilots will mean that new ideas can be thoroughly tested and evaluated before they are rolled out more widely.
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that school transport safety is an important issue when it comes to encouraging people to use school transport? He is aware, I know, of the Stewart campaign. Is he satisfied that the Bill deals with parents' concern about their children's safety on school buses? Will there be an opportunity to review the three-for-two rule, under which three children under 14 can occupy a seat designed for two?
Mr. Jamieson: The Bill does not specifically address school safety issues, as my hon. Friend will have observed. I know that he has strong views on the three-for-two rule. We have no firm evidence that it creates a danger for children, but because more modern buses are coming into operation it is gradually being phased out. Local education authorities must ensure that seatbelts are fitted for children going on school trips, and their contracts with the transport providers allow them to insist that belts are provided for all children.
I was going to make a third point about the Bill. The use of pilot schemes will enable new ideas to be thoroughly tested and evaluated, as I think my right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech.
The Bill will make the first changes to school transport legislation for over 60 years, enabling a limited number of local education authorities initially to develop innovative solutions to school transport problems. I would expect the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to welcome a Bill that is all about deregulation: I thought he liked deregulation, but he clearly does not like it today. The Bill also removes some of the current arbitrary and outdated constraints on local authority freedom and flexibility, and increases the scope for innovation and improved service provision.
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1659
In his peroration, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that the Conservatives were going off to fight the Bill tooth and nail. I noticed that at that point only one Conservative Back Bencher was present; clearly all the others had left the Chamber to join the fight against the Bill. I should add that only one Liberal Democrat Back Bencher was present at the time. After the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) had spoken, the Opposition Whips had to fight tooth and nail themselves to find a Back Bencher who would actually oppose the Bill. They managed it in the end—and I commend the Whip, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for persuading himself to do it.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that vulnerable children might lose out. My right hon. Friend challenged him on the important issue of children who are just below the mileage limits—2 miles for children aged eight and under, and 3 miles for all other children of compulsory school age. Did he intend to do anything to help those children? The issue is important in some urban areas, and very important in many rural areas. At present, children who are just under the limit are given no help, whether they are from well-off or—in some cases—very poor families.
It has been suggested that our proposals constitute a threat to free education, but children who are under those limits—it is impractical for them to walk, and on some dangerous roads it is impractical for them even to cycle—currently do not receive free education, because their parents must pay the cost of transporting them to school, whether by public transport or by car.
The hon. Gentleman asked about protection for children with special educational needs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that children with statements would have that protection. There is currently no protection in law for SEN children who do not have statements, but the Bill allows the 20 per cent. of authorities who do not help such children to give them extra assistance.
The hon. Gentleman says that the number of children walking to school is increasing, and, yes, there was a small increase last year. Our policies are working, I am glad to say, but not as many are walking as used to do so, say, 20 years ago. Such changes are taking place, but we are having an impact. The Bill is just a further way of helping more children to get out of the car and on to the bus, or to walk or cycle.
The hon. Gentleman also went on about LEAs being compelled to participate. There will be no compulsion—they will be free to decide whether they want to be involved.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |