Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500
- 519)
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY 2004
MR STEPHEN
TWIGG AND
MR DAVID
JAMIESON
Q500 Chairman: What is that now,
500% over budget?
Mr Twigg: Are you bidding to do
a job swap with our esteemed colleague?
Mr Pollard: I will second that.
Q501 Chairman: I was suggesting the
two of you could get together. They are seconding that.
Mr Twigg: I am sure, Chairman,
you are not suggesting that we should cease the improvements on
the West Coast Mainline.
Chairman: I just know that, in the private
sector, if a construction project goes 5% over budget, the manager
in charge has a question mark against his name, and if it goes
20% it is automatically the end of the relationship of the company.
God knows what 500% would mean. Anyway, that is a total diversion.
Could I just ask Nick to finish off on this section and we are
going to move on.
Q502 Mr Gibb: This is really a question
for David. Current transport policy orthodoxy—and it is
an orthodoxy that I do not happen to agree with—is that
if you increase the amount of road space available it will simply
be filled by other car users. If these pilots are successful and
car journeys to school are reduced, people will simply then see
that the roads are free and think, "I might drive to work
now instead of taking the bus." Completely unconnected with
schools, that road space will simply be filled by others. Is that
not current orthodoxy?
Mr Jamieson: I think that is true,
that if you create extra space on the roads it tends to get filled
up again. But I think there is something different here in that
we are trying to change the thinking people have about the way
children travel to school. It may be far more convenient, of course,
for parents if children walk or cycle or get the bus than for
them to take them by car, and that just changes people's total
habits in what they do. In that case, if children cease doing
what they were doing previously, travelling by car, and they travel
in an alternative way to school, that will not be supplanted by
other vehicles coming in. That is true in many areas where improved
public transport has been put in, in some places where bus lanes
have been put in. It does not necessarily mean they fill up with
cars; it means you have a better flow of traffic.
Q503 Mr Gibb: The orthodoxy is wrong,
then. Therefore, when you build a new road, it does not automatically
get filled up. You cannot have it both ways. Either the orthodoxy
is wrong or this scheme is not going to work.
Mr Jamieson: It does not apply
to all circumstances. This will change people's habits and the
way they work, just as in other areas of transport. If, for example,
with logistics companies you can get better use of lorries, then
you do not just get more lorries coming in. The companies actually
reduce them because it is in their financial interests not to
run all those vehicles. So if you improve the logistics, if you
improve the service you have, the company may reduce its lorries
by 20%. That does not mean to say another load of lorries is going
to replace it.
Q504 Mr Gibb: I agree with that.
Mr Twigg: I think members of the
Committee are enjoying having a transport minister here for a
change.
Chairman: We are.
Q505 Mr Pollard: We are talking about
evaluation and monitoring. Some of the benefits that will be considerable
are not really measurable; for example, that children will be
fitter and all of that. It is said by teachers that children are
aerobically excited if they walk to school, they are into learning
much quicker and more able, straight off from the bell at nine
o'clock. How do we incorporate that into the evaluation, so that
we get a full picture rather than just a cost benefit of fewer
cars and all of that?
Mr Jamieson: I do not think we
have ever put a marker or a measure next to that sort of thing.
It is true that if children are walking and sometimes if their
parents are walking as well that is better for them. Something
else we have missed out too is that I think the walking to school
is actually a social occasion for children. It is a useful occasion
when children interact with each other, talk to each other, and
they see and they meet some of the hazards there are in life and
get to cope with them and deal with them, and with proper attention
from adults, either teachers or parents, this is a very important
part of a child's growing up experience. In education, it is a
bit like saying, "We are going for a trip to the zoo, what
is the value of it?" and trying to have a 20-point value.
You do not always do that, do you? Anecdotally, teachers and parents
will tell you things are better. That is a subjective view very
often but I think those views are quite useful sometimes.
Q506 Chairman: Does Kerry not put
his finger absolutely on the point, that here we have what a lot
of people would view as a miserable bill about getting traffic
congestion down and you have missed the opportunity so far to
sell this bill in terms of improving the environment, improving
children's health, as well as reducing congestion. You have really
missed an opportunity of selling this bill in the best way possible
and that is something you really ought to get right.
Mr Twigg: I hope we can get it
right. I think it is a fair criticism. I think it is important
that we have clarity about having a priority that we are seeking
to achieve and that it can be measurable. That is what certainly
I have sought to do today, but it is absolutely fair to say there
are a number of other potential benefits, of which children's
enjoyment, potential health benefits in terms of fitness with
walking and cycling to schools, are positives as well and we do
need to use them in selling this. I agree.
Q507 Chairman: We take this role
of pre-legislative inquiry very seriously. We do not see it as
a ritual; we see it as trying to improve the bill and give you
some ideas to improve the bill. I do hope you take some of the
things up, even the very good view that Val introduced in terms
of re-thinking this bill. Some people would say it is, in a sense,
a very bureaucratic and slow way to get some fundamental change.
Why not take Val's sort of thinking and say, "Let's just pass
a bill that gives local authorities the opportunity to charge."
That is the key bit of the bill and then you take Val's thinking
and say, "We are going to incentivise, we are going to give
serious extra cash to any local authority that really tackles
the problem," so you turn it round. You give money to local
authorities for new resources to do things in education if they
achieve certain targets in terms of reduction. I think Val has
made a very important point about changing the nature of things.
Surely we are radical enough as a government to do that, are we
not?
Mr Twigg: I hope so, and I will
take that away. I agree with you very much that this pre-legislative
scrutiny is not just a formality and it is a very, very important
part of getting this right. We will certainly be interested in
the report from this Committee as well as the other responses.
Q508 Chairman: It would be nice to
have incentives—and speedier, for goodness' sake, not 2011.
Mr Twigg: Yes. And a lot of these
are things that can happen. Valerie was talking about incentives
for the pupils and I think that is important, in engaging. Some
of the best schemes are ones the pupils have come up with themselves.
They may require an incentive within the school but often the
ownership is there with the children and therefore they are the
biggest advocates of the schemes.
Chairman: The way we are going, by the
time we get to 2011 it will be one and a quarter euros—or
I do not know how many euros it will be, but it will not be a
farthing. Let's move on. We are going to look at fairness and
choice and who better to ask a question about fairness and choice
than my friend from Barnsley.
Q509 Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Chairman.
Going back to the aims of the bill, which we have covered to some
extent: when the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Transport
Committee, he said the aim "is the encouragement of people
to go to their local neighbourhood school and, therefore, to travel
less in the whole approach, which is a question of our other policies
on quality of schools." This particular broad aim is backed
up by the LGA reps who said they would be unwilling to provide
transport to schools other than the nearest suitable school. Is
this not running contrary to the Government's wider agenda of
choice, building up choice in terms of, for example, the 14-19
agenda, getting more pupils to go to main school and then perhaps
a couple of days to a further education establishment or a junior
apprenticeship work placement. Is the statement that Charles Clarke
made not contradictory to the parental choice issue?
Mr Twigg: I do not think it is.
In a sense it follows up the questions Nick was asking earlier
on. Clearly there is a tension there. I think there is a tension
rather than a contradiction between the policies, because we have
made very clear that we want to ensure that all of the schools
are good enough that someone who wants their child to go to the
local neighbourhood school will be happy for their child to go
to the local neighbourhood school. The reality is that for most
parents that is what they want, but there will be those who want
to make other choices, for example, faith schools, and then I
think we need to have a system that has sufficient flexibility
in it to enable those choices to be exercised by parents. Does
more choice mean that it is more likely that children will travel
a bit further? Overall, yes, I think it does mean that, but I
am not sure it means it on quite the scale of the increase we
have seen over the last 20 years in the car use to school.
Q510 Jeff Ennis: Going back to Val's
point about the need for an incentive for the children and the
parents themselves to use other forms of transport rather than
the car, it appears to me that a possible ideal example in one
of the pilots may be whereby children can purchase a fairly low
priced bus pass which not only allows them to go to the school
which they attend but also allows them then to use that particular
pass for other journeys; for example, for the FE college or perhaps
into town on a Saturday to buy a CD or whatever kids buy these
days. It is actually giving that incentive to the parent and,
in particular, the child to use public transport more, not just
for going to school but for other ancillary reasons. Would that
be your sort of ideal example of possible pilot?
Mr Twigg: I have been helpfully
reminded and, as I am sure you will know, some places, including
in South Yorkshire, already do this. I think it is exactly the
kind of thing we want to encourage through pilots. I was looking
yesterday at some of the authorities that have come forward and
there are not any authorities in London. I think part of the reason
for that now is that in London we have free travel on the buses
for primary age children.
Q511 Jeff Ennis: You also have a
regulated bus service, of course—which we would like for
the rest of the country, by the way!
Mr Twigg: I will allow David to
answer that.
Mr Jamieson: I am not going to
answer that, but I will say there is quite a number of authorities
that run these sorts of schemes already and if they were coming
into the pilot it would be interesting to see how they could be
integrated into it. I know that the youth members of parliament
are much exercised about this—and I think quite rightly.
We have been looking at ways, again, of spreading good practice.
To give a blanket right across the country to all school children
for reduced travel or free travel would be seriously expensive,
and I am not sure necessarily the best use of resources, but it
is something we are very closely looking at and it would be interesting
to see some of those ideas used in the pilot areas.
Q512 Jeff Ennis: That leads me nicely
onto my next question. I know David knows this, but in the former
coalfield areas we have a public transport deficit. The Minister
came along last year and launched the Coalfield Rural Transport
Project between my constituency and the constituency of my honourable
friend from Hemsworth, Jon Trickett, which is very much needed.
But, given that sort of public transport deficit anyway, should
we not also be looking at the possibility of allowing people wanting
to get to work, shall we say, out of the small pit village where
there are not any jobs, as it were, to be able to ride on perhaps
a school bus. Is that the sort of initiative that could also be
incorporated into a pilot scheme? What would be the pitfalls of
actually doing that from a health and safety point of view?
Mr Twigg: It is slightly treading
into an area where I am going to be looking over my shoulder asking
for a bit of paper with some writing on it, but I think there
may be some technical issues about definitions of school buses.
Q513 Jeff Ennis: You are on your
own, Minister!
Mr Twigg: Absolutely. We are all
looking over our shoulders. I think the principle of looking at
ways in which there could be more sharing between different providers
is a good one. We would have to consider the legal position with
regard to buses that are designated school buses, and maybe the
best thing, unless the note comes very quickly, is that I write
to the Committee on that.
Q514 Chairman: You are not ruling
anything out, are you?
Mr Twigg: No.
Q515 Chairman: These pilots can include
all this stuff.
Mr Twigg: Absolutely.
Mr Jamieson: Yes. A lot of children
already do not travel on dedicated school buses; they are actually
travelling on the big service buses. If we could encourage other
users of the buses to use them at those times, as long as they
do not disadvantage the children in terms of space, then I do
not see any reason why they should not be integrated.
Mr Twigg: He has said it now!
Chairman: We await it with bated breath.
Q516 Jeff Ennis: Could I go back
to something you said earlier, Stephen, in terms of the demand
from the local authorities—and it is nice to see the Government
responding to a request from the LGA, and I wish more government
departments would listen to local councils and local government
representatives and then we might be more successful and lucky
at local elections, shall we say. But that is another issue. You
intimated that there are already "over two dozen local authorities,"
to use your exact expression, wanting to participate in the pilots.
Presumably that will include a number of Conservative-controlled
LEAs.
Mr Twigg: It certainly does. In
fact, the three LEAs that have made the clearest, firmest and
most public political commitment are all Conservative LEAs.
Jeff Ennis: I cannot understand the attitude
of the ministers, then, if they are against this, when it is actually
local government—
Chairman: Shadow ministers.
Q517 Jeff Ennis: Shadow ministers,
sorry.
Mr Twigg: Charles Clarke made
this point when we met Tim Yeo, and certainly the meetings I have
had with Conservative councillors through the LGA, including Councillor
Wilkinson who was here last week, indicate very strong commitment
amongst those authorities to come forward with this. Clearly there
are some internal discussions to be had within the Conservative
Party and I hope that those in local government in the Conservative
Party are successful in persuading the Shadow Secretary of State
to change his mind.
Q518 Chairman: Is it something that
might change after 10 June?
Mr Twigg: Who knows.
Q519 Jeff Ennis: It appears to me
that you are quite confident—and I hope I share your confidence—that
in terms of trying to break down barriers of parental choice hopefully
this bill can be used actually to extend parental choice, particularly
for children from the poorer backgrounds.
Mr Twigg: Absolutely. I think
that is critical. I think perhaps I did not make the point as
well or as fully as I should have done earlier on. When we look
at the present system, you can be a child from a poor background
living 2.9 miles from the school who gets nothing, when a child
up the road from a wealthier background, who is 100 yards away,
is getting guaranteed free transport. I think there is a real
case there about more opportunity and more choice for all children,
but perhaps particularly benefiting some of those from the poorest
background.
| 
