§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
7.18 pm§ Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree)I thought for a moment earlier that we were to have a vigorous debate on antidisestablishmentarianism, but the moment seems to have passed, and I have the pleasure of raising the matter of home-to-school transport provision. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in his place, and I know that he is familiar with the subject. It affects all our shire counties and many of our metropolitan areas.
This coming Monday will almost be a day of jubilation for the motorist. It is the first effective day of the school holidays. It will be possible to travel freely about the roads of our countryside. We will not have to deal with the fact that at 8.50 in the morning, 20 per cent. or more of all car movements involve taking children to school. I assume that the same situation appertains later in the day when children are collected from school, but that may be spread over a slightly longer period.
I remember growing up in the 1950s, and I see that I am in good company with others who may remember those times. At the age of six, I would walk from where I lived on the edge of an urban area to school across fields, down lanes and along roads. I was unaccompanied by my mother or father. It may be thought that I was especially precocious, but walking to school was relatively commonplace in those days; children would walk together in groups. Car ownership was rare; if there was a car in the family, one's father would have taken it to work long before the school hour approached.
Nowadays, car ownership is almost universal. Roads are dangerous and exceptionally busy; parents rightly fear the dangers of those roads for their children, and other, darker dangers that may lurk if children are allowed to travel unescorted to school.
The subject of the debate derives from the Education Act 1944, and the Education Act 1996, which deals with school transport. The formula is that, if the local authority is to provide free transport, the child must live 3 miles away from the school if older than eight and 2 miles away if younger than eight. That formula varied from county to county. In Essex, the local authority has modified those standards to be 1.5 miles for children in infant classes, 2 miles for junior school children and 3 miles for secondary school children.
Legislation also contains a fall-back clause, which allows local authorities, in exceptional circumstances, to provide free school transport for those who do not fit the mileage criteria. It is difficult to be precise about what constitutes those exceptional circumstances. One could hazard that it might be a child's health, a child's domestic circumstances, but there is an element of discretion. However, I have not commonly come upon its exercise.
Free school transport is also provided for children with special needs, who are normally taken to infant school by taxi. The nature of the travel and the distance often makes up a substantial part of a local authority's budget for home-to-school transport. It is not easy to find the exact figures for the number of children who use free school transport throughout England and Wales. I believe that there is an estimate—I am sure that my hon. Friend the 648 Minister can assist me further—of approximately 20 per cent. The amount of money spent on home-to-school transport nationally has increased in the past few years. I believe that, depending on the formula, it now exceeds £400 million per annum.
In Essex, 25,000 children out of a total school population of 200,000 receive free school transport; 10 per cent. of those have special needs. Excluding the special needs children, the percentage is little more than 11 or 12 per cent. The county is large and widespread since the exclusion from it of some urban areas to form the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend.
Like others who have served on county councils, I have become familiar with the tussles that occur when parents are denied free school transport for their child. There are stringent limits on local authority finances; consequently they sometimes seek to withdraw routes that hitherto existed on the basis that an alternative route can be found.
In my constituency, the distance by road between the famous socialist village of Silver End to Witham is a little more than 3 miles. Across fields and ditches, it is slightly less than 3 miles. A keen cartographer at county hall studied a large-scale version of the Ordnance Survey map and plotted a route, which took the distance slightly below 3 miles. I had the adventurous privilege of accompanying the county council inspection party that came to assess the route. It began along an especially dark and overhung footpath, and proceeded through ploughed fields, which were dusty in summer and caked in winter. A group of senior councillors proceeded along that route until we came to large ditch.
I knew that the county official had misdirected himself on the route, but I exercised my right to remain silent. A senior elderly lady councillor said, "I've seen enough. School transport shall remain." I hope that that extreme example illustrates the point: should the county or any of us consider sending children across fields, lanes and ditches—accompanied or otherwise—to avoid providing free school transport? The Government have made great strides in considering the way forward for home to school transport and the school travel advisory group has come up with a range of ideas in addition to school transport whereby walking and cycling to school might be increased.
I refer to a place that is indelibly carved in the mind of my hon. Friend the Minister—the village of Hatfield Peverel in my constituency, which he kindly visited recently in one of his other roles. Although the school is all but surrounded by that self-contained village, there are dangerous and busy roads so the parents and the school got together to form what is called a walking bus. I spoke to the headmaster, Mr. Jeremy Crook, this week and he told me that 80 children were involved at the scheme's outset. I do not know whether you are aware of the concept of the walking bus, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not a bus at all, but a party of children gathered together in the presence of a number of adults who proceed along a defined route and stop at specified places to collect or deposit children. That enables children to walk to school in safety.
Although the walking bus and dedicated footpaths and cycle paths are great aids that facilitate travelling to school without using a car, I would not want it to be thought that we can avoid the home to school transport question by using such innovations. Car usage could be 649 reduced dramatically if we reduce the number of children who go to school by car. We could do that quickly and effectively by making much more liberal regulations and criteria for allowing home to school transport.
I hope that this is an opportune time to raise these matters—the transport plan has been announced this very day, to a fanfare—and that I have shown that the sum expended on home-to-school transport is modest in terms of total transport expenditure. If distance requirements were lowered and councils given much greater discretion to book buses, sell off concessionary tickets and take a much broader view of who can travel on free school transport, we could achieve that which seems to have eluded people in the 20th and 21st centuries: planning and delivery following each other very rapidly indeed.
If that route is followed, we may achieve remarkable reductions in car movements at two particular times of day and I should be most interested to hear the public's observations on how they feel about driving during the school holidays as against term time. The benefits would go not only to the children, who would travel to school safely and accompanied, but to road users and to us all. We would all benefit from the lessening of pollution in the atmosphere as vehicles would not be used. Also, the strain on parents would be lessened as they would not have to accompany and drive their children to school twice a day, sometimes to more than one school.
I have seen figures for the number of children who travel by car, but I would estimate that the figure for junior and infant school children may be more than 50 per cent. Certainly, that is the estimate given by head teachers in the villages in my constituency of the number of children who travel by car to junior schools.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has a great heart for these matters, will discuss with his colleagues how he can increase the use of free school transport and make it universal beyond the age of 16 to 18, when children go on to further education. The benefits of that would be remarkable and the comparative cost, I suspect, relatively small.
§ Mrs. Christine Butler (Castle Point)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for allowing me to make a short speech in his debate. May I also take this opportunity formally to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his visit to my constituency some months ago? His attentiveness, his appreciation of the difficulties and his consideration of the possible solutions were much appreciated. I was delighted to see, probably for the first time, the words "Canvey island" shine out of a Government report. The local transport section of the east of England transport plan for 2010 features improved access to Canvey island as an area in need of regeneration. That buoyed me up for some hours—I did not need sugar in my tea all afternoon.
May I prevail on my hon. Friend's good humour a little further? First, I support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree for a degree of free transportation within the overall transport budget, especially for home-to-school transport. Secondly, local authorities can apply their policies only under current legislation, which dates back some 50 years to 1944. 650 When I was a member of Essex county council, I first had it explained to me that that was a prohibiting factor in getting more children on to school buses.
The 1944 legislation, and even the amended version in 1996, still prevents increased capacity for children who do not meet the eligibility criteria for free school transport—those with special educational needs, or those over and above a certain travel requirement, to which my hon. Friend referred. It prevents others from having access to contract buses unless there is spare capacity—there is then a cut-off point. Many parents regret that and are even willing to pay for such places.
I regret that this all falls within the education budget. Overall, local authorities transport more pupils and students than meet those statutory requirements. That significant figure shows the support on the supply side for increased capacity for bus travel. Local authorities can charge for travel where spare seats are available, and the vast majority do. However, parents want more.
I shall not just bleat on about buses, because I welcome the many initiatives that the Government have taken over the past two years, including walking, cycling, safe routes to schools, road safety strategies, school travel plans and car sharing. Those are all important. Furthermore, I appreciate the cost-cutting approach to this problem. I understand that funding is coming from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
We should revisit the legislation, because it seems to hamper increased bus use by students and pupils going and coming from schools. We should relieve ourselves of that problem and start on a fresh page. The statutory requirements could be lowered to less than 3 miles and 2 miles, so that children could be picked up from where parents want and be delivered safely home. At the moment, local authorities cannot contract to provide such a service, which is a great shame. In 1944, the requirements were different from what they are now. We have a pressing environmental need, which should count for more in our legislation. I am afraid that the problem will require primary legislation, but we should deal with this matter soon.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for raising the important issue of home-to-school transport. I know that it is of particular concern in his constituency, and he is a most assiduous Member. I have had the privilege of visiting him in Braintree to assist him in one of his many campaigns on behalf of his constituents.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) for her contribution to the debate. It was a pleasure to visit her constituency and join her in her indefatigable campaign on behalf her students. I am delighted that improved access to Canvey island is finally on the agenda. She has played a large part in raising the profile of Canvey island's transport needs. I hope that the press release was winging its way in no time at all after the statement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister earlier today.
The issue of home-to-school transport impinges on a range of other important and emotive issues. We want to be sure that children are safe from road traffic, and from 651 strangers. Children need to take more physical exercise for their health and long-term development. We know that children sitting in cars in congested, slow-moving traffic can be exposed to pollution levels three times higher than outside the car. If we reduce our reliance on the car for the journey to school as for other journeys, we will, as they say, be doing our bit for the planet.
We all notice how much clearer the roads are at half term and during school holidays. It is fair to say that that is to some extent attributable to a reduction in commuting associated with working parents taking time off during school holidays, rather than simply the absence of parents taking children to school. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree was absolutely right to identify the statistics on school travel, which show that 18 per cent. of cars on the road in urban areas at the peak of the morning rush—which is at 10 minutes to 9—are taking children to school. The proportion of journeys to school by car has nearly doubled over the past 10 years to almost a third of all journeys, and 36 per cent. of primary pupils and over 20 per cent. of secondary pupils now travel to school by car. Bus use has remained relatively stable at around 20 per cent., walking and cycling have declined, although 55 per cent. of primary age pupils and 43 per cent. of secondary pupils still walk to school.
I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. I know that there is much still to do, but there is already a good deal going on, both nationally and locally. He wants an increase in home-to-school transport. The amount budgeted for and spent on statutory school transport by local education authorities has been increasing above the level of inflation in recent years. It is now a very substantial sum—around £450 million in 1998–99. It is true that some two thirds of that figure goes on pupils with statements of special educational needs. That leaves about £150 million for the 7.5 million pupils of compulsory school age without statements, giving LEAs little scope for additional, discretionary provision.
Let me remind the House of the real purpose and function of statutory school transport. It is not—and never was—designed as an all-inclusive school transport service. It is a safety net, to ensure that no child is denied the right to attend a suitable school because they live too far away, or have special needs, or face a dangerous journey.
Statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance. Local authorities have powers—but no duty—to establish concessionary fare schemes in their areas under the Transport Act 1985. About 40 per cent. of shire counties have a scheme for young people, though few are county-wide and some do not provide fare reductions in the morning peak. In the metropolitan areas, by contrast, all six passenger transport authorities provide either flat fares or half fares on local buses that are valid in the morning peak. Those schemes are supported by Government subsidy.
In the shire areas it is common for discounted fares to be offered commercially by private sector bus operators. There is no local authority involvement in such arrangements. The discount is usually half fare.
Here in London, Transport for London rather than local authorities operates a discount scheme for young people at roughly half fare. It is regarded as a commercial scheme, without Government subsidy. It covers the five-to-18 age group and is available in the morning peak.
652 Last summer, my Department commissioned consultants to review best practice in increasing bus use on the journey to school. They consulted widely with local authorities, schools and bus operators, and identified many examples of local action to promote bus travel for the home-to-school journey. The consultants have now reported, and are finalising a guide which draws together the main lessons from the study, illustrated with examples of successful initiatives, and we intend to publish it later in the year. We hope that it will stimulate other authorities in particular to consider what further measures they can take.
We are also planning a seminar with major bus operators later this year to discuss the scope for greater standardisation in the arrangements for child discounts on buses. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Castle Point will welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also said that he would like to see more walking buses and more safe routes to school for those buses to use. I can only say that I agree with him. We have been actively promoting such measures through guidance that we have produced for local authorities, parents, teachers and governors including a comprehensive school travel resource pack researched by Sustrans—the pioneer of safe routes to school. The resource pack was published by my Department in May to coincide with the launch of this year's walk-to-school campaign.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree will also know, local authorities have been asked to prepare local transport plans setting out their strategies for tackling local transport issues, including school travel issues. We are providing more funds for the implementation of local transport plans.
As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced today details of our 10-year plan for transport which sets out a £180 billion spending programme—£132 billion from the public purse—to deliver the modern, integrated transport network that we all want to see. The funding for the implementation of local transport plans will almost double from £755 million provided for 1999–2000 to £1.3 billion for 2001–02.
In providing funds for local transport plans, we have given local authorities the discretion to utilise such funds from within a single block allocation—except for major transport schemes over £5 million—in accordance with their priorities and objectives set out in their local transport plans.
It is ultimately for local authorities to decide whether and how to take forward proposals for safe routes to school in their areas and to make the necessary running cost provision to support the development of walking buses, in the light of those local priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also said that he would like more work to be done to reduce car use for journeys to school. Again, I agree wholeheartedly, but we should not forget that much is already being done, not least under the auspices of the school travel advisory group—STAG—which was set up by my Department with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health in December 1998. The group brings together experts in education, road safety, child health and accident prevention, as well as transport co-ordination.
653 STAG oversaw production of guides for local authorities and schools, and a resource pack. Following advice from STAG, my Department commissioned six research projects in spring 1999. Two have already reported, providing a comprehensive database of current levels of activity—which, I am pleased to say, is increasing—and an informative report on the wide range of factors affecting distance to school.
The other four projects are due for completion and will result in the production of a best practice guide on the provision of special educational needs transport; a guide on increasing bus use for the journey to and from school; a database of classroom materials relating to school travel issues; and the possible implementation of a national programme of site-specific advice for schools following the evaluation of a pilot in 37 schools.
The first STAG report, published in January, proposed an aim to return by 2010 to the level of walking, cycling and bus use in the mid-1980s. That would mean 80 per cent. for primary school children and 90 per cent. for secondary school children. The report also contained 11 individual recommendations for raising the profile of school travel and increasing travel choices for the journey to and from school. The Government welcomed the report. We are already taking action on some of the recommendations and are considering how to implement the others.
654 In the road safety strategy, published in March, we set out our detailed programme for taking action to improve child road safety, including better child road safety education, better enforcement and raising driver awareness of school travel issues such as road safety for child pedestrians and cyclists, the dangers of parking near schools and excessive or inappropriate speed.
We continue to work to raise awareness of school travel issues, through a series of regional seminars for local authorities, teachers, parents and governors; a communication strategy aimed at both the specialist press and the wider public; and national television and radio advertisements, promotions and publicity as part of the "Are you doing your bit?" campaign.
All health authorities are developing health improvement plans for the three-year period 2000–02, based on local consultation. There should be particularly strong links between health improvement programmes and local transport plans on school travel, and guidance on joint working was published in October 1999.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this debate. I and my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health regard the issues relating to school travel as very important. As I hope I have demonstrated, this is an area in which we have been active—
§ The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.