HC Deb 10 December 1964 vol 703 cc1956-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

10.0 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye)

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of school transport in rural areas, from the standpoint, first, of the safety factor on our roads, which is so important—we have just seen the last figures and they are getting worse—and, secondly, of the concern and anxiety of parents. I am raising it for rural areas only. I am not speaking of urban areas, where there is public transport in the form of buses—it used to be trams—where parents who live nearly up to the two-mile limit can pay if they so wish to put their children on that public transport. The present limit of two miles for children under the age of 11 and three miles for children over 11 is the limit within which they must get themselves to school, and it was laid down 20 years ago in the Education Act of 1944.

It is due to the successful working out of this Act that conditions in our schools have changed, by the separation at the age of 11. Now, the elder children leave the village school, now called the primary school, and go off to secondary modern and grammar schools. We also have the vast increase in traffic on our roads, big lorries going down our small lanes delivering essential goods to many of our farms, cars also going down these narrow roads, many of which are without footpaths. As the House well knows, these small children from the age of 5 have to find their own way to school when living within the two-mile limit. As I said earlier, for those over the age of 11 a three-mile limit was laid down by the Act.

I referred to these children going to the primary schools where there are no children over 11. These are the schools which have succeeded the village school of years ago, the all-purpose school where, formerly, girls aged 12, 13 and 14 took charge of the younger children who were walking there in their first or second year from the outlying houses in the village and they were able to look after them. That was all right in those days when there was less traffic on the roads. In Suffolk, as in other parts, this is no longer so. I speak of my own county of Suffolk because I have more knowledge of it. Our villages are not compact. They are very scattered, with a number of outlying houses which always seem to house the largest families. I am sure that this applies in other counties as well.

So many of these houses seem to be within one or two miles from the school, so what do we find happens? The mother, when her first child reaches the age of 5 and has to attend school will, more than likely, have a second child. She has either to walk or push the children there in a pram or, as very often happens, she bicycles there with the children on the bicycle. She has to do this journey four times a day—there with the elder child and the younger one in the morning, taking the younger one home in the morning, and again in the afternoon. There is even another complication if she and her husband—very naturally—want to have a further increase in their family.

I have spoken to many of these mothers outside the schools when they have come to collect their children. They all tell me of the strain it is with traffic conditions today. They are worried as to how their children are to go to school unless they personally take them there. It is true that money is rightly spent on traffic wardens, but these are employed only just outside primary schools and not on the rest of the journey back, which sometimes, although rarely, involves crossing a class A road and often involves crossing a busy class B road.

In the countryside we have good relations and neighbourliness. There may be one neighbour with a car, and other children from the houses around are put into the car. But one cannot rely on this always happening. Where it is possible at no extra expense—and where they can do it—the county council will allow a child to travel on a school bus or taxi which is collecting children from beyond the two-mile limit. But this concession may last for only one or two terms for a child, say, one-and-a-half miles from the school, as the taxi may then be filled by a new child travelling from beyond the two-mile limit.

Many Members with rural constituencies meet these human problems. We have mothers at their wits' end in considering how to get their children to school. We find that local authorities are very sympathetic, but they say that they have not the money to do more to help. I am not pressing tonight for a general reduction in the two-mile limit because of the public transport available in the towns, but I am pressing on behalf of parents in these isolated districts.

Perhaps the following true story from my own experience illustrates the point. There was a family in a house on a drift-way by a farm in Suffolk. They wrote to me and said that they could not get their child on the school bus or taxi and yet they were sure that they lived more than two miles from the school because a neighbouring farmer had measured it with his car speedometer. Very kindly the education authority had the distance correctly measured. From the house to the gate on the road into the school the distance was one mile and 1,755 yards, so that the child could not get on the school bus. A few days later a neighbouring farmer was passing the school and saw that the gate of the school on to the road was locked and that for safety purposes all children were using a side gate up an alleyway. The position was again put to the county council, who measured the distance from the gate which was locked to the other gate. The distance was 10 yards, and this made it two miles and five yards from the child's home—and the child was allowed transport by bus!

I speak here for my hon. Friends from rural constituencies, including Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), when I say that the problem exists in many areas. We have had to modernise our secondary modern and our grammar schools, and the next stage will see the development of more central primary schools. The problem will grow when the children of three or four villages are gathered together so that one central school will accommodate all the children.

I do not dispute that this centralisation is a good thing for education; I am sure that it is. These children will be more than two miles away from the new central primary school—we have already one or two of these schools—and they will immediately have transport provided for them. The money will be available. Secondly, we must remember that by having primary schools more centrally located there will be an even greater number of children living up to two miles from those central areas. This is a problem which will grow rather than diminish.

I suggest, therefore, that the time has come when a next step in education should be taken by making an extra limited sum available—or the county councils making it available with the Minister's approval—to meet this transport problem for school children in rural areas, particularly in view of the hardship and difficulties caused to parents.

Even where transport is provided I have found that children are not always sent to the nearest schools, to which their parents would prefer them to go. Often they are sent to schools further away, on the ruling of the county council. This is sometimes an arbitrary ruling and, while there may be good reasons for it, those reasons are not always understood by parents.

Many children go to secondary modern and grammar schools by bus from beyond the three-mile limit, but in certain cases instead of going by bus they are given a bicycling allowance and are equipped with waterproof capes and leggings for bad weather. I have watched them bicycling to and from school and I can assure hon. Members that their standard of behaviour is very good, due to the road safety lessons given in schools.

Nevertheless, when children bicycle along or across important trunk roads, as often happens, on their way to secondary modern and grammar schools, there is bound to be some danger from traffic, and I suggest that more consideration should be given to the possibility of transporting them by bus. The county councils say, and rightly so, that the provision of buses is more expensive than giving bicycle allowances. Many children who live within the three-mile limit also bicycle to school, and perhaps this is a good reason why the standard of our roads should be reconsidered.

I must be fair. Headmasters have told me that children who bicycle to school have as good an attendance record as those who go by bus. Nevertheless, much anxiety is caused to parents by the present situation and we should not accept that a law which was passed more than 20 years ago, under quite different circumstances, is adequate today.

This is a problem concerning the safety and well-being of our children. Their safety is particularly important. In view of the amount of money that is spent on education, surely this safety factor should be borne particularly in mind. I urge the Minister to consult with the county councils about this rural problem to see if they can find a formula by which an increased grant or some other means of finance can be made available to meet these difficulties. I am sure that the county councils would administer such a scheme with great sympathy and care and provide extra transport in these cases.

10.14 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn (Dorset, North)

I support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), and although this is an extremely important matter, I will speak for only a moment. I would not like the Minister to think that this problem is confined to the eastern part of England. It applies with equal force to the south-west, particularly to the area of Dorset, which I know so well.

My hon. and gallant Friend touched the very key to this problem when he pointed out the great change there has been in the last 20 years, since these Regulations were brought in. They are indeed outmoded. There has been a complete change in the school structure. The great reduction in the number of all-age schools has made it no longer possible for the older children to escort the younger ones to school in a sort of convoy, as used to be the practice, for the older children now go to different schools.

The difficulty of getting younger children to school is the source of real anxiety and danger in the country districts. The suggestion that in the country now many people have cars is not entirely correct. Many people may have cars but, when they do, the purpose is ordinarily to enable the husband and father to get to his work, and not at all to enable the wife, who probably has no driving licence, to take the younger children two double journeys a day to and from school.

Could not the Minister in some way encourage local authorities to use their discretion to allow children, especially in cases of hardship, to take the empty places on the buses and taxis that pass their very doors—empty seats that they are not at present allowed to make use of because they live just within a specified limit? This situation is a real hardship, it causes the utmost anxiety, and in some cases definitely adds to the danger on the roads. It would be very well received if the Minister were to take some steps to allow the best use to be made of places in the public vehicles that are well known to be empty by relaxing the regulations where circumstances permit.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Clive Bossom (Leominster)

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Sir R. Glyn) have put forward a very strong case, and I just want to emphasise that this problem arises all over the country in different degrees. At one time I was a county councillor in Kent, and I know that the needs there are completely different from those in rural Herefordshire which I now have the honour to represent. I feel that the time has come to make these limits more flexible. Surely, the Government was to provide a better system for transporting children to school, especially the very young ones. I know that the Minister explained to me only a few days ago that local education authorities have power to make special provisions if they consider conditions justify it, but local authorities often prefer to play safe and stick rigidly to the letter of the law.

I suggest that in order to make this entire set-up more flexible he initiates a county to county survey. The problems are different but exist in all counties. Parents consider that this Government are not moving with the times in this respect but are clinging on to the "Spartan age". Further, having talked to many parents, I believe that in nearly all cases they would be willing to pay the extra cost, as they are so concerned about the safety factor. I therefore hope that he will look again at this pressing problem and have a survey made in each county.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice)

The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) has raised a matter of very great human importance and one that he has obviously studied in great detail. Had I had any doubt about that, his story about the child who was first two miles minus five yards from school and later two miles plus five yards away was sufficient indication of his interest in and his study of the problem. He and his hon. Friends have put their case very fairly. They have addressed themselves to a very serious matter, but I must put it in the context to which reference has just been made.

This is one of the many problems in education where a statutory minimum is laid down, and then local authorities have the power to add higher standards. I am sure that both sides of the House would defend the general concept that education is a service that involves in very large measure all local authorities, and those authorities have to make a range of decisions. We may think that their decisions are good or bad, but they make the decisions, and should be pressed locally to make improvements where appropriate.

As the House is aware, in this case the statutory walking distance is two miles for children under eight, and three miles for others, and under Section 55(2) of the 1944 Act a local education authority is empowered to provide transport, and to pay either all or part of the cost of the transport for children living nearer to school than that. We have not yet in the Department made any attempt to get a detailed picture of how this provision is implemented; we do not keep a record of what each local education authority does.

On the other hand, naturally we collect a certain amount of information directly and it is clear that a number of local education authorities are providing transport for children who live within these limits and, in some cases which are not the subject of our discussion tonight, individually for children who are disabled or need transport for health reasons. Transport is also provided collectively where the authority considers the road conditions dangerous or where the area is bleak and exposed and it is undesirable for children to have to walk to and from school for that reason.

In addition, local authorities often do what has been suggested by hon. Members tonight, provide transport for those who live outside the limit but allow those who live nearer to take empty seats in buses or hire-cars. That, of course, depends on whether empty seats are available. A situation might arise in which they are available for one term but not for the next. In general this must depend on local circumstances. Parents who think that a local education authority should do more should bring this to the attention of their elected representatives on the county council—or, in towns, on the county borough council, for this to some extent is an urban problem as well as a rural one.

I agree with all three hon. Members that since the 1944 Act was passed many things have happened which have made it clear that standards suitable then, or even 10 years ago, are not necessarily suitable now. I should have thought there were three main factors in this problem. One is the factor which has been mentioned that now numbers of children in rural areas live further from school than previously was the case. The all-age schools have been largely replaced by separate primary and secondary schools. Secondary schoolchildren who went to a school in their own village now have to go somewhere else and they cannot take younger brothers or sisters to school as they were able to when they went to a school in their own village.

There is also the unmistakable trend in primary eduction all over the country for smaller primary schools to be replaced by larger ones. Often there is one primary school for three villages each of which at one time had a school. When there is a closure it is resented in the village concerned and people want to have their own schools. The county council provides transport partly perhaps to deal with the doubts which people have about the suitability of their children having to go to the next village, which may be a mile away. Here is a real problem and I take the point which has been made about the strain on mothers who have to make the journey four times a day sometimes with a child under school age in tow.

The second reason why there has been a change since 1944 is the spread of private motoring. I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) that this does not always mean that a car is available to take a child to school. The family as a whole get used to travelling by car and then people do not expect children to walk as far as they were expected to walk even only 10 years ago. Whether it is right or wrong I would not like to say. I personally think it a good idea that one should have the walking habit. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom) will regard me as "Spartan".

Then there is the problem of the increase of traffic and the danger which that involves. Here I believe there is clearly in many cases reason for providing transport where there may not have been reason in the past. As an extra 10 per cent. of vehicles come on to our roads every year, this is clearly a prob- lem which is being aggravated. It is not confined to rural areas. It is a problem in towns as well in many cases, and perhaps new thinking is needed on this.

I return to the point that each of these situations is essentially local. Each of them applies to the surroundings of a particular school and, therefore, the decision ought to be made locally on local grounds. The question then is whether the Government should do more about it. There are three possibilities. One is that we should try to lower the limits of the statutory walking distance. If we were to do that, there would still remain the local problems within whatever limit we set. If we were to do this, it would require legislation. I need not remind the House that there is the question of Parliamentary time. We should also be imposing on all local authorities a very large extra cost which in some cases would not be justified by local facts.

I think that on the merits this is a matter in which we are entitled to say that local education authorities—I say this quite deliberately from the Dispatch Box—ought to be thinking in many cases more flexibly and more generously than they have, and this should be a local decision which they must make because of the way situations vary.

Then it has been said that they should get special financial help because it is lack of finance which holds them back. Hon. Members opposite will not expect me to defend the present financial relations between the central and local government. This situation of local authorities is clearly made worse by the general grant provisions, because local authorities have to bear the whole burden of anything they spend on this. Indeed, that consideration applies to a whole range of things. Local authorities get no percentage grant towards it. This was imposed on local authorities by hon. Members opposite and opposed by us. As hon. Members know, the Government have this matter under review now, for reasons very much connected with many aspects of the education system.

I should also point out—I do not make a big point of it—that within the general grant formula at the moment there is an element for areas of low density population—in other words, rural areas. They get some extra grant for that, taking account of extra transport costs, an-long other things. Therefore, to that extent they are getting an element of financial help for this already. If it is unsatisfactory, it is the general grant formula as a whole which is unsatisfactory because it is not flexible enough to deal with the whole range of problems, including this one. I hope that it will be replaced in due course.

I was also asked whether within the existing framework I would do something more. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye said that we should have consultations with the county councils. The hon. Member for Leominster said that there should be a survey county by county. I will consider this very carefully in the light of what has been said in the debate. I think that there may be something in it, but I would not hold out any hope of it at this moment, because if we gather any information we could do that and the Department could give general advice, as it does on many matters. But it would still have to be within the general context. This is so much a local problem by its very nature that the authorities must look at this problem school by school, whatever advice is given from the Department of Education. I must return to that point at the end.

I dare say that all three hon. Members were addressing their remarks perhaps indirectly to their county councils as well as to me. No doubt their remarks will be noted in the right quarters. This is a real problem. I will very carefully consider whether something ought to be done to stimulate further action along the lines suggested.

Sir H. Harrison

I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his most helpful reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.