CONCESSIONARY BUS FARES

HC Deb 29 October 1974 vol 880 cc201-10

9.57 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the recurrent problem of the system of concessionary bus fares for school children. There are few hon. Members, if any, who do not regularly receive letters on this subject from parents in their constituencies. It has been a matter which has been raised regularly in the short time that I have been a Member of the House, not least by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who, I believe, wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if he is fortunate to do so.

We had the opportunity of a short Adjournment debate on this subject on 24th May. I am sorry to weary the House by raising the subject again, but I do so because we have still had no further statement of Government policy on this important subject, and the situation is getting worse rather than better.

I remind the House of the present statutory rules which govern the operation of concessionary bus fares for school children. Any child under eight who lives more than two miles from his nearest school is able to have free transport to school, and any child over eight who lives more than three miles from his nearest school is equally able to have free transport to school.

All other children have to make their own way to school, and there is no possibility of their getting statutory help. There is, it is true, a discretionary power available to local education authorities to give financial help to children who do not qualify for it statutorily. From the figures it is clear that that discretionary power is rarely used, and it appears that it is rarely used because most local education authorities are fearful of making exceptions in the case of children who have particularly difficult journeys to school. They fear that if they make exceptions they will almost certainly face an avalanche of other claims from parents in different parts of their area to make an exception in respect of their children, too.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Stanley

Basically, therefore, we are left with the rigidity of the operation of the two-mile and three-mile system. The worst feature of the present system is that it works seriously to the disadvantage of parents who are among the least well off. Normally, parents have the choice of getting their children to school either by car or by bus or by asking their children to walk. The least well off parents will usually not have a car, so their children are left with the alternative of bus or a walk. That, too, I suggest, is in many cases not a real alternative, and this is particularly the case for those who live just within the two-mile and three-mile limits.

I ask hon. Members whether, if they had a daughter aged eight, they would be willing to send her to school walking, say, a six-mile round journey a day—approximately two-hours walking per day, in all seasons and all weathers, in winter time and during the night time, unaccompanied by adults. I do not believe that many hon. Members, if any, would ask their own children to walk in that way, but that is what the present legislation assumes to be perfectly reasonable.

In practice, what happens is that most parents come to the conclusion that walking that sort of distance is not a realistic alternative. They decide, instead, to send their children by bus, but as they live just within the three-mile limit they get no assistance.

The bus journey is becoming increasingly financially difficult for the least well off because, with the sharp escalation of fuel prices, bus fares, on the whole, have gone up faster than the increase in earnings of many families. In addition, it is entirely open to the bus companies whether to make concessionary fares available to school children who travel during peak hours. In my constituency and, I believe, in the constituencies of many hon. Members, bus companies are increasingly withdrawing any form of concessions, including those to school children during peak hours.

The children, of course, have no choice as to the time at which they can travel to school. They are obligated to travel according to the times at which the school opens. Therefore, they have no choice of times when they can make their journey. Many parents feel fairly bitterly that the bus companies are exploiting the obligation of their children to travel, particularly during the morning rush hour, thereby having to pay the full fare. In my own constituency this can work out to as much as £38 per year for a single child and, if the parent is paying tax, this can represent as much as £50 a year at gross income. This is, of course, a charge on the parent that does not enjoy any form of relief or rebate.

The other particularly undesirable feature of the present system is that it takes no account of the relative safety or otherwise of the child's journey to school. By law, the two- or three-mile limits are measured not along the shortest safe route from home to school but simply along the shortest available walking route. No account is taken, therefore, of the positioning of, for example, pedestrian crossings, particularly dangerous junctions, or places where it might be undesirable for children to walk unaccompanied by adults.

Indeed, it can produce a situation in which to go to school by the safest route a child is actually having to walk more than three miles and having to walk further, therefore, than a child living outside the three-mile limit who is actually being carried free under the statutory provisions for free transport to school. The present rules were laid down in 1944 when road conditions were totally different from those which exist now. The present rules are urgently in need of reform.

This is one admittedly comparatively small corner of the education cupboard which no Secretary of State has yet managed to reach with a broom. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when she was Secretary of State, set up a working party to review the whole system of concessionary bus fares for schoolchildren. That working party came forward with the ingenious and relatively simple solution to the problem of replacing the existing system of the two- and three-mile limits, with free transport on one side and nothing on the other, by a system of a flat-rate charge to be laid down by the Secretary of State for all children who used public transport to get to school.

That change seems to have great merit. By preserving an element of charge, it continues the incentive for children to walk to school if at all possible, or to go by car if their parents own cars, thus providing the incentive to avoid using public transport unnecessarily. This is important given the burden on public transport during the peak hours.

If we moved to that system we would end the rigidity and anomalies to which I have referred in the present system. It would also have the merit of providing a charge which could be rebated to less well-off parents. I hope that when the Minister replies we shall hear from him that these 30-year-old rules are now to be altered and that a broom is to be taken to this small but important corner of the education cupboard.

10.7 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on his initiative in obtaining this, the first Adjournment debate of the new Parliament, and on using the opportunity to bring this important subject to the attention of the House once more. I thank him for giving me this opportunity of reminding the House of how the problems of school transport are especially urgent in my constituency, particularly in the community of Old Goole which is the part of the town of Goole to the south of the Docks Estate.

An unusual feature of the town of Goole is that it is completely divided by the Docks Estate. Therefore secondary schoolchildren who live in Old Goole and attend schools on the other side of the Docks have a journey across the Docks Estate. That road stretches seven-tenths of a mile and involves a very dangerous journey. There are three swing bridges over the Dutch River and over the docks. There are numerous railway level crossings and at all times of the day there are likely to be heavy traffic jams as a result of large lorries moving into the docks.

These difficulties have been building up over the years. Nearly three years ago, on two separate occasions, a child cycling to school across the docks was killed by being crushed between a heavy lorry and the girders of a swing bridge. Almost immediately after these tragic incidents, local parents took the initiative in establishing their own private school bus. They received helpful co-operation from a local bus contractor and it is a tribute to the work of these parents that they have been able to maintain this bus service during the past three years.

There has always been in the course of the school year a cycle in the fortunes of this service. During the dark winter evenings when there is bad weather the bus is usually full and the children, by paying their fares, have been able to contribute to the upkeep of the whole service. But when summer comes and it is more attractive to cycle to school, despite the dangers I have mentioned, there is a noticeable falling-off in the number of regular passengers. It is only when the new school year starts again in the autumn that the scheme's finances are built up.

Based on this experience, I have some reservations about the main recommendation of the Working Party on School Transport which basically suggested that there should be transport to school available for all parents who request it, but at a flat-rate charge. I can see how for some families even the smallest flat rates can be a disincentive to using any provided transport.

When the Government come to the stage of making up their minds—and personally I hope that it will be soon—I also hope that they will be able to decide in such a way that no parent is required to pay more towards the cost of providing transport to school than he or she already does.

I believe that the whole question of transport to school is part of the educational process. A child's education is just not what goes on inside the school building, but it starts from the moment the child goes out of the door of his home and continues until he returns. The cost of providing school transport has to be seen in that light as part of the cost of overall education.

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) on being first to raise a matter on the Adjournment in the new Parliament, and particularly on dealing with such an important matter. It is true that he raised this subject on the Adjournment as long ago as 24th May. I gave an assurance that the Government were looking at this difficult problem with urgency. I must say with regret that, as yet, we still have not formulated our final judgment and our policies on this topic.

It is true—I know of the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), whose constituency is very much affected—that on this topic, like many other issues we discuss in this House, it is easier to identify the problem than it is to find an overall solution. That is the reason for the delay.

This matter directly affects local authorities. If there is one thing which I as a Minister do not like doing it is laying down regulations by circular suggesting remedies to local authorities. Since considerable expense may be involved, they may take the opportunity of commenting, "You are telling us how to solve the problem, but are not providing the necessary resources to enable us to do the job you want us to do".

When this admirable report was issued by the working party, which did a very good job in considering this subject, we asked the bus operators' associations and the local authority associations to let us have their considered views on this difficut matter, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is governed by rules laid down 30 years ago. One local authority association has still not given us its considered view, although this does not mean that that association has not been giving urgent consideration to the matter.

The truth is that what appears to be a satisfactory answer in one part of the nation is often difficult to implement elsewhere. The local authority association to which I refer has, I am glad to say, taken the matter very seriously. It has set up sub-committees so that all points of view can be represented, and has assured us that we shall be receiving detailed comments on the working party's recommendations.

I have stressed the urgency, and I recognise the long delay. I am sorry about it. We shall try to give the House our final judgment as quickly as possible.

The implementation of the regulations and rules which we make will be very difficult for local authorities. They have just undergone a great reorganisation, and everyone knows that in terms of resources they are strained more at present than at any other period within living memory. Next year they will have considerable difficulty, and therefore we want to get the right answer.

The reorganisation of secondary education itself presents a number of problems in various parts of the country. It is quite a different problem in an inner city area from in a rural area. But, in certain parts of the country, going comprehensive sometimes means more travel, and this is an additional problem with which local authorities have to contend. Some local authorities have attempted various solutions on their own. Some own and operate their own buses. Others have negotiated with the Post Office trying to make better use of Post Office buses.

We need to remind ourselves that however desirable and essential a specific concession may be, someone, somewhere, has to bear the cost—the parent, the local authority or the Government. Local authorities are under very heavy pressure from all sides. The standard of provision of transport is difficult to maintain, never mind improve, and local education authorities already have wide powers to assist. But costs are rising very steeply, and it is a matter of resources. I understand that very well.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the old rules of two miles and three miles are well out of date, in the sense that there are some children who have to travel only a mile or 1½ miles but where, because the journey involves crossing a road where traffic is very heavy, it means that it is a dangerous adventure and therefore wise parents insist that their children travel by transport.

It is desirable that all available vehicles should be used to the maximum efficiency to meet the needs not only of school children but of the general public as well, and some authorities and bus operators are looking at this problem of co-ordination.

We have had a great many representations from Members of Parliament about concessionary fares. Many parents of older pupils feel very much aggrieved. Often they have to pay full fares for children over 14, and one of the most important and difficult questions is which children shall be eligible for any assistance that is given.

It may interest the House to know that the estimate is that more than 400,000 pupils travel between two and three miles to school each day at their parents' expense. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an annual expense of £38. I agree with him that it can be a considerable burden for some families who cannot afford it. That is why I want to consider the problem as urgently as I can. Some of these parents need help desperately.

There is no easy or cheap solution to the problem. We have considered the report very carefully and we are now waiting for the last comment from one of the local authority associations.

Public transport operators may in general charge such fares as they wish, subject, of course, to the approval of the traffic commissioners. They are neither specifically required nor empowered by legislation to offer fare concessions to young people. Even when the age went up from 14 to 15 there were anomalies, and some children, although they were attending school daily, had to pay full fares. As I said, they are neither empowered nor forbidden by regulations to offer fare concessions to young people. It is a matter for the operator's discretion subject to the traffic commissioners' approval.

No detailed information is available to my Department or to the Department of the Environment about the concessionary fare policies of individual operators.. Indeed, hon. Members know that they differ from area to area. Traditionally, most operators have charged half-fares to young people under 14. Some, especially municipally-owned transport undertakings, have offered a similar concession to young people over 14 who were still in full-time education.

The bus industry has been in decline for a number of years. It has been facing growing difficulties, and financial stringency has recently forced many operators to limit concessions. In at least one instance an operator was ordered to do so by the traffic commissioners to avoid a general fare increase. In some cases this has meant the withdrawal of concessions during peak periods. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this affects especially pupils' journeys to school in the morning rush hour. In others, half-fares have been replaced by fares at two-thirds or three-quarters of the adult rate.

In these circumstances it has not been possible for most operators to contemplate the extension of concessions to the increasing number of pupils, particularly as a result of the raising of the school leaving age, who are too old to be eligible for the concessions already offered. Some, of course, are waiting for the Government's judgment on the report that was made at the beginning of the year. This has led to a significant volume of correspondence from hon. Members and others, and some Questions, calling for the extension of concessions to the age of 16 to match the new school leaving age.

The hon. Gentleman said that the working party report offered what he called a simple solution; that is, the flat-rate fare. It is interesting that the only other contributor to the debate rejected that solution. Although it is simple, it would lead to anomalies. It would lead to some parents feeling that they were getting a raw deal, while others would think that it was a satisfactory solution.

The Government are not committed to accepting the working party's proposals. Indeed, we are considering all views put to us. Still less are we committed to implementing the working party's proposal on any particular basis.

Local education authorities already have power to assist with the reasonable travelling expenses of any pupil. One or two, including the Inner London Education Authority, have used this power to subsidise the continuation of fare concessions for pupils travelling to and from school.

I appreciate the concern that has been expressed about this matter and, indeed, the wide interest in the House on this report and the delay in the Government's consideration of it.

The issues are very difficult. The process cannot be hurried. When a local authority association has genuinely been attempting to give us a considered view and has set up sub-committees it is only right that we should await that report. I understand that we may expect that report very soon. I am aware of the sense of urgency felt by many hon. Members and others, and that has been reinforced by the debate tonight. We will give the report and the considered views of interested bodies on the report our careful attention.

Mr. Stanley

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I put one point to him? He has rightly highlighted the serious financial difficulties facing a fairly small group of parents who have children over 8 years of age who live just within the three-mile limit. These parents have relatively limited means and some are now facing a serious financial burden. Will the hon. Gentleman do everything possible to give us a Government policy statement by the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Armstrong

That is a fair point. If it is at all possible it will be done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am treating the matter with great urgency and we will give our judgment as soon as we can. It will be given as speedily as possible, but it must be careful and thorough. We want the right answer. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said and assure him that we shall make the report as early as we possibly can.

Question put and agreed to.

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