Rural Transport (Hansard, 18 May 1999)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for rural transport partnership schemes, administered and operated by voluntary groups, parish and town councils, to supplement bus services in rural areas.

The lack of adequate public transport in the countryside is one of the main issues facing Members of Parliament with rural constituencies. There are no easy answers, and it is disingenuous to pretend that there are. I do not believe that it has been helpful to produce new broad-brush slogans such as "integrated transport"—which is much vaunted by the Deputy Prime Minister—which have had the effect only of raising expectations. It is better to come up with practical schemes that address real problems and to recognise that people living in the countryside face problems that are different from those faced by people living in towns. There can be no single solution to this complex issue.

My constituency is typical of many rural constituencies. There is only one town, North Walsham, with a population of just over 10,000, and population density is fewer than one person per hectare. Many parishes have no regular bus services and, without motor cars, people living in small villages are literally cut off. Only last weekend, I met in the lively village of Great Snoring a constituent whose bus service had been terminated at two days' notice, thus preventing her from shopping in Norwich.

To make matters worse, the loss of many local community services, post offices and village shops, and the decline of farming jobs has meant that people who live in the countryside can continue to do so only if they own and use private cars. In North Norfolk, as in many other rural areas, a car is a necessity, not a luxury, and money will, if necessary, be diverted from other household expenditure in order to run it.

In spite of that fact, taxes on petrol and car ownership continue to rise. Such taxes hit rural people far harder than their city counterparts, not only because of the lack of public transport and local services, but because of the distances that must be travelled. Those taxes are beginning to make it difficult for retired pensioner couples to afford to run their own car. For many rural pensioners, the private car is the only realistic way of interacting with the outside world. Moreover, it is virtually impossible for anyone living in a small rural parish to hold down a full-time job without access to a car. That makes it particularly hard for young people and school leavers who are looking for work, but who do not have the money to buy or run a car or motorbike and cannot travel to work without one. Isolation is a serious issue in the countryside.

Some 20 per cent. of the population of Norfolk is over retirement age. In some areas, the proportion is much higher than that. Combined with the fact that wages in Norfolk are 15 per cent. below the United Kingdom average and that public transport is poor, it means that people potentially suffer social exclusion, missing opportunities for employment, training, leisure and shopping, and even find it difficult to access medical services. A survey conducted last year for the new deal and undertaken by jobcentres across Norfolk revealed that some 32 per cent. of those seeking work in rural areas experience problems with transport.

880 The Government need to remember that, by trying to solve urban environmental and congestion problems by continually raising taxes on petrol and car ownership, they are significantly contributing to the social exclusion and deprivation of rural people. Further tax increases on petrol should form no part of the Government's rural transport policy.

The Government have claimed that their tax policy is part of an attempt to increase the use of public transport, but real choice can be achieved only when there is good public transport. People will be persuaded to leave their cars at home only when they have the alternative of cheap, reliable public transport that does not involve significantly longer journey times.

"The Better Deal for Norfolk" report, issued by Norfolk county council in August 1998, stated that Norfolk had received a Government grant of £1.6 million for new and improved rural bus services. That was welcomed at the time with a great fanfare. However, that subsidy is not working satisfactorily; indeed, a number of bus routes have been cut or reduced.

Some services run only in school term time, which is not much help to a pensioner with a weekly shop to do. Buses have been rerouted and many elderly people find that they have to walk a considerable distance to get to the bus stop. There is little cohesion between various providers of public transport. Timetable changes are made without warning or any apparent consultation with users. Fares have gone up by as much as 40 per cent. instead of the expected 5 per cent.

Some 75 per cent. of the parishes in my constituency do not have a daily bus service. Those parishes that are lucky enough to have such a service find that it is often unsatisfactory. Many bus stops are not in a convenient place, and the timetables are incomprehensible, out of date or do not integrate with other forms of transport. In addition, many of the buses run at inconvenient times, making a half-hour shopping trip last three or four hours. On top of all that, the buses are unreliable. Routes are changed without notice, and many of the vehicles are in poor condition and of a size unsuitable for small country lanes. Moreover, the subsidies have had two unfortunate side effects. First, because the subsidy is not available for existing routes, the new routes are competing with the existing commercial routes on an unfair basis. Many of the new routes overlap considerably with the old routes. Secondly, the new routes are not prime because they cannot support a commercial service, so the buses are often under-utilised, and many of them are of a size that cannot be catered for on small country lanes.

On some routes, a subsidy has seriously undermined existing commercial structures. It would be far preferable to subsidise, if necessary, existing routes by making them more frequent and regular than to direct all available investment to new routes.

The aim of my Bill is similar to that of the rural transport partnership scheme for King's Lynn and West Norfolk district council and Breckland district council, which was announced last week and which aims to promote the social inclusion of rural people by enhancing rural transport services and securing a long-term improvement in people's access to jobs, services and social activities in rural areas.

881 My Bill would support local community-based projects, such as minibus brokerage schemes—which make better use of vehicles—rural dial-a-ride programmes and group hire. Flexible feeder taxi buses, community car schemes, post buses, local bus services and rail feeder services, coupled with vastly improved local publicity and marketing of all types of public and community transport, can make a vital difference to people's lives at relatively little cost. It is therefore crucial that funding is made available to encourage those community schemes and is not concentrated only on new bus services.

Decision making should be left to local voluntary groups and town and parish councils, which should have the resources to facilitate various schemes, such as car links, community car schemes, hospital car services and others that I have mentioned. As Norfolk county council said, when welcoming the rural transport partnership:

The exciting element of this new approach is that for the first time it gives many grassroot organisations the chance not only to identify their particular problems but to be part of an action plan to provide practical solutions.

To conclude, the car will remain a necessity in the countryside for the foreseeable future, and the Government should review their policy on the taxation of cars and petrol for rural drivers. The subsidies paid to new bus routes are not achieving the desired results, and the allocation of the subsidy should be reviewed to enable it to be used to improve existing routes. Finally, part of the bus subsidy should be reallocated to community transport schemes to provide the cost-effective, flexible local service required in small villages and the countryside.