Clause 2 - Piloting of new provisions
School Transport Bill
12:00 pm
Mr Christopher Chope (Shadow Minister, Environment and Transport; Christchurch, Conservative)
I want to ask the Minister about subsection (2). The explanatory notes say:
''It is currently anticipated that regulations will impose a limit of 20 school travel schemes in England.''
Will the Minister tell us why the Government feel that it is necessary to impose such a limit on the number of school travel schemes? There are a couple of explanations for that. The first relates to the cost to public funds, but that is surely an argument for limiting the amount of taxpayer subsidy that can be given under the Bill, which it is not included in the clause and is not a reason for reducing or limiting the number of schemes. The only rational explanation for including this centralising control power is because the Government want to control the whole process through rationing. As you know, Mr. O'Brien, that is the preferred socialist method of control, which in turn leads to queuing and can be linked to the ability of the Government to allow its own pet local authorities to jump the queue. That is what this limit is about, and it is the only reason for the inclusion of subsection (2).
Some school travel schemes would not need to be expensive. For example, it would not cost so much to have staggered school starting and finish times. Some
schemes could result in the generation of additional revenue. A local authority, for example, might wish to introduce a radical travel plan including the power to charge parents of children living in the 3-mile limit, but not charge those who live further from the school than that. Giving children access to a bus provided for school transport would prevent them travelling to school by car. Such a scheme would give additional income to the local education authority and would not impose any costs.
Why should those sort of imaginative schemes be limited by number? Surely the important thing is to ensure that all the proposed travel schemes are of sufficient quality to merit acceptance by the Government. I hope that the Minister will accept that by including subsection (2) the Government are relying again—as so often in the past—on patronage and favouritism.