Community Transport Debate

Speech by Norman Lamb, who secured and introduced the debate, delivered to The Commons on Wed 16th Jul 2003

Norman Lamb: My contribution to this debate is part of a cross-party initiative by Norfolk Members. I should mention in particular the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who cannot be present, as well as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who is here, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who is stuck in a Select Committee, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). I am also delighted to see that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is present—to support the case that is being made, I suspect.

Concerns were first brought to our attention by all the community transport schemes in Norfolk, as well as the two rural transport partnerships in the county. We are all indebted to them, and to the Community Transport Association nationally, for their guidance and hard work.

Before setting out our concerns, it is important to mention that there was some discussion about which Department should respond to this debate. It is clear that the Department for Transport has the main responsibility, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for the Countryside Agency, which provides grants, usually on a three-year basis, for community transport schemes. I hope that this debate will reinforce the need for co-ordination between those two Departments. The Department for Transport, in particular, needs to be aware of a developing funding crisis that is facing community transport not only in Norfolk but across the country.

The main message that I want to get across is that the Government must be applauded for providing funds to pump-prime new community transport schemes. Those have mushroomed throughout the country, and that is good. It is likely that such schemes will be the most viable model for rural public transport in the future. They are flexible, they are demand-responsive and they tend to use vehicles that are small and environmentally friendly. We have all witnessed double-decker buses careering around country lanes, usually entirely empty.

The great danger is that all the good progress could be lost. The CTA—the national body—and others do not want confrontation: that is not what this debate is about. They want to work with the Government to ensure that this exciting development over the past few years is maintained and enhanced. We also aim to be constructive as a group of MPs, and we hope that the Minister will respond in a similar vein.

I wish to say something about the Norfolk schemes. There are four community transport schemes, which have been set up with rural transport partnership—RTP—funding provided by the Countryside Agency. One of them is in South Norfolk—the Diss and District Community Transport Association. It runs a minibus dial-a-ride scheme and a door-to-door service for people in rural areas. The scheme is operated by a small group of employed people, together with drivers. Its RTP funding runs out next year. The North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership in my constituency is a similar operation whose funding also runs out next year.

The North Walsham Area Community Transport Association is also in my constituency. There is a full-time co-ordinator and a part-time administrator. They operate on a low cost base from a rent-free office in North Walsham. They have had funding from the Countryside Agency, which got the whole thing established, at a rate of £18,000 per year. That has already ended—it came to an end earlier this year. They get some funding from the county council, and the district and town and parish councils. They get income from fares and from charges for other transport services and membership subscriptions. However, they are now living off their reserves and it cannot carry on like this for long.

The association was founded in 1999. I want to make it clear that that was made possible by Government pump-priming. The association covers 45 parishes and provides regular dial-a-ride services to local market towns, which get people from small village communities into their local town. Secondly, it provides transport to appointments at local hospitals, GPs' surgeries, dentists and so on—that is crucial in rural areas. Thirdly, it provides transport for organised groups that meet regularly for social gatherings, such as lunch clubs for elderly and disabled people.

The association also has a programme of excursions. It uses 10 volunteer drivers locally, so it is a real community effort. It also runs a hospital bus, with a paid driver, from north-east Norfolk to the new Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, which is five miles to the south of Norwich: not an accessible location for anyone relying on public transport. There has been a steady growth in the use of the association's services, and there are now some 420 return passenger trips every month. Users are mainly elderly and disabled people who cannot walk to the normal bus stop and who benefit from the fact that they can be picked up outside their front door. There are other passengers without access to a car. The services are very valuable, and passengers describe them as a lifeline, a godsend, and say that it is so important that we keep those services.

The fourth scheme in Norfolk with the benefit of rural transport partnership funding is called "kickstart". It is a really innovative moped loan scheme that enables young people, primarily, to access employment and training. If a person is stuck in a small village that does not have a normal bus service, it is very difficult to get access to employment. The scheme has helped a significant number of people in Norfolk to access employment and training; its funding runs out next year as well.

There are other schemes with alternative sources of funding: a Norwich door-to-door scheme, of which I suspect the hon. Member for Norwich, North is aware. That scheme is specifically for disabled people and those with other mobility problems who are excluded from using traditional forms of public transport. There are other, existing schemes that have used RTP funding to expand their services. The West Norfolk community transport project, an excellent community car scheme, covers six parishes around Heacham. It is primarily used by people who need to get to hospital appointments. There are also the Swaffham rural links and Wymondham flexibus services. There are lots of schemes cropping up all over the place, all with the benefit of that central funding; the schemes tackle social exclusion and rural isolation and they give people independence. Last week, I met a group of residents from Wigston in Leicestershire; it looked like they were going to lose their housing estate bus service. For those elderly people, that bus is a lifeline.

The Government's social exclusion unit recently published a report entitled "Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion". The North Walsham association was used as a case study in the chapter entitled "Solutions to the problem". The chapter demonstrates how community transport reduces social exclusion.

The common problem is where to get sustainable funding once the pump-priming ends. Schemes have done an awful lot of work to secure alternative funding. The North Norfolk community transport partnership says that "We have sought to secure alternative funding through trusts, Town and Parish donations and other funding bodies. However, in the current financial and investment climate, whereby many trusts have seen their stock-market investment funds seriously depleted over the last year, such bodies are unable to offer any substantial financial support. Most Town and parish councils have very limited funds and the most our organisation has ever been offered is a donation of £250, (this being from quite well-off town councils such as Fakenham and Holt), otherwise donations usually amount to something in the region of £25-£50."

That level of funding simply will not support the services that they provide.

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which has the support of all Norfolk Members. Following from what he just said, it seems to many of us—I know that the Minister will be aware of this—that sustainable funding is the crucial element. Our fear at the meeting that we attended on 6 June was that as more and more schemes are set up, there is a danger that those set up behind them will collapse because of lack of funding. What we are looking for from the Minister is more suggestions of how we can get sustainable funding. During the past four years, Norfolk county council has spent from £171,000 to a planned £318,000 on community transport, but that may lead to cuts in local bus services. I support what the hon. Gentleman says.

Norman Lamb : I am grateful for that intervention, and I entirely agree with the Gentleman's points. The county council has explained to me that the only way in which it can get extra funding for community transport is to reduce subsidies on traditional bus services. That is a difficult process and takes time to achieve. Wholesale axing of existing services is simply not an option, because so many people rely on them.

The problem is that there is a very significant amount of money flowing in from the Countryside Agency to get those schemes started, but because so many started at roughly the same time, they are all coming to the end of their three-year funding period in a narrow time frame. Consequently, there is simply no prospect of the county council being able to take on the full burden following the withdrawal of Countryside Agency funding.

There sometimes seems to be an obsession with funding only new and innovative schemes. That is important, but must not happen to the detriment of other schemes that are already working successfully. There is a danger of organisations straining to come up with some new package simply to attract funding. There is also a danger of spending a disproportionate amount of time pursuing funding, which is inefficient use of management time. The process of applying for funding, then losing out in the bidding process, can be soul destroying. Uncertainty of funding will also lead to those employed in the sector seeking more security elsewhere, resulting in a loss of the skills and experience that need to be retained in the sector to build on the very successful foundations that have been laid.

One of the local operators in Norfolk has said: "Such 'short-term' funding has hampered an expansionist ethos for our service and the general feeling with our members and that of many dial-a-ride operators is one of an impending 'shut-down' of the service as a whole."

That is not conducive to an expansion of such schemes.

I am sure that the Minister will accept that the schemes are unlikely ever to be profitable. They provide a public service in some of the most remote areas of the country. They fill the gaps that conventional transport cannot fill. Those running the schemes tell us that they may well be able to survive with tapering funding. They also say that, ideally, they would like to be locally funded, a view that I strongly share, but there must be some transmission mechanism to get from nationally provided pump-priming to sustainable local funding. Three years is simply not long enough to build a strong passenger base and for the county council to reorganise its funding to provide sufficient support for community transport.

Those in the sector feel that they are caught in something of a tussle between central and local government, both believing in community transport but neither coming up with a basis for sustainable funding. The Government's commitment in principle is very clear. The 10-year transport plan declares: "There will be additional funding for other types of service" than the traditional sort, "including those run by the voluntary sector, community projects (such as the setting up and operation of social car and community minibus schemes) and flexible innovative schemes (which could include taxi-based services)."

The Government are there in principle, but the funding situation seems to be less optimistic than that statement of principle might suggest.

The Countryside Agency itself appears to be in something of a funding crisis. We have been told of concerns of "appalling financial planning, and grossly inadequate communications."

I do not know whether that is true, but that is the concern that has been expressed. An embargo was imposed on applications to the vital villages programme, part of the funding stream for community transport, back in mid-April. Although the embargo was lifted in June, it seems that many transport services due to receive funding will still have to be shelved. That inevitably means that much of the work by voluntary groups throughout the country will be wasted and expectations will be dashed. The Countryside Agency claims that that was because of an over-subscription in applications for rural transport partnership funding, but many believe that it is really because of over-spending on mapping work undertaken by the Countryside Agency.

Will the Minister investigation the situation? I appreciate that it is not his departmental responsibility, but it appears to be putting at risk an important part of the Government's transport strategy for rural areas. Will he also consider calling a summit of everyone with an interest in community transport? It could include the funders, local authorities, operators and service users, coming together with a view to ensuring that existing schemes are given the opportunity to flourish and a second aim of expanding rather than contracting the network.

Finally, as Paul Gray, co-ordinator of the North Walsham Area Community Transport Association, says: "Quietly, and without too much fuss, community transport does a great job every day. Any community bus driver will instantly recognise the unreserved appreciation shown by his or her passengers on a frequent basis. The message I carry to you is simple: A modest investment in rural community transport would represent a significant payback in the quality of life in a rural environment."

Related Link:

Hansard.