---

27 Feb 2006 : Column 173W—continued

Free Bus Travel

Mark Hunter: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list local authorities who received less funding in their revenue support grants for 2006–07 than they require specifically to cover the cost of the introduction of free bus passes for older and disabled people. [52553]

Mr. Woolas: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle
 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 174W
 
upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) on 23 February 2006.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what representations he has received concerning the formula used to distribute the sum of money allocated to cover the cost of the free bus travel policy announced in the Budget; [51465]

(2) what recent representations he has received concerning free bus travel between different transport authorities. [51463]

Mr. Woolas: Out of the 336 representations received during the consultation period for the local government finance settlement, 61 mentioned the funding for concessionary fares. The points raised are summarised in the tables as follows.
Table 1: Summary table

Issue	Number of representations
Not enough money for concessionary fares	34
Support the concessionary fare funding scheme	18
Judgment for setting coefficients not transparent	2
Need more transparency in the amount of funding for concessionary fares	5
Miscellaneous	2

Table 2: Authority/Association and the main issue raised

	Authority/ Association	Issue raised
1	Association of London Government (ALG)	Not enough money for concessionary fares
2	County Councils Network (CCN)	Judgment for setting coefficients not transparent
3	Local Government Association (LGA)	Not enough money for concessionary fares
4	Mersey Travel	Not enough money for concessionary fares
5	Society of District County Treasurers (SDCT)	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
6	South East England Regional Authority	Not enough money for concessionary fares
7	Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (SIGOMA)	Need more transparency in the amount of funding for concessionary fares
8	Sparsity Partnership for Authorities delivering Rural Services (SPARSE)	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
9	Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority	Not enough money for concessionary fares
10	Lincolnshire County, district and police authorities	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
11	Rob Wilson MP—Wokingham District Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
12	Anne Milton MP—Guildford	Not enough money for concessionary fares
13	Bexley	Not enough money for concessionary fares
14	Camden	Not enough money for concessionary fares
15	Croydon Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
16	Hammersmith and Fulham	Not enough money for concessionary fares
17	Harrow Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
18	Lambeth	Not enough money for concessionary fares
19	London Borough of Havering	Not enough money for concessionary fares
20	Sutton	Need more transparency in the amount of funding for concessionary fares
21	Birmingham	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
22	Doncaster	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
23	Gateshead Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
24	Greater Merseyside	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
25	Kirklees	Need more transparency in the amount of funding for concessionary fares
26	Leeds City Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
27	North Tyneside	Not enough money for concessionary fares
28	Rochdale MBC	Not enough money for concessionary fares
29	Sefton	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
30	South Tyneside Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
31	Stockport	Not enough money for concessionary fares
32	Sunderland City Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
33	Trafford BC	Not enough money for concessionary fares
34	Carlisle	Using RSG to distribute Concessionary Fares is unfair
35	Dacorum	Judgement for setting coefficients not transparent
36	East Lindsey	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
37	East Staffordshire	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
38	Epping Forest District Council	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
39	Epsom and Ewell BC	Not enough money for concessionary fares
40	Fareham Borough Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
41	Guildford	Not enough money for concessionary fares
42	North Hertfordshire	Not enough money for concessionary fares
43	North Kesteven	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
44	North Norfolk	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
45	Nuneaton and Bedworth	Not enough money for concessionary fares
46	Preston City Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
47	Restormel	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
48	Rushcliffe	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
49	South Hams	Not enough money for concessionary fares
50	South Norfolk	Not enough money for concessionary fares
51	Spelthorne Council	Not enough money for concessionary fares
52	Thanet	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
53	West Devon	Need more transparency in the amount of funding for concessionary fares
54	West Lancashire District Council	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
55	Brighton and Hove	Not enough money for concessionary fares
56	Derby City	Not enough money for concessionary fares
57	Gloucester City Council	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
58	Medway	Support the concessionary fare funding scheme
59	Stockton Borough Council	Need more transparency in the amount of funding for concessionary fares
60	Torbay	Not enough money for concessionary fares
61	East Sussex	Concessionary fares should be funded by a specific grant

 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 175W
 

Of those authorities who raised the issue of concessionary fares, six authorities and one
 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 176W
 
authority group were concerned about travel between authorities.

Authority/Authority Group name	Concern regarding cross border travel
Durham City Council	A move to national standards and appropriate funding would be welcomed
East Lindsey District Council	Notes the existence of cross border schemes
Epson and Ewell Borough Council	Notes the existence of cross border schemes
North Hertfordshire	A move to national standards and appropriate funding would be welcomed
Society of District Council Treasurers	A move to national standards and appropriate funding would be welcomed
Thanet District Council	Notes the existence of cross border schemes, would like to see national standards and funding
West Lancashire	Notes the existence of cross border schemes

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge of 20 December 2005, Official Report, column 2818W, on the free bus travel scheme, if he will list the local authorities which were allocated more funding for the concessionary scheme than they required specifically to operate the scheme in their area. [51639]

Mr. Woolas: It is not possible to calculate how much funding has been allocated to each authority with respect to concessionary fares, since this is funded through an unhypothecated formula grant. Nor is it yet clear what the exact costs will be in each area, since this will be affected among other things by take up of the new free passes and travel.

Hertfordshire

Mr. Gauke: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what representations he has received from (a) Hertfordshire local authorities and (b) the Mayor of London on an extension of the geographical scope of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly to include areas of Hertfordshire; [52540]

(2) what assessment he has made of the merits of extending the responsibilities of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly to areas of Hertfordshire. [52542]

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government set out its proposals for additional powers and responsibilities for the Greater London authority in a consultation paper, published on 30 November 2005. It includes no proposals to extend the responsibilities of the Mayor of London and London Assembly beyond the Greater London boundary. The consultation closes on 22 February.

High Hedges

Mr. Wills: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many orders have been made by local councils in (a) England, (b) Wiltshire and (c) Swindon constituency to remove hedges under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. [52682]

Yvette Cooper: The information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, local authorities may require remedial works to hedges but not their complete removal.
 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 177W
 

---