 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Concessionary Bus Travel |
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 5 June 2007(Morning)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords]Written evidence to be reported to the HouseCBT 01 Joint
Memorandum submitted by the Joint Committee for the Mobility of Blind
and Partially Sighted People, the Joint Committee for the Mobility of
Disabled People, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, RADAR,
National Autistic Society, Disabled Parents Network, Royal National
Institute of the Blind (RNIB), Arthritis Care, Mind, Restricted Growth
Association, Parkinson’s Disease Society, Community Transport
Association and Spinal Injuries
Association
10.30
am
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that copies of the money
resolution are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that
adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do
not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be
reached during an afternoon sitting. If colleagues become warm, they
can remove their coats. I wish them well and hope that they have a good
time discussing the
Bill.
That—
(1)
the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on
Tuesday 5th June)
meet—
(a) at
4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5th
June;
(b) at 9.00 a.m.
and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 7th
June;
(2) the
proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 5;
Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 13; Schedules 2 and 3; Clauses 14 to 16; new
Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the
Bill;
(3) the
proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a
conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 7th
June.
It is a pleasure
to have you presiding over our deliberations, Mr. Bayley. I
look forward to the debates, when I know that you will keep us in the
best of order. I welcome colleagues from both sides of the House to the
Committee, and I will welcome their interest in the Bill and their
contributions to our proceedings. I am sure that the best of order will
be kept by our
Whips.
The Bill is
important to some 11 million people in the country, and I am pleased
that it received a broad welcome from both sides of the House. Its
principle is clear: the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill will extend the
geographical scope of free off-peak bus travel for older and disabled
people throughout England. It builds on the Government’s earlier
work on concessionary travel.
In 2001, the Government guaranteed half-fare concessionary travel
off-peak services within an eligible person’s local authority
area. Since April 2006, they have made such travel completely free. The
Bill goes even further and will make off-peak free bus travel available
anywhere in
England.
We are also
taking the opportunity to put in place a flexible framework that will
allow changes to be made to concessionary travel arrangements in the
future. Subject to funding and practical arrangements being agreed,
there could be mutual recognition bus passes throughout the United
Kingdom in the future. We retain the power to extend the scope of the
national concession to other modes, such as trams and local rail
services or to other groups of people. The Bill is an important part of
the Government’s work to promote social inclusion. I am sure
that all members of the Committee will continue to welcome its
principles, and I hope that we can resolve any matters of disagreement
or concern quickly.
The programme motion proposes
that the Committee can meet twice today and similarly on Thursday. It
will allow for a full and proper discussion of each part of this
relatively small but important Bill. The motion was introduced in my
unavoidable absence due to circumstances beyond my control, thereby
proving that Ministers, despite what they think, are sometimes
completely dispensable. It was agreed happily by the Programming
Sub-Committee.
Gillian
Merron:
My absence was not caused by a bus, Mr.
Bayley. I commend the motion to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Ordered,
That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.
—[Gillian
Merron.]
Clause 1The
national
concession
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 1, page 1, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the definition
of “eligible journey” to be extended to a journey on one
train, underground train, tram, ferry or community
transport.’.
No. 31, in
clause 1, page 1, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the definition
of “eligible journey” to exclude services which are
primarily for the purposes of
tourism.’.
No.
32, in
clause 1, page 1, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the definition
of “eligible journey” to exclude services which have
limited stops or are not primarily local
services.’.
No. 15, in
clause 1, page 3, line 2, at
end add—
‘(12) Two years
after the commencement of this Act the Secretary of State shall conduct
a review of the definition of an “eligible service” and
shall lay before Parliament a report setting out his
findings.’.
No.
35, in
clause 8, page 7, line 6, at
end add—
‘(5) The Secretary
of State may by order, amend section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to
require the provision of flexible alternative forms of concession,
including for use on community
transport.’.
Paul
Rowen:
Thank you, Mr. Bayley. It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship. Like the Minister, I welcome this
Bill. It extends provision and continues what the Government started 12
months ago, when they introduced free concessionary bus fares in
localities throughout England and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 7, 31, 32 and
35 seek to broaden the definition of an eligible journey. In her
opening remarks, the Minister alluded to the fact that the Government
may, at some future time, extend the provision. However, we would like
to see that written in the Bill so that we have a clear commitment over
a period of time. Also, given the fact that the Bill applies only to
England and Wales and that there are different arrangements in other
nations of the UK, we would like to see some clarity. In particular, we
want the provision extended to trains, trams, ferries and community
transport.
I will use
community transport to illustrate one of the faults in the current
scheme. Eighteen months ago, a bus operator in my constituency decided
to withdraw a service. The passenger transport authority decided in its
wisdom to put a dial-a-ride community transport scheme on that route
and not another subsidised bus. That has been a source of great upset
to pensioners in Deeplish. Although they can use their concessionary
bus pass on a bus, there is no bus in their locality and they have to
pay 50p for the community transport scheme. In our view, we should
extend the provision to that service. I know that the Minister will say
that passenger transport authorities and local authorities have their
own resources to make that provision now, but we would like that
enshrined in the Bill along with a clear Government commitment to
extend free travel to those modes of transport.
On Second Reading, some hon.
Members asked why the Isle of Wight is going to get some of this money
when it provides no buses. If the amendment is accepted by the
Government, the ferry service that goes to the Isle of Wight will be
eligible for the
provision.
We also
want to tighten the definition of what is and is not provided. For
example, at the moment we think that open-top tourist buses could be
eligible. However, as they do not fall within the normal definition of
public transport, we do not think that they should be included in the
Bill.
We also want to
see some provision made with regard to what we mean by
“bus”. Clearly, the ideas of limited stock or a fast sort
of coach does not come within that provision. I hope that the Minister
will accept that. She has said that the Government retain the power to
introduce such proposals. We would like to see a clear commitment
written into the Bill to enable that to
happen.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): Thank you, Mr.
Bayley. It is an honour and privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
As the Minister and the hon. Member for Rochdale have already said,
this is a small but none the less important Bill. Like the Minister, I
welcome the general cross-party consensus in support of the Bill, which
was made clear on Second Reading. We are here to consider some of the
nuances and, perhaps, one or two elements that can be tidied
up.
The Liberal
Democrat amendments have the superficial merit of exploring and
tightening the definition of “eligible service”, but the
problem is that they would involve a huge cost to the Exchequer of up
to £300 million, considering some of the current estimates, and
they have been tabled without any knowledge of demand, uptake, usage
and cost. That is clearly one of the great advantages of the amendment
tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The Minister will have
to agree that our amendment is reasonable and sensible—it would
compel the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the modes of
transport in the concessionary scheme two years after it commences.
Given that the Minister has already said that flexibility is her
watchword, I am sure that she will want to include that flexibility in
the Bill.
Unlike the
Liberal Democrats, we have chosen not to table amendments extending the
scheme at this stage, because, as it has been made clear not only by
the Minister on Second Reading but in Committee in the other place, the
current projected costs are considerable. My Conservative colleagues
and I want to make it clear at the earliest opportunity that we are not
in the business of making unpublished spending commitments. The
amendment would not allow the Minister or any of her colleagues to make
that mischievous accusation against us, although, of course, we know
that she would not dream of doing that. However, two years in, it will
be far clearer what the costs of the scheme are, as it is currently
defined, what the take-up rates are and whether an extension of the
scheme might be funded and might increase the aim of aiding social
inclusion.
It is clear
that certain groups of disabled and elderly people would benefit from a
wider application of eligible services. A great many elderly and
disabled people live in rural locations in which the most effective
method of providing a convenient eligible service will not be the
bus—it will be provision of community transport, whether a
minibus or taxi. The current scheme will allow access to concessionary
fares only if the local transport authority commissions a bus service
to those areas. In many cases, that will be economically unsound and
environmentally irresponsible, yet those are exactly the elderly and
disabled residents for whom this Bill was designed. There is a paradox,
because on one hand the intention is to enable the elderly and disabled
to have a better quality of life, to be socially included and to
participate more fully in their communities, but, on the other hand,
the funding will be allocated only to those who can have an eligible
bus service, meaning that it will prevent such people from getting
it.
For many elderly
and disabled people who live in Sheffield, Nottingham and Manchester,
for example, the best service will be not the eligible bus service, but
the tram. Let us also consider those with handicaps
and impairments, for whom door-to-door services would be not only
medically advisable, but socially inclusive. That may also apply to
those who access higher rates of disability living allowance and to
autism sufferers, for
instance.
Let us
consider those who regard ferries as their everyday local transport. On
Second Reading in the other place, much was made of journeys by ferry
in Scotland. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for
Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who forcefully argued that
access to the benefits of this scheme for his residents would
necessitate the ferry from the Isle of Wight to the mainland being
included where it is absolutely necessary to access specialist medical
help that is available only on the mainland. Of course, for Londoners
in many cases the tube, not the bus, will be the local transport
choice.
The Minister will
retort that this scheme does not prevent local authorities from going
further than the national scheme. She will also retort on cost. I
welcome the fact that the Bill allows a continuing discretion for local
authorities to offer travel concessions on other forms of transport as
an enhancement of the statutory minimum. However, such local discretion
will receive no national compensation, so other local services will
have to be cut or local council tax will have to be increased to pay
for a sensible local extension to the
scheme.
10.45
am
Local
authorities are currently under tight funding constraints and cannot be
expected to absorb the costs of local discretionary extensions.
Redefining eligible services to include community transport, trams,
trains and ferries would enhance the access to transport and social
inclusion for the elderly. That is one of the primary motives behind
the Bill and a forceful argument for making it a Government
responsibility.
Lord Davies
of Oldham stated that it would cost an extra £300 million to
redefine eligible services to include trains, underground, trams and
ferries, which is a very large sum. The noble Lord split the cost into
its constituent parts. He attributed £250 million to trains,
£15 million to trams, £25 million to community transport,
and nothing to ferries. I concur that £15 million for trams and
£25 million for community transport are large incremental sums,
but out of a total cost of £1 billion, which the Government say
they are providing, an extra £40 million, after a proper review,
consultation and consideration, might be viewed as a sensible use of
public moneys.
None
of the retorts that we will hear from the Minister in a minute militate
against accepting the amendment for review. They would carry weight
only if the amendment were to include in the Bill a wider definition of
eligible services. On the other side of the coin, in two years’
time we may need to reconsider some of the services that are currently
possibly eligible. For example, such services include securing free
rides on open-top buses and short coach journeys from Heathrow to
Victoria. Local authorities in the areas from which the journeys
commence could face enormous financial burdens. It may well be that
after a
proper review we would concur that such services
should be withdrawn from the definition of eligible service.
It is sensible to ensure that
local authorities and the Government have the opportunity to put right
any malfunctions of the concessionary scheme that become apparent after
it has bedded down. It is sensible to allow the Government the
opportunity to review the primary motivation of this Bill, which is
currently being enacted by the tightly drawn definition. If the primary
motivation of the Bill is not being served by the current definition of
eligible services, then it is only right to redraw that definition.
Therefore, amendment No. 15 puts in the Bill a requirement for
reassessment after two years of operation. It is an entirely sensible
and rational amendment, and I look forward to the Minister concurring
with
me.
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): First, may I
also welcome you to the Chair this morning, Mr. Bayley? I am
sure that we will have an excellent time in Committee, and hopefully we
can deal with the amendments and clauses in a speedy
fashion.
May I add my
support to the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for
Rochdale in relation to the extension of the national concession to
other modes of public transport? I want to mention two brief points.
First, although free bus travel for the elderly and the disabled is
very welcome, some parts of the country have introduced other modes of
transport for sections of regular journeys. For example, part of the
journey from New Addington to Croydon used to be on a bus, but that
service has now been replaced by the Croydon Tramlink. If we do not
have a free service for the elderly and disabled on that section of
that route, how will those people access the free transport that they
are entitled to? Secondly, the Mersey crossing forms part of journey
from Birkenhead to Liverpool. Surely, there is a very strong case to
suggest that those journeys should be included as part of the free
scheme?
As for other
modes of transport supporting and enhancing bus services, if we do not
have free services on other modes of transport, bus services will then
be in direct competition with existing services, such as Metrolink in
Manchester. We should really be looking at integrating the services
rather than setting them up in direct competition. Surely the best
option is for people to use one or the other. By including the other
forms of public transport within the concessionary scheme, there would
be no need for the operators of bus services to try to take passengers
from the other modes of
transport.
My final
point concerns accessibility. Unfortunately, some areas do not have a
bus service. If we do not have an alternative form of transport for
local people, those in the most remote areas are likely to miss out on
the free transport. In areas with bus services, those services are not
necessarily accessible by certain disabled people. By including
community transport and dial-a-ride utilities that provide door-to-door
services, we will be making services accessible to the most vulnerable
people in such
areas.
Gillian
Merron:
I understand that hon. Members have some concerns
about the existing definition of eligible services for the purpose of
concessionary
travel. I have been hopeful that the information provided in my letter
of 23 May to you, Mr. Bayley, which was copied to members of
the Committee, has assisted in providing some clarity about the
existing
definition.
I
made it clear on Second Reading that the Bill is about extending the
geographical scope of the statutory minimum concession to guarantee
that older and eligible disabled people can access important services
outside their local authority boundary by bus for free. It is a major
step forward and one of which I am extremely proud. It has also secured
the commitment of unprecedented levels of funding from the Government.
The Bill is not about extending the concession to other forms of public
transport such as trains, trams, community transport and ferries at
this time. However, I re-emphasise that we are not ruling out further
improvements in the future. The Government certainly have an excellent
track record on concessionary
fares.
Amendment No. 7
proposes a regulation-making power to change the definition of
“eligible journey” to allow the Secretary of State to
extend the statutory concession to other modes. It would not actually
extend the mandatory concession to other modes. Clause 8(1)(b) already
allows the Secretary of State by order to amend part 2 of the Transport
Act 2000 to extend the national concession to other modes of public
passenger transport. The amendment is therefore without purpose. It
would neither require anything to be done nor give us the power to do
something that we cannot already
do.
In
addition, under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities have the
discretion to offer a range of travel concessions on other forms of
public transport and many do. The Bill preserves the flexibility for
local authorities to enhance the statutory minimum to reflect local
priorities and circumstances. From the amendments, I detect an obvious
concern about the definition of eligible services. I hope that I can
reassure members of the Committee about such matters, as I believe that
such worry is somewhat
misplaced.
Amendment
No. 31 proposes that the definition of “eligible journey”
excludes services that are primarily for the purposes of tourism.
Amendment No. 32 would provide powers for the definition of eligible
services to exclude services that have limited stops or that are not
primarily local services. I assure the Committee that the amendments
are unnecessary. The power already exists under regulations made under
section 146 of the Transport Act 2000 to change the definition of
eligible service in response to developing requirements. The current
regulations are detailed and stipulate broadly that a service must be
sufficiently accessible to the public, have stops that are 15 miles
apart or less and have stops that are situated at locations where they
are likely to be used by the
public.
Amendment
No. 15 proposes a review of the definition of eligible services after
two years and a report to be laid before Parliament. I would accept the
principle that policies should be properly evaluated. We will, of
course, review how the national bus concession is working after
implementation in April 2008, including the definition of
“eligible service”. However, as I have already said, we
already have the power to change the definition of “eligible
service”, so I cannot see the need for such an
amendment.
Amendment No. 35 would amend
section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to
provide
“flexible
alternative forms of concession, including for use on community
transport”.
Local
authorities already have powers to offer a range of concessions on all
modes of public passenger transport, including travel tokens and some
community transport, and many have already decided to offer those. The
Government have no plans at present to extend the statutory minimum
concession to other forms of public transport or community transport or
to include travel tokens. Any decision to extend the national statutory
entitlement would have to be fully
funded.
As
I explained on Second Reading, and as Lord Davies of Oldham explained
in another place, it is difficult to estimate how much it might cost to
extend the scheme to other modes of transport, but we are talking about
significant sums. As has been mentioned in various debates, early
estimates from the Department suggest that extending the concession to
rail alone would cost an extra £250 million per year, with
another £15 million a year to extend it to trams and a further
£25 million a year to extend it to community transport. Those
costs could be a lot higher, depending on take-up. We are not currently
in a position to commit further funding to concessionary travel. We
need carefully to consider our spending priorities not only in this
area, but overall, and I urge Opposition Members to do the same. It is
about not only the availability of further resources to fund the
scheme, but making the right decision. That involves fully considering
the potential impacts in consultation with those involved to avoid any
unintended
consequences.
On
community transport, for example, although there are arguments for
extending concessions to dial-a-ride and other flexible services, many
local authorities already do that. However, making it a mandatory
requirement is a significant step and would require consideration of a
number of issues. I urge Opposition Members to consider whether the
sector could meet the extra demand that would be generated, what the
impact would be on local bus services, particularly in rural areas, and
what extra burdens—particularly administrative ones—would
be placed on the voluntary
sector.
As I have
explained, the Government have already delivered significant
improvements to the statutory minimum scheme in stages. In 2000, they
introduced the first statutory minimum concession for older and
disabled people—half-price, off-peak travel within local
authority areas. We are now discussing the introduction of free
off-peak bus travel anywhere in England from April 2008. That means
that the Government will be spending around £1 billion a year on
concessionary travel to improve the mobility and well-being of older
and disabled people. We would not even have the luxury of talking about
further extensions without the steps that the Government have already
taken.
As I have
indicated, older and disabled people currently qualify for a third off
most rail journeys, as the Department for Transport requires train
operators to participate in the senior and disabled person railcard
schemes. In addition, there is a half-price coach travel scheme. Until
the full impact of the introduction of the
new national bus concession has been evaluated for
effectiveness and cost it would be premature to extend the scheme
further. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale
feels able to withdraw his
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
Having listened to the Minister’s views,
particularly on eligible services, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(2A) If a
disabled person is unable to access mainstream public transport as a
result of the person’s impairment the travel concession
authority in England shall mark that clearly on the
permit.
(2B) Where a person
whose current statutory travel concession permit is marked in
accordance with subsection (2A) the person shall be entitled to a
waiver of the fare for a journey when using a dial a ride vehicle,
community transport service, Hackney carriage vehicle or other door to
door transport.
(2C) The
Secretary of State shall issue guidance to travel concession
authorities in England to which they shall have regard in determining
for the purposes of subsection (2A) whether a disabled person needs to
travel by door to door
transport.
(2D) Before issuing
guidance under subsection (2C), the Secretary of State shall
consult—
(a) the
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory
Committee;
(b) associations
representative of travel concession authorities;
and
(c) such other persons as
the Secretary of State thinks
fit.’.
No. 8, in
clause 1, page 2, line 11, at
end insert—
‘(4A) If a
disabled person requires the assistance of a companion to travel on
journeys on public transport services, the travel concession authority
in England other than a London authority must mark that clearly on the
permit.
(4B) Where a person
whose current statutory travel concession permit is marked in
accordance with subsection (4A) is entitled under this section to a
waiver of the fare for a journey, one companion travelling on the
journey with the person (and nominated by the person as the
person’s companion for that journey) is also entitled to a
waiver of the fare for the
journey.
(4C) The Secretary of
State shall issue guidance to travel concession authorities in England
to which they must have regard in determining for subsection (4A)
whether a disabled person needs a companion in order to
travel.’.
No.
10, in
clause 1, page 2, line 11, at
end insert—
‘(4A) For the
purposes of this section a person whose ability to travel is impaired
by a mental disorder within the meaning of section 1 of the Mental
Health Act 1983 shall be considered to be a disabled
person.’.
No.
9, in
clause 1, page 2, line 22, leave
out ‘subsection (6)’ and insert ‘subsections (4C)
and (6).’.
No.
12, in
clause 4, page 4, line 11, at
end insert—
‘(ba) after
sub-paragraph (ix)
insert—
“(x)
whose ability to travel is impaired by a mental disorder within the
meaning of section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be considered
to be a disabled
person.”’.
No.
29, in
clause 6, page 5, line 41, at
end insert—
‘(8C) If a
disabled person is unable to access mainstream public transport as a
result of their impairment the London travel concession authority shall
mark that clearly on the permit.
(8D) Where a person whose current statutory travel
concession permit is marked in accordance with subsection (8C) they
shall be entitled to a waiver of the fare for a journey when using a
dial a ride vehicle, community transport service, Hackney carriage
vehicle or other door to door
transport.
(8E) The Secretary
of State shall issue guidance to travel concession authorities in
London to which they shall have regard in determining for the purposes
of subsection (8C) whether a disabled person needs to travel by door to
door transport.
(8F) Before
issuing guidance under subsection (8E) the Secretary of State shall
consult—
(a) the
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory
Committee;
(b) associations
representative of travel concession authorities;
and
(c) such other persons as
the Secretary of State thinks
fit.’.
No.
27, in
clause 7, page 6, line 15, at
end insert —
‘(3A) After
subsection (5)
insert—
“(5A) If
a disabled person requires the assistance of a companion to travel on
journeys on public transport services, the London travel concession
authority must mark that clearly on the
permit.
(5B) Where a person
whose current statutory travel concession permit is marked in
accordance with subsection (5A) is entitled under this section to a
waiver of the fare for a journey, one companion travelling on the
journey with the person (and nominated by the person as the
person’s companion for that journey) is also entitled to a
waiver of the fare for the
journey.
(5C) The Secretary of
State shall issue guidance to travel concession authorities in London
to which they must have regard in determining for the purposes of
subsection (5A) whether a disabled person needs a companion in order to
travel.
(5D) Before issuing
guidance under subsection (5C) the Secretary of State shall
consult—
(a) the
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory
Committee;
(b) associations
representative of travel concession authorities;
and
(c) such other persons as
the Secretary of State thinks
fit.”.’.
Paul
Rowen:
The previous amendments were probing amendments,
but, in my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester,
Withington, these go to the heart of what is missing from the Bill. We
would like the Government to implement various provisions in the
amendments, particularly those relating to access for disabled
people.
11
am
Amendment No.
28 would ensure that someone’s concession permit is clearly
marked with the fact that they are disabled. It would also enable a
person to go with them if they require a companion to accompany them.
That is vital. We know that many disabled people feel anxious when
using public transport. Having a companion travelling with them for
free would be a valid, welcome concession for disabled people. We are
not talking about huge sums. Many disabled people are not able to use a
bus. This matter can be properly discussed with the Disabled Persons
Transport Advisory Committee. Where there is a need for disabled people
to go door to door, use of a dial-a-ride scheme is required. Extending
the scheme to include those people would be valuable and
useful.
The Bill does
not allow someone who is mentally ill to be recognised as disabled.
That is a serious omission. Under amendment No. 10, anyone classed as
suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of section 1
of the Mental Health Act 1983 would be considered as a disabled person.
We are not talking about huge numbers of people or a huge extra cost
involved in introducing the Bill. Nevertheless, many mentally ill
people feel quite aggrieved, because they have a disability that is
recognised by the medical profession, yet we are not according them the
same right—because it is not a physical disability—that
we are according other disabled
people.
Philip
Davies (Shipley) (Con): I support the thrust of what the
hon. Gentleman is saying. The stumbling block, potentially, is the cost
of the amendments. Does he know what the likely cost of the
amendments will
be?
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Minister
will be able to give us the up-to-date cost, but I understand, from the
debate in the other place, that we are talking about £10 million
out of a total budget of £1 billion. In the overall scheme of
things, that is not an impossible sum to be met within the
contingencies that I am sure the Minister has set aside. That could and
should be done and it would be appreciated greatly by mentally ill
people.
The amendments
are important and deal with a serious omission and we would like to
have a vote on the
matter.
Stephen
Hammond:
Like the hon. Member for Rochdale, I am concerned
about the definition of a disabled person, particularly with regard to
people with mental illness. The current definitions are not adequate
for the Bill. Let us consider the amendments that were tabled in the
other place. When the definition of disablement was being more tightly
drawn, the amendment stated in relation to mental health that
it
“(g) would be defined
as having a mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term
adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities in
accordance with section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as
amended, or
(h) would, if he
applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part
III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant
to section 92 of that Act...otherwise than on the grounds of
persistent misuse of drugs or
alcohol.”
That would have
had the benefit of clarifying and putting into the Bill those eligible
and, in particular, the difficult group of eligible people who suffer
from mental health
issues.
It is clear
that an individual’s chance of recovery and reintegration into
society would be aided by access to community health teams, mental
health drop-in centres, therapy and counselling. Many such services
rely on public transport and therefore access to them would be aided by
concessionary travel. Eligibility for such concessionary fares could be
a major contributor to mental illness recovery. Most of those who will
qualify for concessionary travel and have mental health issues will do
so owing to part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That Act said that
there were five categories of people who should and would be refused
licences were they to apply. The second category is severe mental
disorder and, under that category, a number of people with mental
health problems will qualify for concessionary travel, but not
all.
Many people with mental health
issues still hold a driving licence, even through fluctuating mental
illness. Although that illness may make driving impossible at times,
they will still hold a licence, but they should be entitled to
concessionary travel. It is important that the definition of an
eligible person is more exactly specified than it is under the
Transport Act 2000. The Minister might sensibly agree to review what
extra definition could be considered, particularly with regard to
mental illness. I look forward to her response. I hope that she will
reflect compassionately and carefully on those with mental health
issues. If the Committee does not consider that it has received an
adequate response, I am sure that it will want to revisit the
matter.
The thrust of
the Bill on Second Reading and today concerns the benefit of social
inclusion. Clearly, the position of carers is an oversight. Many
elderly and disabled people will only be able to use the provisions of
the Bill and access public transport if their carer can do so. As it
happens, many hon. Members will be taking part in activities next week,
it being carers week. It will highlight the fabulous work of carers. I
should welcome the Minister making positive remarks about what she
might do. She has already accepted the principle of a review of
eligible services. Perhaps she will now accept the principle of
extending concessionary travel to carers, given their invaluable work
that improves the quality of life for the elderly and disabled. I look
forward to her responding positively to my
comments.
Gillian
Merron:
I am grateful to members of the Committee for
raising what I believe to be important issues. I am well aware that the
intentions behind the amendments are extremely sound but, as I have
explained, the Bill is about extending the geographical scope of
concessionary bus travel, not extending the concession to other groups
or other modes, as is envisaged by the
proposals.
The Bill
allows response to changing circumstances. It is premature to consider
extensions when the Government are still introducing the national bus
travel concession. The Transport Act 1985 provides local authorities
with considerable flexibility to offer more than the statutory
concession. There are numerous examples of councils that offer
concessions to additional groups, such as companions of disabled
people. Many councils also offer concessions to other modes, such as
taxis or community
transport.
The
Bill does not stop local authorities continuing to use their
discretionary powers to provide enhancements to the proposed national
minimum, always taking account of their local
circumstances.
Paul
Rowen:
In the context of a national scheme, will the
Minister tell us how someone travelling from one authority to another
might find out whether the concession that they might have in their own
authority is available in the place that they are
visiting?
Gillian
Merron:
That will become quite clear when we talk
about the cards later in the Bill. It is in the interests of the local
authorities to make it clear, as they always do, that it is they who
are enhancing the national scheme. I am not aware of any local
authority
that hides its light under a bushel. Although we are straying now, I
should say that the design of the pass allows for that issue to be made
clear.
Hon. Members
will know that the Government have sought to provide local authorities
with more freedom and flexibility to choose how they use their
resources so that they can best reflect local priorities. That approach
is both welcomed and supported by local government. I hope that all
hon. Members would agree that the Government have done a great deal to
improve the well-being of older and disabled people who are among the
most vulnerable in our society. I hope that the Committee will forgive
me for reinforcing the point that from April 2008 the Government will
be providing around £1 billion of funding each year for
concessionary travel in England. It is a major public spending
commitment of which we are rightly proud. The extension from the local
to the national entitlement alone involves substantial new money of up
to £250
million.
The costs
associated with the amendments are significant. The money, of course,
will have to come from other areas. When Opposition Members seek
spending commitments, I urge them to consider the impact of
that.
Philip
Davies:
The Minister has said that the cost of the
amendments is significant, which may or may not be the case. Can she
give us an indication of what the actual cost would
be?
Gillian
Merron:
I am just about to come on to that, but I
emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that it is not just a matter of cost.
It is also about practicality, delivery and capacity, so I would put it
in that context.
On
Report in another place, Lord Davies of Oldham provided the
Department’s initial estimates of the annual cost of extending
the concession to companions of disabled people and to people with
mental disorder, as well as providing free travel on community
transport. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 would provide free travel on
door-to-door transport. The cost of community transport alone was
estimated as at least £25 million a year.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 27
would provide free travel for companions of disabled people, at an
extra cost of some £10 million a year. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12
would extend the national concession to people with a mental
impairment, at an extra cost of some £50 million a
year.
Those costs are
purely indicative and could be much higher depending on the eligibility
definitions used, take-up, the extra concessionary travel generated,
the switch from other modes, travel behaviour and the amount of
additional capacity required. The existence of all those inter-related
factors makes estimates of the cost very difficult. We are not ruling
out extensions in the future, Mr. Bayley, although you will
understand why I am not in a position to make commitments now.
As
I said to the hon. Member for Shipley, our concerns are not confined to
resources. The amendments also raise important practical and
administrative points. On the issue of free travel for companions, for
example, there would need to be a robust and fair system for
assessing eligibility against whether a disabled person required the
assistance of a companion to travel on journeys on public transport
services. There could also be issues around fraud. Who would qualify as
an accompanying companion? Would it be a nominated person as specified
on the pass, or a considerate fellow
passenger?
Providing
free travel on door-to-door transport for those people who cannot
access mainstream bus services, as suggested in amendments Nos. 28 and
29, again throws up a number of difficult and complex practical issues
that I urge the Committee to consider seriously. For example, how would
this ability to access be defined and assessed? Who would do the
assessing and what would the arrangements be for appealing against such
determinations? Could the community transport sector meet the extra
demand generated from such a change? How would that largely voluntary
sector regard the extra administrative burdens placed on it? What would
be the impact on existing rural bus
services?
Unless we
have answers to those questions, via consultation with stakeholders and
the relevant experts—in other words, those who are directly
affected and concerned—the Government will not be able to accept
the amendments. To do so would risk unintended consequences and higher
costs to the
taxpayer.
Mr.
Leech:
Does the Minister accept that if she refuses to
accept the amendments, some of the most vulnerable people in society
will not benefit from the
Bill?
Gillian
Merron:
As I have said, were it not for the
Government’s policy and our commitment of £1 billion a
year, we would not even have the luxury of discussing extensions. The
Bill is about providing for some 11 million people up and down
the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that and the fact
that the Bill also allows the flexibility for local arrangements to be
made to serve local communities best. I would have thought that that,
too, was extremely
welcome.
11.15
am
On the
definition of disability, I welcome efforts to raise awareness of
transport issues for people suffering from mental health difficulties.
We are well aware of this issue, and last month officials met Mind to
discuss it. Mind has indicated that it welcomes our constructive
dialogue approach, which it will continue. On that basis, we are
considering whether it is necessary to update the guidance to local
authorities on assessing eligibility.
The hon. Member for Rochdale
suggested that people with mental health difficulties could not access
concessionary travel, but that is not the case. Under the Transport Act
2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 there is an inclusion of
those with learning disabilities, those with arrested development of
the mind and those with mental health problems who would be refused a
driving licence for that reason, so it is not true to say that all
those with mental health difficulties are excluded.
I
recognise that all the amendments are doubtless born of good
intentions, but I hope that hon. Members, having heard about what
provision is already available and the implications of the amendments,
no matter how well meaning they are, will agree that the
Government’s approach is the right one. Our key objective for
the present must be successfully to introduce the national scheme from
April 2008. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press the amendments
to a Division.
Paul
Rowen:
I have heard what the Minister has said, but
unfortunately I cannot agree to withdraw the amendment. We are
discussing a Bill on national concessionary bus fares, and although she
may talk about things being geographical, it is important to include
provision to enhance the Bill to ensure that people who would otherwise
not benefit from it are able to do so. Extending the provision and
broadening the definition of mental impairment would considerably
benefit more
people.
Gillian
Merron:
It might be help the Committee if the hon.
Gentleman would say exactly who would be covered by this
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
First, I have referred to those people covered
under section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983; it is broader than what
we are currently providing for. Secondly, we need to provide for people
who are not able to access a bus or who need a companion. The ability
for someone to take a companion with them, where necessary, is an
important concession, which we would like to be
provided.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): On companions, when two people
travel on a bus and one of them gets a free pass, they both, in effect,
travel at half price. That could be regarded as a concession. I
intervened to ask about the disability discrimination legislation,
which excludes some people with disabilities, such as those with
short-term disabilities, from the definition of disabled. Is the hon.
Gentleman saying that we should go back and reconsider those
definitions? That would be well outside the scope of the
Bill.
Paul
Rowen:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to amendment No. 28.
Proposed new subsection (2A) makes it clear that before the guidance is
issued, the Secretary of State would consult with the Disabled Persons
Transport Advisory Committee and other persons as he sees fit. I
believe that that would enable his suggestions to be implemented. I am
not suggesting that everything is decided now, but it is important that
before the Bill is fully
operational—
Gillian
Merron:
For the benefit of the Committee, I bring the hon.
Gentleman back to his reference to section 1 of the Mental Health Act
1983. Perhaps he will address the point that the amendment radically
broadens eligibility by removing the condition that mental illness is
severe. In addition, perhaps he will advise the Committee how his
amendment would be affected by the Mental Health Bill, which is
currently before the House and which will amend the 1983
Act.
Paul
Rowen:
I understand what the Minister is saying. At the
moment, however, the 1983 Act governs
whether someone is classed as mentally ill. The amendment does broaden
and extend the definition, which is what we would like to happen. I do
not believe that the provision should apply only to someone who is
classed as severely mentally ill, as she is suggesting. We should
ensure that as many people as possible can use the
concession.
Stephen
Hammond:
In supporting the hon. Gentleman’s initial
thrust, I was looking to the Minister to reassure us about the
definition of mental health. Did the hon. Gentleman not take some
reassurance, as I did, from the fact that there is an ongoing
conversation with Mind, and particularly from the Minister’s
stated willingness to come back for review at a sensible time? If Mind,
the clear specialist in the field, is prepared to engage in that
conversation, I take considerable confidence from
that.
Paul
Rowen:
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and I
welcome the Minister’s assurances that there are ongoing
discussions. I hope that, even if the amendment is not accepted, she
will come forward in the future with some improved guidance.
Nevertheless, I feel that the amendments would make effective changes
now.
Tom
Levitt:
I hope that there are no spies from the Department
for Work and Pensions listening to the debate, because many people
receive disability living allowance, which might contain a mobility
component. That money helps many disabled people with the cost of
transport. If we draw too much attention to the issue, someone might
make a point somewhere else that there would be a good argument for
reducing DLA or leaving it at its current level, rather than increasing
it. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree with me that it is probably
better to drop the issue, so as not to draw it to the attention of the
DWP and risk taking money out of disabled people’s
pockets?
Paul
Rowen:
No, I do not agree with that. We are here to deal
with the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill and to consider how that might
operate for the people affected. These small amendments would broaden
the scope of the legislation, and they should be
accepted.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
1
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
‘(4A) The Secretary of
State may by regulations make provision for persons aged 17 years and
under and those in full
time education to be entitled to the concession specified in subsection
(1).’.
The
amendment would extend the provisions in clause 1 to people aged 17
years or under, or those in full-time education. Before anyone rushes
to say that I am making yet another spending commitment, I point out
that it would simply give permission for the Secretary of State to make
regulation. It would not introduce such measures with immediate effect.
We want proper provision made so that at some future date, as resources
allow, the Bill can be extended to young people and those in full-time
education. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amendment
would not bring about anything that was a major revolution. We just
want to ensure that young people and those in full-time education are
not forgotten in respect of concessionary bus
fares.
Stephen
Hammond:
I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about
regulation. However, the amendment would be a major extension of the
Bill. We tabled earlier amendments to test eligible services and the
definition of disability, but this amendment would go way beyond the
original thrust of the Bill. By giving the reserve power to extend, we
would wander into the area of at least doubling the cost of the
Bill’s provisions. There is already flexibility at local level,
as we have seen in London, for concessions to be given to those in
full-time education or those under 16. Even by giving the Secretary of
State the power to change matters by regulation later, we would extend
the principle of the Bill well beyond what we discussed earlier and,
secondly, the cost implications would require a substantive Bill in
itself. I am troubled by the
amendment.
Gillian
Merron:
Amendment No. 11 provides that the Secretary of
State may by order extend the national concession to people aged 17
years and under, and those in full-time education. As I said earlier,
the Transport Act 1985 provides local authorities with the discretion
to offer more than the statutory concession to their residents. Indeed,
many authorities already go further than the statutory minimum and
there is free travel for young people in a number of areas. There is no
reason why the costs of any discretionary enhancements should affect
the provision of statutory entitlement. The funding is separate.
Central Government are providing funding for the national concession,
whereas local extensions are to be decided and funded locally, in line
with an authority’s overall financial priorities. However, in
terms of national extensions to the concession, hon. Members will be
pleased to hear that I am fully behind the principle of flexibility in
the Bill, giving the Secretary of State the power to respond to
changing circumstances in future. That provision runs through the Bill
and it already allows the Secretary of State to make the extensions
that hon. Members opposing the amendment
envisage.
11.30
am
Clause
8(1)(a) allows the Secretary of State, by order, to amend the Transport
Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to extend the
national concession to other groups of people. The
particular
groups who can be added are set out in the Transport Act 1985. Those are
the same groups to whom local authorities can choose to offer
additional concessions using their existing discretionary powers.
Maintaining a consistent set of clearly defined groups of people helps
to avoid confusion about eligibility. I can confirm that the groups set
out in the 1985 Act currently include people aged 16 or under and
people aged 17 or 18 who are in full time education. In addition, the
Secretary of State may, by order, amend the 1985 Act in future to
include further groups of people, such as
students.
As I have
said, I am in favour of a flexible legislative framework, but it would
nevertheless be prudent—if I might borrow the word—to
touch on costs. The cost of making young people aged 5 to 18 eligible
for the national concession has been conservatively estimated at the
considerable sum of £500 million plus a year. As with other
extensions, the actual cost could be much higher than the estimate,
depending on factors such as take-up, travel behaviour and the amount
of additional capacity
required.
Although the
hon. Member for Rochdale said that his amendment was not seeking such
provision, that is perhaps not the case. One should consider spending
commitments. It may be appropriate for Opposition Members to indicate
whether they would be prepared to stand by their
commitments.
Tom
Levitt:
Does my hon. Friend the Minister detect, as I do,
a trend among the Liberal amendments not only to make free bus travel
available to absolutely everybody—the only group that they would
currently exclude is the one that is statistically least likely to use
buses—but to make it
compulsory?
Gillian
Merron:
My hon. Friend, as always, puts it so eloquently.
I could not improve on his detection
skills.
We are not
ruling out extensions in future, although as I am sure hon. Members
will understand that I am not in a position to make unfunded and
difficult-to-deliver commitments now. I hope that hon. Members will
recognise that existing legislation already goes further than their
amendment envisages. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for
Rochdale feels able to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
I welcome the Minister’s commitment that
there is scope within the Bill for our suggestions. She may recall
that, when the local scheme was introduced, the funding that went to
the local authorities did not always match the need. One major change
in Tyne and Wear was the doubling of the cost of travel for students. I
hope that, when this scheme is considered, further cuts are not made
elsewhere to fund the national scheme because the Government have not
got the funding right. I hope that the situation for young people and
students is not made worse as a consequence of the power not being
used. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
(c) as
is compliant with the ITSO standard, as detailed under Crown copyright
in 2004.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 18, in
clause 1, page 3, line 2, at
end add—
‘(12) The Secretary
of State shall by regulations specify arrangements for the purposes of
fraud prevention.
(13)
Regulations under subsection (12) may
include—
(a) provisions
for a national database of
permits;
(b) requirements for
travel concession authorities to provide information about permits and
permit holders; and
(c)
requirements for travel concession authorities and operators to take
such steps as are practicable to prevent the use of permits which are
not
valid.’.
No.
33, in
schedule 1, page 13, line 7, at
end insert—
‘(1B) The
Secretary of State shall make such payments to London authorities as he
considers appropriate to ensure that permits in London meet the
national standard and can continue to be validated on vehicles
operating on the London Bus
Network.’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The amendment is fairly simple and helps to
clarify which standard should be used as and when
“a permit issued pursuant to
subsection (4)”
is
issued in the form of a smartcard. The Minister has already accepted
that as and when it is technically possible—perhaps at the start
of operation—the permit issued for travel will be a smartcard.
Like most Committee members, we are grateful to her for circulating the
consultation documents about the shape and the look of the permit last
week.
The amendment
has a number of advantages. In the Bill as it currently stands, there
is some ambiguity in the specification of the proposed national
smartcards. The Bill does not specify the form that the smartcard
should take. That would not be a problem were it not for the fact that
a national standard in smartcard technology already exists and is known
as the ITSO standard. Detailed specifications were published in 2004
under Crown copyright.
In my view, the lack of rigid
specification theoretically allows the Government to deviate from the
ITSO standard, which would be a senseless waste of the significant work
already completed in introducing the scheme. As the Minister has
already said, local authorities will continue to have input into the
development of the card
scheme.
I know that
the Government support the implementation of smartcards of this
specification and that they have been working to develop the scheme.
Therefore, formalising that intention is important to provide clarity
to the local authorities whose duty it will be to deliver that scheme
on the ground. That is the import of amendment No.
17.
Amendment No. 18
goes to the heart of the concern of many organisations, local
authorities and transport authorities that not enough regard has been
given to fraud and fraud prevention. Permits that contain photographs
and security devices are important, and a first step. They will prevent
the casual, opportunist fraudster, but they will do little to deter
organised and illegal
use.
Concessions are
already in use in London. London authorities have worked hard to reduce
and to prevent fraudulent use. For example, Oyster card technology
allows a card that is reported lost or stolen to be switched off
immediately. The amendment aims to enable travel concession authorities
across the country to prevent
fraud.
The Minister
would be required to specify that a national database of cards be set
up and maintained. The ITSO technology would then allow lost or stolen
cards to be disabled. Unless that happens, there is no way of knowing
whether the cards that are being used are stolen or fakes. Given the
extension of the scheme, the potential for fraudulent use beyond the
locality of a principal or sole residence is massively increased. The
only way to prevent such fraudulent usage is the maintenance of a
national database and a current hot list of lost and stolen
cards.
For the
national list to be effective, each travel concession area must provide
information, which would be protected by the Data Protection Act 1998
and only used on a need-to-know and access basis. It therefore follows
that each travel concession area would be required to maintain and
supply a list of basic details. The cost of that would be minimal, if
anything, as all the information will be necessary and will have to be
offered as proof of eligibility for the concessionary travel
permit.
London
Councils has raised a particular concern with regard to fraud. The
freedom pass is used in conjunction with a separate photo identity
card. Most of those are issued at post offices, which is popular and
convenient for the elderly. However, the new national standard permit
will contain an embossed photograph, which means that the post office
will no longer be able to issue it. Application forms will have to be
sent away. Not only will that increase costs, but it will increase the
chance of fraudulent use and application. Amendment No. 18 would
require the Minister to consider fraudulent applications and use, and
to specify arrangements for prevention by travel concession
authorities. The cost indications are minimal, yet the protection
offered to the public and the concession authorities would be
substantial.
Paul
Rowen:
I support the amendments tabled by the hon.
Gentleman, particularly amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I want to speak
about amendment No. 33, which is tabled in my name. Local authorities
and passenger transport authorities operate a variety of schemes, and
if we have a national scheme it is important that we have a common
technology and a common modus operandi. Specifying the ITSO standard in
the Bill is, in our view, an important step in ensuring that we have a
genuinely national scheme.
Amendment No. 18 deals with
fraud prevention. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the
Government’s proposal of an embossed photograph will not be
convenient for elderly people. Although it is not ITSO compliant, the
scheme as it operates in London at the moment is an excellent example
of a scheme that is convenient to use but has a database that enables
fraud to be reduced. The fact that the photo ID can be obtained at a
post office is convenient for many people. The scheme that the
Government propose would not enable that to happen, as the application
would have to be sent away and people would have to wait. The Oyster
card can be obtained at a variety of
local outlets and because the database is a national one, if the Oyster
card is stolen, it can be switched off and cannot be used.
In moving forward, we need some
common agreed standards. There needs to be a national database to
ensure that cards issued in one area cannot be used elsewhere if they
are stolen. An ITSO standard, a national database and ensuring that the
relevant authorities work together will allow us to ensure that that
happens.
My amendment
deals in particular with the effect in London. Although the Government
have agreed that people can continue to use their existing cards in
London until 2010, that is merely moving the problem forward. The
machines that are used by Transport for London are not ITSO compliant.
They will all have to be replaced and a new system will have to be put
in place. Clearly, there is an additional cost in that. Amendment No.
33 would make the Government sit down with Transport for London and the
London boroughs to agree a way forward to ensure that the London
scheme, which is better than that which operates elsewhere in the
country, is ITSO compliant and that the additional costs are not all
borne by Transport for London or the London boroughs. That is
important, and we need to ensure that the excellent scheme that
operates in London continues. However, there is a way forward that is
agreed by discussion, so I hope that the Minister will support the
amendment.
Gillian
Merron:
This group of amendments is linked to the issuing
of passes. It deals with three specific issues: requiring that all
passes are ITSO smartcards; specifying arrangements for fraud
prevention, and ensuring adequate funding for London to issue passes. I
will deal with each amendment in turn to ensure that I address fully
the separate but interrelated issues that they raise.
First, amendment No. 17
recommends that we should make the pass an ITSO-compliant smartcard.
This is not the first time that such an amendment has been debated.
Speaking on behalf of the Government, Lord Davies addressed the point
on several occasions in the other place. It is difficult to see how we
can state more clearly the fact that although we absolutely agree with
the intention of the amendment, which is to encourage the increase of
smart ticketing, we fundamentally disagree that putting an obligation
in the Bill is the practical or sensible way to achieve what we all
agree would be a desired outcome.
11.45
am
I have stated
many times our commitment to smart ticketing and to the ITSO
specification, which we see as vital to ensuring the interoperability
of smartcards throughout the country. We recently published a
consultation document, to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred
and which Committee members were in receipt of last week, that clearly
sets out that our preferred option for the specification of passes is
for them to be ITSO-compliant smartcards. However, it is wholly
unnecessary to have such a requirement in the Bill. Proposed new
section 145A(5) of the Transport Act 2000 provides for the
specification of the permit in
regulations. As I have already indicated, our preferred option is to use
that power to specify that passes will be ITSO-compliant
smartcards.
Primary
legislation is an inappropriate place to address such technical issues.
Regulations are the appropriate place to deal with such matters, and
that is where we intend to deal with them. There are still practical
and technical matters that need to be fully considered before we can
specify the necessary requirements. Furthermore, we must consider the
implications of specifying the requirements of the passes in primary
legislation. Even the most minor of changes, such as the change of the
name ITSO, would require amendments to primary legislation. I am sure
that that cannot be the intention of the hon. Member for
Wimbledon.
Amendment
No. 18 proposes that the Secretary of State be required to specify in
regulations arrangements for fraud prevention. Again, I cannot agree
with that suggestion. Fraud prevention is, without any doubt, an
important part of a workable scheme. We also believe that smart
ticketing will do much to prevent fraud, as we have already seen in
those areas where it has been implemented. Issuing smartcards already
requires the creation of a database containing details of cards that
have been issued to concessionaires. Smart ticketing brings with it the
ability to deactivate cards reported as lost or stolen. A lot of
technical work is being undertaken to lay the foundations for
interoperable smart ticketing in England, and indeed the UK generally.
An effective method of hot-listing lost and stolen cards is an
important part of that work.
Since the national concession
will continue to be administered at a local level from April 2008, the
most effective solution to fraud lies in ensuring effective
communication at a local level, rather than introducing another
national level of bureaucracy, which will further complicate matters.
The issue of how to combat fraud effectively is one that we visited
many times during the development of our proposals. The concessionary
fares working group and the operations and technology sub-group, both
of which contain representatives of travel concession authorities and
operators, have debated at considerable length the most effective fraud
prevention measures, including in areas that will not have smart
ticketing from April 2008. The matter is also covered in our
consultation document.
Travel concession authorities
and operators clearly share our strong motivation to minimise fraud,
since fraudulent travel has serious financial implications for both
parties, as well as for the Government. We therefore do not believe
that it is necessary or desirable to specify fraud reduction
arrangements in regulations; rather, practical, workable solutions
should be developed by those who are best placed to do
so.
Amendment No. 33
appears to be intended to ensure that London authorities receive the
funding necessary to issue cards to the national specification, and to
ensure that they can be used as smartcards on London buses. Although
the amendment as drafted relates to the provisions dealing with the
reserve free travel scheme, I assume that it is intended to apply
generally, and not just in those circumstances. Again, I understand the
motivation for such an amendment, but can assure hon. Members that it
is entirely unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has the power,
and has
stated his intention, to make appropriate payments to ensure that passes
in London—indeed, in all of England—meet the national
standard.
The
Government have continually stated their commitment to funding new
burdens that are imposed on local authorities—I am happy to
restate that commitment. We recognise that the issuing of passes to a
national standard represents a new burden and have repeatedly stated
that it is our intention to pay a grant to cover all reasonable new
cost burdens associated with the issuing of passes. The power to pay
such a grant exists under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003.
As I have said, and as is set out in the recent consultation paper that
is available to all Committee members, we recognise the unique
situation of London and have taken account of that in our
planning.
It is
neither cost-effective nor practical to require London to issue
ITSO-compliant smartcards forApril 2008. That is why we are
proposing that existing freedom passes will be re-stickered with the
national logo for April 2008, so that bus drivers throughout England
will recognise a Londoner’s entitlement to concessionary bus
travel.
Our
proposals state that concessionary travel passes in London must meet
the national standards fromApril 2010. However, we recognise
that issuing cards to the national standard in 2010 will represent a
new burden to London and we have stated that we fully intend to pay a
grant to cover it. We also fully realise the need for a migration
strategy for London. The intention of specifying that passes must be
ITSO-compliant smartcards is to lay the foundations for interoperable
smart ticketing for all of England and, ultimately, the UK. London is,
of course, a vital part of
that.
To
reassure hon. Members, in May 2006, the Mayor of London and the
Secretary of State for Transport agreed that the Oyster network would
be made interoperable with ITSO smartcards. A technical solution to
achieve that is under development. We are involved in a continuing
dialogue with London Councils and the Local Government Association to
determine the nature of the new burdens that will be borne by London
and the most appropriate basis on which to pay the grant. The way in
which the amendment is drafted suggests that the Secretary of State
would make such payments only under the reserve free travel scheme. I
assure the Committee that we intend to pay a grant to cover
London’s new burdens whether or not the free travel scheme is in
operation.
In summary,
I trust that I have demonstrated clearly that the amendments, despite
being tabled with the best of intentions, would not achieve their aims
of promoting the spread of smart ticketing or of ensuring that a
workable system is in place for April 2008. On that basis, I hope that
hon. Members will not press the amendments to a
Division.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful for the Minister’s
reassurance, particularly on amendment No. 18 and the discussions that
are taking place about fraud prevention. On amendment No. 17, Ministers
often say that regulations are the most appropriate method of dealing
with things. Far too often, Ministers do not want to include things in
Bills, but I accept her contention that were the amendment to be
accepted, it might require primary legislation if the name of ITSO
were changed. Although, if I am lucky, I may bring it back on Report, on
that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I do not propose to detain the Committee for
long, particularly as we have had a chance to debate in detail a number
of aspects of the clause. The substance of the clause provides for any
qualifying England-resident pass-holder to receive concessionary travel
on an eligible journey on an eligible service. We have gone into some
depth about eligibility and who would qualify.
However, subsection (8) allows
the Secretary of State to issue guidance about what constitutes sole or
principal residence, and it is intended to provide a consistent
approach. The guidance will be issued should the Secretary of State so
desire. Surely the Secretary of State should issue the guidance before
the enactment of the Bill if the consistency that is explained in the
explanatory notes is to be achieved. For instance, if an elderly person
has two residences in a town and a coastal resort, which is the
principal residence? Under previous council tax regulations, it might
have been clearer, but will it be the capital gains tax principal
residence, where they spend most time, or where they have their driving
licence or passport registered? All may be different.
Subsection (4) includes the
phrase,
“appears to the
authority...whose sole or principal residence is in the
authority’s area”,
which, again, is ambiguous and open to
interpretation. Will the Minister clarify the Secretary of
State’s intentions? If she cannot reassure us today, perhaps we
can return to the issue on Report.
Gillian
Merron:
I am glad to speak to this clause stand part
debate. Under section 145 of the Transport Act 2000, an eligible person
is restricted to free off-peak local bus travel within their local
authority area. The clause changes the provisions affecting England and
enables eligible England residents on production of a travel concession
permit to travel free on off-peak local bus services on journeys
beginning anywhere in England other than on the London bus network. The
national concession is secured on journeys beginning on the London bus
network under changes that clause 6 makes to the Greater London
Authority Act 1999.
As
now, people aged 60 and over and disabled people will be eligible. The
definition of travel concession permit now includes passes issued to
eligible London residents, so that for the first time Londoners will be
able to benefit from the concession outside London. I am sure that hon.
Members who represent constituencies outside London will look forward
to welcoming Londoners who use their bus travel passes.
The definition of
“eligible journey” in new section 145A(2) of the 2000 Act
will mean that operators of eligible services within London but not
beginning on the London bus network—that is, eligible London
permit services—must for the first time offer the
concession. Currently, operators of those services are not required to
offer any concession, although some may do so
voluntarily.
Hon.
Members will be aware that a travel concession authority must issue
permits to elderly and disabled people “residing” in its
area, which is a point that the hon. Member for Wimbledon raised. New
section 145A(4) secures the provision that a travel concession
authority outside London must issue permits to elderly and disabled
people whose “sole or principal residence” is in its
area. I can confirm to him that following consultation with local
authorities, we fully intend to offer guidance to assist local
authorities in that regard.
The change is made to promote a
more consistent approach to pass issuing throughout the country. New
section 145A(5) secures a power for the Secretary of State to make
regulations about what a permit issued outside London will look like.
The provision is again to ensure that the appearance of cards
throughout the country can be standardised in an agreed form that bus
drivers easily
recognise.
Regulations
can also be used to require the introduction of smartcards. The
provision mirrors a power in relation to passes issued to London
residents under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The provisions
of section 145 of the Transport Act 2000, relating to Wales, have been
restated as newsection 145B, which is referenced in schedule 2
to the Bill.
As before, a
person can give up the national concession in exchange for other
concessionary travel benefits offered by their local authority, such as
travel tokens, although to avoid confusion it has been clarified that
that can be done only if the same body administers both schemes. I am
glad to move that the clause stand part of the Bill, which I believe
takes us forward in our wish to extend the concessionary fares
scheme.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 6 June 2007 |