 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Concessionary Bus Travel |
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 5 June 2007(Afternoon)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords]Written evidence to be reported to the HouseCBT 02
Memorandum submitted by Transport for
London
4
pm
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4The
national concession: journeys beginning on London bus
network
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 4, page 4, line 4, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In
subsection (1) for “subsection (3) below” substitute
“subsections (1A) and (3)
below”.
(1B) After
subsection (1)
insert—
“(1A) The
London Authorities shall enter into arrangements with Transport for
London under subsection (1) above in respect of journeys falling within
section 241(2)
below.”.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 22, in
clause 5, page 4, line 25, leave
out subsection (2) and
insert—
‘(2) For subsection
(1)
substitute—
“(1)
If immediately before 1st January in any financial year it appears to
Transport for London that the arrangements under section 240(1) for
travel concessions for the next financial
year—
(a) do not meet
the requirements of section 242 below as to scope,
and
(b) do not meet the
requirements of section 243 below as to
uniformity,
Transport for
London shall notify the Secretary of State, and the arrangements for
the current financial year shall be carried forward with such
adjustments as the Secretary of State may in writing specify for the
purpose of ensuring that travel concessions are preserved for all
eligible England residents and that additional travel concessions are
preserved for eligible London
residents.”.’.
No.
23, in
clause 5, page 4, line 30, after
‘(2)’,
insert—
‘(a) for “a
particular local authority or” substitute
“the”;
(b)
’.
No.
24, in
clause 5, page 5, line 2, at
end insert—
‘(5A) Omit
subsection
(5).’.
No.
25, in
clause 5, page 5, line 4, leave
out subsection (7) and
insert—
‘(7) Omit Schedule
16 to the 1999 Act (the London free travel
scheme).’.
No.
19, in
schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at
end add—
‘(7) After
paragraph 5(7)
insert—
“(8)
Where a London authority considers the amount notified by Transport for
London under paragraph 5(1) to be
excessive—
(a) the authority may within 7 days of being
notified by Transport for London apply to the Secretary of State to
review the proposed charge;
and
(b) if the Secretary of
State agrees that the proposed charge is excessive, then he shall
notify both Transport for London and the authority of an alternative
lower
amount.”.’.
Clause
5 stand part.
Schedule
1 to be the First schedule to the Bill.
Paul
Rowen:
We now come to a specific group of amendments,
which deal with London and the London boroughs. Members will have had
representations from the London boroughs about the current operation of
the concessionary fares scheme. Most Members will be aware that London
is unique in that the arrangements for reaching a decision about the
funding of the London scheme do not allow the boroughs to use an
appeals mechanism if they, Transport for London and the Mayor fail to
reach agreement. That is an anomaly, and the amendments would ensure
that the funding of the freedom pass for London runs along the same
lines as the scheme that exists in the rest of the country.
When the amendments were
discussed in the other place, the Mayor of London made all sorts of
ridiculous statements to the effect that, in seeking to put London on
the same footing as every other authority, we were in some way or other
opposed to the freedom pass, but that is not the case. We seek to
ensure that the London boroughs and Transport for London can arrive at
an orderly and fair agreement as to the costs of the scheme. If no
annual agreement is reached, we want to ensure that there is a
mechanism similar to that in the rest of the country and to extend it
to involve the Secretary of State, so that there can be some form of
appeals mechanism. Notwithstanding that, amendment No. 22 would ensure
that the current scheme, as agreed and funded, continues while the
review takes place. That is only right and fair.
The London boroughs have no say
over how the scheme operates, while the Mayor has total freedom to
impose any changes that he wishes. We fundamentally believe in
devolving decision making as far down as possible, and giving one
person the right unilaterally to impose a policy on 20-odd
democratically elected London boroughs is, in our view, not
satisfactory. As with the other parts of the Bill, we are talking about
regularisation and a national scheme, and I hope that the Minister will
see that the funding situation in London is an anomaly. We want the
appeal mechanism for the London boroughs to be on the same basis as
those for other authorities and passenger transport authorities. I am
sure that the Minister will agree that that will be a right and proper
way to proceed.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I rise to support what the hon.
Gentleman has said about the inequities in the scheme in London. I
want, too, to mention amendment No. 19, which gives the Committee the
opportunity to revise an iniquitous section of the Greater London
Authority Act 1999, namely, the reserve free travel scheme, which is
imposed on London boroughs when Transport for London or the Mayor
cannot agree the annual increase. Effectively, TFL has the upper hand
in negotiations and extremists can hold London boroughs to ransom.
Although the scheme has never
been invoked, its existence weighs too heavily in favour of TFL in
negotiation and is heavily resented by the London boroughs. Indeed, all
hon. Members will have received a briefing to that effect from London
councils.
Since TFL
was formed seven years ago, the cost of providing the pass has risen by
some 52 per cent., resulting in cuts to services elsewhere and higher
London council tax. TFL is now attempting to use that power to hold
London council tax payers to ransom over its takeover of the north
London line. TFL wants almost to double the cost of providing the pass
on that line. The Association of Train Operating Companies is paid
£600,000 by London boroughs, and TFL wants £1
million for the same service. Again, I venture to suggest that that
will be iniquitous and will result in cuts in services and higher
council tax.
The
Mayor of London will claim that anyone who wishes to affect the reserve
free travel scheme has some evil plan to abolish the freedom pass. Any
sensible person knows that that is complete nonsense. Indeed, on Second
Reading I raised the issue and the Mayor suggested in a press release
that I wanted to see the pass go. That was clearly not so, and we made
that point clearly. However, sometimes truth and reality do not seem to
strike the Mayor. We want value for money and a better deal for
Londoners, which are something that the free-spending, profligate Mayor
all too often fails to understand.
Elsewhere in the Bill the
Minister has introduced proposals, which we support, to ensure that
disputes between operators and travel concession authorities are
equitably decided. Indeed, the operators have been granted an extra 28
days to appeal if in dispute. In London, TFL—the
operator—can impose the cost on those who pay, namely, the
boroughs. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he had no
clear plans to change the reserve free travel scheme. However, in the
spirit of fair-mindedness, the Minister must recognise that the
arrangement is iniquitous and unacceptable.
Amendment No. 19 would give
London authorities the right of appeal against the imposition of an
increased fare amount that they consider excessive. As the Minister
grants and extends that right elsewherein the Bill, it would
be pernicious and unfair not to extend the same rights to London
authorities. Amendment No. 19 would give a period of only seven days
for a London authority to register its appeal, while elsewhere others
get the advantage of 56 days. The Secretary of State or his delegated
authority, rather than TFL, should then decide the cost of the scheme
if no agreement is reached in the negotiation period. Although it would
impose some extra duties on the Secretary of State, it would bring
London into line with the rest of the country. That can only be fair,
justifiable and equitable.
The Joint Committee on Human
Rights has already expressed some concerns about the robustness of the
appeal process outside London, whereby an operator can appeal to the
Secretary of State if it believes that the amount that it is awarded
for carrying concessionary pass holders is inadequate. I guess that
that is partly recognised in the increase in the appeal period to 56
days.
As there is no
mechanism in London whereby the boroughs can appeal if they consider
the amount that
TFL determines, as an operator, excessive, this matter must be
considered of even more concern than the issue that the Joint Committee
was raising in the first place. Therefore, I urge the Minister to
confirm to the Committee that the Government will reconsider the matter
and offer support to the amendment that stands in my name and that of
my hon. Friends. If she is unable to give us reassurance, I should
like, with your discretion, Mr. Bayley, to find some way of
testing the Committee’s view on the
matter.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Gillian
Merron):
These amendments bring us to the thorny issue of
the London reserve free travel scheme. Lord Davies of Oldham,
representing the Government in the other place, discussed it in
considerable detail during debates on the Bill. I hope that hon.
Members will forgive me for echoing much of what has already been put
on the record, because the Government’s position has not
changed.
The purpose
of the reserve free travel scheme is to guarantee concessionary travel
in London in situations where there is no agreement either among the
London boroughs, or between the boroughs and Transport for London about
how best to provide and to fund the national
minimum.
Amendment
No. 21 seeks to alter section 240 of the Greater London Authority Act
1999 to replace a discretion for London boroughs and TFL to agree
arrangements to provide travel concessions with an obligation to agree
arrangements that include the national concession. That would be a
significant change. Arrangements for concessionary travel are different
in the capital. The 1999 Act secures that the boroughs are able
voluntarily to agree schemes with TFL. The voluntary arrangements are
underpinned by a safety net: the reserve scheme. If the voluntary
arrangements do not meet certain minimum requirements, the reserve
scheme is triggered. That system has successfully delivered
uninterrupted concessionary travel in the capital over the past eight
years.
The
effect of the amendment would be somewhat contradictory. The ability to
enter into arrangements implies that all parties do so voluntarily and
by agreement. The amendment would force the parties to agree. How do we
force parties to agree? Officials have designated that as a shotgun
wedding of an agreement. What would happen if the parties did not agree
or if an agreement or contract is breached and that leads to
termination of the agreement? Simply stating baldly that something will
happen is, I fear, not the same as putting in place a framework to
ensure that it does
happen.
There is
clearly an intentional link with amendment No. 22. That introduces the
idea of replacing the reserve scheme as the fallback arrangement for
London with a rolling over of the current arrangements. Hon. Members
will not be surprised to learn that I am also concerned with that idea.
As there is no guarantee that these arrangements would be in place, and
given that we could not roll over arrangements that did not exist, we
would effectively have no guarantee of concessions in London. I suspect
that that is where the true purpose of amendment No. 21 lies. The logic
of all this is complicated. If we force the parties to agree, there are
arrangements in place, but if those arrangements are not up to scratch,
we trigger the safety net. What is the
safety net? It is rolling over those arrangements, but they may not be
up to
scratch.
Amendment No.
22 proposes that the Secretary of State would be able to specify the
terms of the arrangement, but we need to pause for a moment. Has the
Secretary of State not already specified the terms of the safety net?
Is that not laid out clearly in legislation? In my view it is. It is
called the reserve free travel scheme—the very scheme that the
amendments seek to remove and
replace.
Amendments
Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are consequent upon the principles embodied in
amendments Nos. 21 and 22, thus I do not propose to refer to them in
detail. Amendment No. 19 brings a new element to the equation: the
specific issues of cost. The amendment provides for the addition of new
paragraph 5(8) to schedule 1 to the 1999 Act in relation to the London
reserve free travel
scheme.
Paragraph 5 of
schedule 1 to the 1999 Act allows TFL to stipulate the charge per pass
payable by London authorities to cover the costs to it of providing the
concessions under the reserve free travel scheme. The amendment would
allow London authorities to appeal to the Secretary of State when they
consider the charge to be excessive, and for the Secretary of State to
determine a lower amount if appropriate. However, paragraphs 5(3) and
5(4) of schedule 1 to the 1999 Act already specify the costs that may
be included in calculating the costs of the reserve free travel scheme
and any further matters that must be taken into
account.
4.15
pm
TFL will
already be aware that if it is not reasonable in its assessment of
costs and charges, London authorities will judicially review the
determination and may even refuse to pay while a review is under way. I
understand that there are genuine concerns among the London boroughs
about the reserve free travel scheme and its perceived inequity.
However, as we have heard—I hope in the points that I have
made—it is a complex area in which, I fear, no one solution will
please all people.
The
Secretary of State said on Second Reading that until the London
boroughs and TFL can agree a way forward with any potential change to
the reserve scheme, we are not convinced of the case, which the
amendments partially make, for removing the guarantee of a minimum
standard of concessionary travel throughout the capital.
There has been a reference to
the comments of the Mayor of London, who, of course, is able to look
after himself. However, looking at the press release, the concern is
the exact point that I have made. The amendments call for the abolition
of the Mayor’s guarantee of the freedom pass. London Councils
transport and environment committee agreed on 14 September
2006 in a briefing that it should lobby for the abolition of the London
reserve scheme. In doing so, it is not surprising that for the 1
million older and disabled people in London who benefit, there are
immense concerns.
Organisations such as the London
Older People’s Strategies Group, Independent Living Alternatives
and Counsel and Care have all expressed their members’ concerns
that they should continue to receive the worthy, worthwhile and
appreciated benefits of the freedom
pass.
I am sure that
hon. Members will agree that a Bill proposing a national concession for
England that did not guarantee for all concessionaires resident in
England the statutory minimum level of concessionary travel in London
would be a very strange Bill indeed. The reserve free travel scheme
best guarantees the continuation of concessionary travel in London
for all people who currently benefit. With that in mind, I
hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale will withdraw his amendment. I
also commend to the Committee clause 5 and schedule
1.
Paul
Rowen:
I heard what the Minister said, and I reiterate
that we do not wish to remove the freedom pass—we want the
situation in London to be the same as that in the rest of the country.
I shall withdraw the amendment in favour of amendment No. 19, which
would provide a safety net that meets the legitimate concerns of the
London boroughs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
s
4
and 5
ord
ered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 6 June 2007 |