| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC1
Grand Committee
Monday, 8 January 2007.
The Committee met at half-past three.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1 [The national concession]:
Lord Bradshaw: We seek not to oppose the Bill but to improve it and to make it more useful without adding inordinately to the expense to the Government of the new legislation. This very long list of amendments deals with smartcards. The Bill talks about permits as the means by which people obtain access to bus services at no charge. We believe that permits are very outdated technology, and the opportunity should be taken to convert the permit currently in use in most places to a smartcard. This is worth doing for several reasons. It would reduce the opportunities for fraudulent use by passengers, by bus operators or by bus drivers.
More importantly, there is a need to obtain the maximum amount of useful and accurate information about bus journeys so that the subsidy available is accurately targeted. By subsidy, I mean all the public funding of bus services, and particularly the bus service operators’ grant, which was formerly known as the fuel-duty rebate. The question of how the fuel-duty rebate might be replaced has been investigated at least twice—I think it has been investigated more often—on the assumption that the fuel-duty rebate, or the bus service operators’ grant, is paid for the mileage operated, when we are in fact trying to subsidise people for carrying passengers. All attempts at reform have failed because of the considerable obstacle of very little reliable information about passenger mileage, and because any other way of making the information available would be bureaucratic and expensive to administer.
The introduction of smartcards, which are held by the passenger, and the necessary smartcard readers on buses would provide the opportunity to target the subsidy very accurately on the passenger carried. The smartcard is intelligent and, if necessary, would enable the facility of free travel to be available at particular times. Governments of whatever colour would find themselves paying for useful outputs rather than generalised inputs. That is a practical consideration in the targeting of a subsidy, whatever you are subsidising. You want to subsidise the benefit rather than the input.
That is why I have moved this series of amendments. They provide for the use of smartcards and the provision on buses of smartcard readers. I should also make it clear that it may be necessary to pay for the equipment needed by bus operators. But,
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC2
What is the Government’s attitude towards smartcards? I am not proposing that we would all have smartcards by April 2008 because I realise that that is impossible, but is it the Government’s wish or even their intention—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Could we have quiet in the Room, please?
Lord Bradshaw:—to move towards a smartcard system once the technical problems have been ironed out? I have been told today—I did not know this before—that a good time to do this would be 2010 because that is when the present London Freedom Passes, of which I have two examples with me, expire. At that point it will be necessary to replace all the current London smartcards, which constitute a high proportion of the passes issued in England as a whole.
Without the introduction of this new technology, not only will it prove difficult to abolish the bus service operators’ grant, it will also be difficult to reimburse local transport authorities fairly and accurately what they spend on subsidising bus travel. Although she is currently detained because her mother is unwell, that is a subject to which my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market will return because there is a problem with the present system in that money is distributed through the block grant to local transport authorities in a rather crude fashion. Some have enough money; some have too much, but we do not hear from them; some have too little, and from them we hear a lot. That is the way with any form of grant distribution, but I am moving this series of amendments because I really want to hear about the Government’s intentions and we can return to this subject once I have heard from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: In general I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. However, first I want to wish the Minister a happy new year. We are going to be talking a lot in the coming months so we should start on a good note. Although I know I should not do it too much, I shall draw on my position as leader of Essex County Council when speaking to these amendments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, much of this concerns capturing accurate data in order actually to deliver a smartcard. While we all support the aims of this legislation, the timescale for the Government to deliver it is tight and I want to offer them some help by explaining what is already happening in Essex. I do so because I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that smartcards are the long-term answer and we need to develop this system. It is the obvious way to stop misuse of this legislation, and to have effective administration and control of public expenditure.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC3
I would like to say what happens in Essex. Essex County Council co-ordinates a very effective concessionary fares scheme. It involves 12 district councils and a unitary authority—1.6 million people. We are developing considerable relationships with some of the leading experts in intelligent transport systems around the world; so we have already done a lot of work on it. We have established a forward programme of work that will easily be adapted to smartcard technology. We are demonstrating a project in Essex that could be rolled out nationwide. We are adjacent to London and are likely to work with London on it.
We were going to come on to this later, but there was a suggestion that the Secretary of State might need to operate the scheme nationally. I suggest that local authorities could develop—and I am happy to volunteer Essex to pilot the scheme—a smartcard regime that could be operated by local authorities nationally. You could have an identical card with different logos. The south-west, the north-west, Manchester or London could have different logos on the same sort of card. We have already made progress on this. We are developing it. We have all sorts of contacts around the world regarding what is happening and contacts with companies developing this. This is probably not the appropriate time, but we could pass on our developments and volunteer our help in turning it into a national scheme. That is my contribution to this part of the discussion. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say to that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for his best wishes for the new year, which I reciprocate. I am glad to see that he is starting off in a most constructive vein. He has partly made my case on the amendments by indicating that there is much work still to be done on the development of the eventual smartcard ticketing that is required, but I am very grateful to him for his constructive suggestion. It may well be that the department takes it up. Certainly, we have a considerable amount to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was generous enough to say that 2010 would be an appropriate time by which to have a fully operational smartcard. I cannot give him that assurance, but I recognise the significance of the date. I am only too eager to facilitate any help he needs with his particular cards.
I want to emphasise that I understand that on the whole these are probing amendments. I reassure the Committee that the Government regard the aim of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as entirely laudable. We are entirely supportive of these proposals, but do not think that the amendments are necessary or desirable.
The Bill makes provision for the specification of the permit in regulations; so we will be able, entirely properly, to use secondary legislation to implement the nature of the fully fledged national scheme on smartcard principles—possibly after the help of Essex local authority and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, if that proves to be an illustration of how this can be done, or possibly through other routes.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC4
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, did not want to pre-empt future debates, but he made reference to the fact that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to take responsibility for all this if necessary. I want to reassure the Committee that we have this objective in mind. Equally clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was perceptive enough to recognise that if we made this a requirement of the legislation our target date of 2008 would be unrealisable.
No one in this Committee, no one who spoke at Second Reading and no one in the country would want to see a delay in implementing this wholly beneficial measure because of substantial technical problems in introducing the most desirable form of permit, which is a smartcard. Nevertheless, in the Bill we indicate that one of the bases is the permit, because that is the concept with which we have to work at present. It is an all-embracing concept, and one that is readily transformable into the smartcard. I assure the Committee that we will work towards those objectives as rapidly as we can, and that we are at one with the spirit behind them. I think it will be recognised, however, that if we accepted the amendments, which are numerous but follow the same theme, that could lead to difficulties with regard to early implementation of this legislation. We are not prepared to do that.
3.45 pm
I emphasise that we are not fixed in our views on how to arrive at the desired state. We are mindful of the fact that there are many players in this situation, not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has reminded us, the local authorities, who play a significant role. Although we will discuss later whether the Secretary of State might be empowered to implement the scheme, we also recognise that there is much merit in working through existing schemes and existing local authorities and establishing best practice as the basis for the nation. By “the nation”, in this case, I am referring to England, as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland already have their schemes.
I could go into a great deal of technical detail in explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, why I could not accept each of the amendments at present, but that would be otiose when we are discussing the desirable principle upon which these permits should be implemented. I give the obvious rider that we could not possibly introduce the scheme in 2008 on the basis of smartcard principles, but we intend to work towards those objectives as early as possible. The Bill provides the permissive framework, subject to the will of Parliament, whereby we will be able to implement the most desirable form of smartcards at the earliest possible time. I hope the noble Lord will accept, in the spirit of that response, that he can safely withdraw his amendments today.
Lord Hanningfield: Before the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, comes back, I have a request for the Minister, who has given some fairly positive indications on this matter. As I said, there is a lot of work going on, particularly in the large local authorities—for example, in London—on smartcards and IT development. We
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC5
Lord Davies of Oldham: I welcome the opportunity to give an assurance on that front. I understand that we will be discussing the Bill at subsequent stages as well, but in so far as it is within my power to allay anxieties on this front, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that the department is of course fully aware of the sophisticated nature of some local authority schemes, which have cracked some of these problems in certain areas. He will also recognise that we are talking about a multiplicity of different authorities with very different perspectives on how this all works. Consequently, we have to carry out substantial consultation, but I assure the noble Lord that the department regards this exercise as one for which local authority consultation is essential, particularly given the successful work that they have carried out on this.
Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I suggest that one way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I could be assured that matters would progress would be an early move to advertising in the European journal. That would be necessary in the provision of a smartcard system and would indicate to us that the Government were moving forward with the issue. This is a long process, but there are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, many suppliers out there which would be keen to be involved. It would reassure us to hear that the first small step had been taken.
Perhaps I may be a little sceptical and introduce a sour note; we are still waiting for the regulations regarding the Traffic Management Bill that we passed some 18 months ago. Our credulity is sometimes stretched a bit when we are told that matters are being dealt with in the department, given that the months and years roll by and the thing does not happen.
Having said that and given that we can talk about the matter elsewhere, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 3:
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC6
The noble Lord said: This important set of amendments would, first, extend the current scheme to other forms of transport, including buses, the underground, tramways and ferries, both inside and outside London. Secondly, it would abolish the time restrictions that are currently in place. In short, we are probing why the Bill has been drafted to include only buses and time restrictions, which we may discuss at some length.
It is clear that certain groups of disabled and elderly people would benefit greatly from the application of concessions to a wider range of transport modes. For example, people with autism prefer to use door-to-door services because they often have difficulty in judging road safety and can experience anxiety on scheduled bus transport services, especially when routes and timetables are frequently changed. The difficulty in accessing the higher mobility rate of disability living allowance for some disabled people means that door-to-door transport is currently not an option for them, because of the additional costs associated with its use. In some areas, concessionary fare passes can already be used in taxis, community transport and other door-to-door transport. That is particularly important in rural areas.
In Scotland, many ferry journeys are also covered by the concessionary fares scheme in recognition of the local transport services that ferries provide between the Scottish islands and the mainland. We heard much about that at Second Reading. We would encourage the same approach for similar services throughout the UK. In urban areas, concessions are often available to be used on local rail and light railway services. This is important when train and tram services are used for local journeys as an alternative to buses.
The second set of amendments in this group would allow travel at any time, both inside and outside London. Restriction of concessionary travel during morning peak periods has a severely detrimental effect on disabled people travelling to or looking for work. That is the strongest issue raised by these amendments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Low, will follow me, but his organisation, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, has suggested that only 27 per cent of blind and partially sighted people of working age are in employment—and that where people are employed, they are more likely to be in lower-paid jobs. I do not like to keep citing the situation in my own county but, in Chelmsford, where we now have only about 1 per cent unemployment, we would like to get many more disabled people back into work. Allowing them to use transport at peak times would be very helpful in enabling that to happen.
Access to Work is often incorrectly thought to be an alternative to concessionary fares but this support is only available to disabled people who are unable to use existing transport. That is why I feel very strongly about this matter. In addition, disabled people often need to travel early for medical appointments, education and leisure and, indeed, because it is easier for them to access less crowded places. That is another reason for reconsidering the timings.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC7
It is pleasing to note that the Bill would not prevent local authorities from continuing to offer concessions which are more generous than the statutory minimum. However, as the Government have improved the minimum concessionary fare scheme for older and disabled people, some local authorities have reduced their existing schemes to the statutory minimum. For example, pressure has been put on a number of schemes which provided free morning peak travel for blind people but not for older and disabled people. There needs to be some clear statement from the Government as to their philosophy and policy on this matter.
When this issue arose in London, the Association of London Government, as it was then, extended free travel to all disabled people in the morning peak. There have been no time restrictions on using the Freedom Pass in the morning peak in London on buses, the Underground and the DLR since April 2003. This has not caused many difficulties despite the huge pressure on public transport in London at that time. The Scottish and Welsh schemes also provide free travel in the morning peak.
I hope the Minister will rethink on this matter. It is a big issue which I am sure will be discussed during the passage of the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston: It gives me pleasure to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I have not so far received notice of the grouping of amendments in an accessible form. I intend no criticism but I wish the Committee to be aware of this in case I trip up over the grouping of amendments. We are working with the authorities of the House to find ways of ensuring that I get papers of this kind in time before debates. I am sure that any problems that remain will be resolved shortly but I wish the Committee to be aware of that circumstance before we go any further.
I do not wish to speak at great length because the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has covered many of the points I want to make. I wish to stress that bus travel should not be seen as separate from the rest of the transport network but as part of an integrated system which is always going to be as weak as its weakest link. Thus, if part of a journey involves a mode of transport on which no concession is available, the purpose in granting the concession substantially fails or, at least, is substantially undermined. This group of amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 3, 28 and 30 in relation to London, therefore provides that concessions should be available on trains, Underground trains, trams and ferries, all of which can play a part in meeting the transport needs of an area.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, in Scotland many ferry journeys are covered by the concessionary fares scheme in recognition of the local transport services that ferries provide between the Scottish islands and the mainland. We would want to encourage the same approach for similar services throughout the UK.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC8
4 pm
Similarly, as regards London, Amendments Nos. 3, 28 and 30 seek to substitute “London Transport Network” for “London bus network” to cover all modes of transport which exist to meet the transport needs of Londoners. We all know that the Tube is just as important as the buses in meeting the transport needs of the capital, and rail and light railway services also play an important part.
On Amendment No. 4 and corresponding amendments in relation to London, at Second Reading the Minister stressed the role of the Bill in combating social exclusion. He said,
“The Government recognise that buses are particularly important for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They often provide a vital lifeline to services such as shops, leisure facilities and hospitals and are an important connection to the community”.
“We recognise that the places to which people need to travel are no respecters of sometimes arbitrary local authority boundaries”.—[Official Report, 12/12/06; col. 1453.]
I suggest that they are also no respecters of arbitrary time zones.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |