| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
If social inclusion of those who are most disadvantaged in our community is the goal, we have to enable them to travel at the same times as others want to travel to work, to shop or to the hospital. Hospitals do not have regard to concessionary travel schemes when making appointments. The restriction of concessionary travel during the morning peak period has a number of untoward consequences. As the Government have improved the minimum concessionary fare scheme for older and disabled people, some local authorities have curtailed schemes that previously offered more than the statutory minimum; for example, some schemes which provided free morning peak travel for blind people and other old and disabled people have come under pressure. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, when the matter arose in London, following representations by disabled people the scheme was levelled up and free travel was extended to all disabled people in the morning peak as well as at other times.
At Second Reading, the Minister laid great stress on the fact that there are acute pinch points in transport usage at peak hours in many parts of the country. I can say only that there have been no time restrictions on using the Freedom Pass during the morning peak in London since April 2003. That has not caused difficulties, despite the huge pressure on public transport at that time in the capital. We would probably all find it difficult to envisage any part of the country with more acute pinch points than London, yet this does not seem to have presented any particular problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has covered most of the points I wanted to make, but in conclusion I want to underline a point which he stressed; namely, the importance of concessionary travel schemes in helping disabled people to get to work. If they are to be effective, they need to be available at peak times no less than at off-peak times. The importance of that in the Bill is the way in which it underlines the Government’s
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC9
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on important amendments. I recognise the case that has been put. The Committee has great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Low, on how we provide for him adequate documentation when the documentation becomes available only late in the day, shortly before the Committee meets. We will do all in our power to ensure that the problem is overcome. As he addressed himself to this group of amendments with accuracy, he does not have to worry unduly today.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, emphasised that local authorities might find a reduction in their enhancements in certain of their schemes. That happens from time to time, but he will recognise that local authorities have a discretion to offer travel concessions on other forms of public transport and at other times. Indeed, some of them offer enhancements to the statutory minimum scheme and we would want to do nothing that does not encourage that. The Bill preserves the flexibility of local authorities to offer concessions on other forms of public transport or at other, and earlier, times on a discretionary basis if they choose to do so. The Bill is about statutory provision and the reason we have no plans to extend the statutory concessions to other forms of public transport or to travel at other times is straightforward.
First, this is about legislation. Nothing in the Bill inhibits the Government in being able to do that in future: we have powers in the Bill for extending these opportunities when resources become available. But Members of the Committee will recognise that extension involves substantial sums of money. They will be aware of the substantial commitment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to funding the principles behind the Bill in order to implement it in 2008. If we accepted Amendments Nos. 3, 28 and 30 to include travel on trains, the Underground, trams and ferries, it would cost an extra £300 million a year. He says that it is done in Scotland and they may do so in Wales. They have to meet the bill and from what one learns it is not decreasing: it is increasing substantially. That is a choice that they must make and it is the principle of devolution. We are talking about extending the provisions right across England, which will have a larger impact and will be more expensive. I emphasise that in our estimate Amendments Nos. 3, 28 and 30 alone will cost an extra £300 million a year and that Amendments Nos. 4 and 29 will cost an extra £100 million a year. That is almost double the amount made available by the Chancellor for the principle of the scheme.
I am not saying that these things are not desirable; I say merely that we cannot readily accept such extensions, with their significant resource implications, without due consideration. We have to work hard in order to create the resources available for the implementation of the scheme in 2008 implicit in the Bill. For us to be subjected to amendments which more than double the cost would be regarded as somewhat unreasonable.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC10
I want to emphasise that the Bill does not inhibit these developments in due course as resources allow. However, I am resisting adding amendments to the Bill which would place immediate additional costs on the Government. We have to be realistic about these matters. Of course I understand the case that can be made for any enhancement of opportunities for people to travel. The noble Lord, Lord Low, mentioned the point I made at Second Reading that we regard it as crucial that social inclusion must involve transport and the opportunities of transport for the disabled. But he will recognise, as will the Committee, that this Government have been very concerned to develop this policy over the years. They introduced the first statutory concession for older and disabled people in 2000. In 2002, eligibility for both men and women was equalised at 60 years of age. In April 2006, the statutory scheme was again improved to offer free local concessionary travel; and under this Bill, from 2008 the statutory scheme will be improved further.
All I am saying is that we could not by additional amendments to this Bill readily accept that we could make such a significant leap forward in the allocation of resources in this area, however desirable they are. I want to assure the Committee that—in so far as what is at stake here is the nature of the Bill and the powers it gives in order to ensure the development of this policy—the Bill contains the necessary powers for additional enhancement and improvement of the scheme as years go by. What I am not prepared to accept in this year of grace, having seen the successful allocation of a substantial sum of money for the implementation of the scheme implicit in the Bill, is additions which more than double those costs in circumstances where I cannot guarantee that resources are available.
Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will recognise that we are at one with him in desiring these objectives; that this legislation creates a framework in which those objectives can be realised in due course; but that his amendments are hugely costly—and I do not think they would be likely to find entire favour with his side if in fact his Treasury team were in government rather than where it is at present.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. I totally accept that the overall cost is very extensive. There are parts to this—for example, extending the scheme to the use of buses at peak times and using the Tube rather than buses. There is no doubt that for some journeys the Tube or a short train journey might be more suitable for disabled people than buses. They would not be using the provision twice; it would be an alternative use. I can think of various places where a short train journey from one town to another might be better or more accessible than a bus journey, which does not actually cover those two small towns. So sometimes it would be an alternative use. Certainly the use of the provision at peak times in the morning is my main plank, as I said in my introduction of this, that I would like the Government to consider.
I know that my own party would consider some of these things because they might be a priority. Before we next discuss them, perhaps the Minister could give
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC11
4.15 pm
Lord Low of Dalston: That could be very helpful indeed. I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He displayed a great deal of sympathy with the thrust of the amendment—its principle—and his reluctance to accept it was principally on the ground of available resources. Of course one completely understands that, but if the desirability of the amendment is recognised, perhaps the best way forward would be to try to break down the additional costs of additional modes of transport for different categories of user, so that if the whole sum cannot be afforded, smaller parts could be.
The arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I advanced apply to both disabled and elderly people, but for disabled people, there are particular reasons for disregarding the distinction between peak and off-peak travel times. First, it is often necessary even for short journeys for disabled people to use public transport rather than walk either because of restricted mobility or because they cannot find the way. Also, for persons with restricted mobility, the pedestrian environment is often either inaccessible or unsafe. For all those reasons, free bus travel at peak times can be especially important to enable disabled people to integrate into the community. It would be very helpful if the Minister could consider how much of the total sum to which he referred is made up of expenditure on disabled people.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to both noble Lords for the extension of their arguments. I must say that I do not think that we can meet the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Low, of costings for particular categories of the disabled. We will look at how we can help. I am eager to be helpful because the noble Lord will recognise that we appreciate his point, but it may be difficult for us to achieve and I do not hold out too much hope to him in that respect.
In broader terms, I think that I can do a bit more for the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. If it is not enough, we will do more work for him before we reach Report. Our initial analysis is that the estimated annual cost of extending the statutory minimum to trams would be in the order of £15 million, to local rail—trains—about £250 million, and to community transport, at least £25 million. I think that the Committee will recognise that we have all sorts of difficulties with the definition of community transport and therefore the implicit cost. That is as far as I can go in being helpful at this stage.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC12
Lord Hanningfield: I would be grateful if the Minister could come back because the figure for trains is obviously the very big one. One accepts that one could not have a UK-wide free train service—that would throw up multimillions of pounds. The specific means that we are looking at are getting people to work, to hospital appointments and around. Perhaps we could do a bit more analysis before the next round. I accept that providing concessionary free train travel for everyone would cost multimillions of pounds. That is where his big amount of £250 million came from.
Lord Davies of Oldham: That is true, but that is what the amendment says, so the noble Lord cannot expect me to do anything other than to identify the cost of the amendment. If he is going to be more subtle, surgical and precise on Report, if I can help in any way in that precision, I shall seek to do so.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister. That has been a useful discussion. If he can provide us with more information before Report so we can look at this matter further, I will be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 10:
(a) is blind or partially sighted,(b) is profoundly or severely deaf,(c) is without speech,(d) has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk,(e) does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms,(f) has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or(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 (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol,”The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 10 and 16 would put in the Bill the definitions for the eligibility of concessionary fares that are in the Transport Act 2000, and would add to them an additional section covering those with mental health difficulties. The additional Amendment No. 16 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on those definitions. A number of organisations that represent those with some form of disability are concerned that Clause 1(4) requires the issuing of concessionary fares to those who “appear” to be disabled. We believe that
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC13
Furthermore, Clause 1(6) says that the Secretary of State “may issue guidance” to which local authorities “must have regard”. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 introduces similar provisions for Wales. We have this debate on a great number of Bills; we toy with the “mays” and the “musts” on most occasions. We want the word “may” in Clause 1(6) to be changed to “shall”, to ensure that similar guidance is issued to the very clear guidance issued following the introduction of the minimum concessionary fare for disabled people under the Transport Act 2000.
Paragraphs (f) and (g), which would be added by the amendment, relate to people with mental health issues. It is clear that eligibility for concessionary fares is one of the major factors in determining an individual’s chance of recovery and reintegration into society. Access to community centre, drop-in therapeutic communities, counselling or self-help groups and medical appointments can be essential to their recovery. Many service users rely on public transport. Even when they still hold a driving licence, poverty and a fluctuating health condition may make driving impossible.
Most of those with mental health issues who currently qualify for concessionary fares do so by virtue of the fact that they would, if they applied, be refused a driving licence under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 92 of the 1988 Act refers to five categories of people who would be refused a driving licence. The second of these are people with a severe mental disorder. It is under that category that people with mental health problems may become entitled to concessionary fares. The definition is medical, not social, and our view is that it is not appropriate in the field of disability, and is one key reason why those with mental health problems have difficulty in obtaining concessionary fares.
Should the issue of definition prove intractable, we would welcome an assurance by the Government that they will consult with mental health service users in voluntary bodies working in mental health, and organisations of mental health professionals, with a view to establishing a less exclusive medical definition of serious mental health problems, and one that would target real need without being too broad, to enable these people to access the concessionary fare system. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston: I support the amendment. I was grateful at Second Reading for the Minister’s reassurance that the definition of “disabled” in the Bill will not change. He said that in this legislation the Government will use the same definition as the one which governs entitlement. That is very welcome as far as it goes but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has explained, there is a need for the definition to change a little to incorporate those with mental health difficulties. The Minister may feel that such people are adequately covered already, in the way indicated by the noble Baroness, under the Road Traffic Act, but it would be clearer if the definition were consolidated. One could then see on the face of
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC14
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I agree about the importance of access to transport in reducing social exclusion and the Government are committed strongly to these objectives. That is why we are spending £1 billion a year on statutory concessionary travel to improve the mobility and well-being of older and disabled people. The Committee will recognise that we have already delivered significant improvements in this respect, but we are not in a position to commit further funding to concessionary travel beyond that which is established as the basis of the Bill. In any case, until the extension of the national bus concession has been evaluated, both in its effectiveness for the categories we are discussing and the efficiency of the scheme, we do not think we should at this stage take the scheme further. We can only intelligently do that once the impact of the national scheme has been fully considered and evaluated.
The Transport Act 2000 sets out the groups of people to whom travel concessions must be provided by law. In addition, under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities have the discretion to offer travel concessions to other groups. As I emphasised earlier in our discussions, the Bill preserves the flexibility of local authorities to offer concessions to any group or individual, at their discretion, based on the assessment of the benefits of doing so. There is also a corresponding power to include new categories of people to benefit from the new national scheme. We believe the ability to extend the concession on the basis of local and national need is the most appropriate way to proceed, not by an amendment to the Bill as proposed in Amendment No. 10.
I am also obliged to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 16 which would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities as to the definition of whether a person is a disabled person. Given that the Government are not presently in a position to extend the eligibility for the national concession, it is not necessary to require the Secretary of State to issue such guidance. He would of course continue to issue guidance as required. Guidance exists at the present time and we retain that capacity. Such an extension would increase the scope of the scheme in ways which, for obvious reasons, as I have indicated, we are not prepared to contemplate at the present time.
Of course, as resources become available, we recognise that we must have in place legislation which enables us to enhance what already exists. The Bill preserves that in its entirety. It creates a scope for the Secretary of State to act if necessary, and preserves the right of local authorities to enhance and extend definitions of beneficiaries as they see fit. On that basis, I believe the Bill meets the broad objectives of the amendments. The Government are not in a position at this stage to accept the specific requirements of the amendments.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC15
4.30 pm
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that not very helpful reply. Interestingly, he has been very adaptable on the last two amendments but we do not seem to be getting quite the same response on this matter. That is unfortunate because mental health disability, as everyone now recognises, is of significant importance in people’s lives. We should probably encompass mental health whenever we talk about disability. My amendment would extend the definition of disability in the Transport Act 2000. It would probably not be a very expensive concession either, given the number of people who might be involved in it, but I have not costed it.
I am also slightly surprised that the Minister does not accept that it would be helpful to reproduce in the Bill the definitions in the Transport Act 2000. That is what my first amendment was about, although it was extended to include mental health. It is quite important that people understand and know the intention behind legislation. Far too often, we put forward legislation that is a bit wobbly and does not really help people when they see it. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, you have to go fumbling around other legislation to find out what is intended. We will consider whether we want to press the matter further but the amendment does have merit.
I am not in a position to withdraw Amendment No. 16 at the moment. The wording of subsection (6) is interesting. It seeks to change,
to “the Secretary of State shall issue guidance to travel concession authorities”. If when determining whether a person is a disabled person for the purposes of subsection (4) you have to have regard to any guidance that may be issued, it is sensible that the Secretary of State should have to issue guidance to which you have to have regard. It is a question of the conditional against the positive and it would be of benefit if the Secretary of State were to issue that guidance to which people must have regard, otherwise we might have to turn the conditionals around within the terms of the sentence.
For today, I will withdraw the amendment and not press the other amendment to a vote but I do not promise that we will not return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston: I wonder if I might—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sorry, the amendment has been withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 11:
“(4B) If a disabled person is unable to access mainstream public transport as a result of their impairment the travel concession authority in England shall mark that clearly on the permit.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |