Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I begin by welcoming you and your fellow Chairmen Mrs. Adams and Miss Widdecombe to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I would also like to welcome two Ministers to the Committee. For a relatively small Bill it is a delight to have such expertise on the Government side. Consequently, we shall be expecting rapid answers to the probing questions that we shall raise.
I am pleased to have the chance to speak on the sittings motion. In particular, I am pleased to tell the Government Whip, who cannot speak for himself, that I am delighted that the usual channels should have negotiated a timetable that is not limited. It is admirable that we should be allowed to sit indefinitely on both Tuesdays and Thursdays—although after six weeks of us probing them in full measure, Ministers may have second thoughts about that. I hope that we can deal with this relatively straightforward three-clause Bill expeditiously and in a civilised manner. Nevertheless, we shall want to probe the Government on a few points that were not adequately exposed in the other place.
The Bill ought to be renamed the Williams Bill because, as the Minister said, it arises out of a case brought by a Mr. Williams in the European Court of Human Rights. Mr. Williams argued that that men were being discriminated against on grounds of sexual equality because they could not obtain travel concessions until they attained the age of 65, whereas women reach pensionable age at 60. As a result of that case, the Government announced that they would legislate.
The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment in another place to the Transport Act 2000 that would have obviated the need for the Bill. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will wish to crow about that, but the simple fact is that if we sometimes thought more carefully and in more depth about legislation before rushing it through, often under a guillotine or timetable motion, we might sometimes pass better legislation. I welcome the sittings motion. It will give us plenty of time to debate the Bill.
The amendments cover a relatively narrow area. As it is only a three-clause Bill, I hope that we shall have a clause stand part debate on each clause, because we shall wish to speak on matters other than those raised by the amendments. The principal matters on which we wish to probe the Government are the total cost of the Bill, the number of people who will benefit from it and the number of groups that may be disadvantaged by it because local authorities already offer more generous schemes than would be allowed under the Bill.
We shall be particularly sensitive to suggestions put to us by groups such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind that some local authority schemes will be reduced. Lord Falconer said in another place that he hoped that local authorities would not cut their concessionary schemes, but they may be forced to do so because, as we shall find out during our debate on the first group of amendments, if the Government do not provide adequate funding for those schemes, local authorities will have no option but to cut them. It would be unfortunate indeed if we passed a measure that was supposed to help some of the most vulnerable people but ended up damaging their interests. I am sure that we shall probe that aspect in full measure.
We shall wish to probe the Government on how they intend to reimburse local authorities, and especially on how the scheme will work in rural areas. Hon. Members who represent rural areas know that many areas do not have any bus schemes that could operate a concessionary fare. The services have been eroded to such an extent by the lack of funding under the bus grant scheme that there are very few buses. Not only are people in rural areas such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) already suffering from the lack of bus schemes, but because my local authority has up to five different authorities on its borders we wish to probe whether it is possible for the local authorities that have discretion in the matter under the terms of the Bill to operate cross-border schemes. It is difficult to see how the scheme will work for those who live on the borders.
Finally, at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), we shall wish to see whether the scope of the Bill can be widened to encompass other forms of travel. Many people in his constituency wish to use ferries to cross the Solent, in order to reach the mainland. We wish to probe the Government as to whether they are prepared to allow the concessionary scheme to operate for the benefit of his constituents.
I am sure that other matters will arise in the course of our scrutiny of the Bill. It is a relatively straightforward Bill, founded on very complex law within the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. It amends the Transport Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999. That also brings problems, particularly about how it will operate in London, how the London boroughs and Transport for London will be refunded, and whether they will be refunded in sufficient measure to continue the current 100 per cent. concessionary scheme operated by many of the boroughs.
Those are the matters that we shall cover. I look forward to a good-tempered, constructive debate under your very stern and wise chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson.