Clause 1
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
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colleagues and I want to make it clear at the earliest opportunity that we are not in the business of making unpublished spending commitments.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.
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.