`.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this Act taking effect, bring forward regulations to provide that elderly persons who travel as foot passengers on train, ferry and other scheduled surface or sub-surface services shall enjoy travel concessions no less favourable than those provided under section 1 of this Act; provided that, before bringing forward regulations under this section, he shall consult such service providers as he deems appropriate.

(2) In this section ``elderly person'' means a person who has attained the age of 60 years.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—Scheduled coach services (No.2)—

`.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this Act taking effect, bring forward regulations to provide that elderly persons who travel as foot passengers on scheduled coach services shall enjoy travel concessions no less favourable than those provided under section 1 of this Act; provided that, before bringing forward regulations under this section, he shall consult such service providers as he deems appropriate.

(2) In this section ``elderly person'' means a person who has attained the age of 60 years.'.

The new clauses principally arose from the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and cover ground previously covered in the Committee. We believe that other forms of transport should be considered in the concessionary scheme, especially for men aged between 60 and 65. My hon. Friend will speak for himself, but I can imagine that some of his constituents will want to make the journey regularly across the Solent, especially men aged between 60 and 65 who live on the island but work on the mainland. People who live on the mainland may travel to the island for work and use the service regularly. For all those men of that age who use that service, I would be grateful for an explanation from the Government.

I have already quoted the passage in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, in section 240 (6)(f), whereby Transport for London provides a concessionary scheme for

``passenger transport services on the river Thames or a tributary of the river Thames between places in Greater London or between places in Greater London and places outside Greater London.''

The principle is therefore already well established in London that concessionary schemes can be operated under those circumstances, and the Government may want to consider it in the exceptional circumstances of people crossing the Solent.

We have not discussed train services at all during our proceedings. How would local authorities operate the scheme for those services, given that most people using them would cross from one local authority area to another?

I will finish with those brief remarks, as time is of the essence, and we should quickly conclude our discussion of the new clauses.

I have little to add to what my hon. Friend said.

I, albeit rather belatedly, also welcome you to the Committee, Miss Widdecombe.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold for explaining the purpose of the proposed new clauses, but I must ask the Committee to disappoint him. Both new clauses would extend the provision of statutory concessionary fare schemes to other modes of transport, including trains, ferries, metros and long distance coaches. Local authorities have discretionary powers under the Transport Act 1985 to extend their schemes to other public transport services if they consider that to be in the best interests of local needs. Extending the provision of concessionary fares to other modes of transport—rail and ferry services have been mentioned—is an attractive proposition. Some local authorities already offer wider schemes; London is probably the best example, but there are others in which concessionary travel extends to metros and local train services.

On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. If I may, I move that the question be put.

I am afraid that I am going to allow adequate time for debate on this question.

Some of the points to which I was going to respond seemed to be of particular concern to Conservative Members. I should have thought that they would have wanted to wait for some response.

There is nothing to prevent local authorities from offering concessions if they think that that will benefit their elderly and disabled citizens. The provisions of the Bill will extend the same benefits to many aged 60 or over. So far as making statutory provision for cheaper fares on other modes of transport is concerned, we have to return to the issue of cost. In England alone, local authorities spend £490 million per year on their schemes. The provisions of the Bill could cost them an additional £50 million a year.

I notice that there is mention in the clauses of sub-surface and ferry services, without any further definition. I assume that that applies to mainland services and does not include, for example, cross-channel services, which would extend the scope of the Bill very widely and add greatly to the cost.

New clause 4 refers to concessionary fares on long-distance scheduled coach services. Hon. Members will recall that I announced to the House on Second Reading that we had agreed in principle to a proposal under which coach operators would offer a half-price fare to older and disabled passengers on long-distance scheduled coaches in England. In return for those concessions, operators would, for the first time, receive a fuel duty rebate, as recommended by the Commission for Integrated Transport. Many older and disabled people rely on coaches to travel long distances, and will welcome half-price fares. The announcement, which is a further demonstration of our commitment to combating social exclusion, has been widely welcomed, not least by the coach industry. We shall now consult the industry to work out the precise details of the scheme.

The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are consulting in parallel with a view to agreeing how best to co-ordinate the arrangements throughout Britain. I am sure that the best way of achieving our objectives is to accept the Commission's proposal linking concessionary fares with fuel duty rebates. There is no need to include that proposal in primary legislation, nor would it be appropriate, given that we are talking about long-distance journeys, to bring the arrangements within local concessionary schemes. In the light of the outcome of the discussions with the industry, I shall bring forward regulations during the course of the year that will make the necessary arrangements for the payment of fuel duty rebate.

Conservative Members also raised the matter of a statement by the Prime Minister on 4 July. That stated that concessionary fares were to be extended to long coach journeys through the means that I have described. There is no issue about linking that statement with this Bill. I do not know which statement is being considered, but these arrangements are certainly reflected in the answer that was given by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has repeated his point about the ability to cross the Solent.

May I apologise to you, Miss Widdecombe, for being late?

The Government have many transport issues under consideration and, although the Liberal Democrats did well in the last general election and our numbers have swelled, there are not enough of us. In view of the Minister's remarks about the progress that is being made, could she give some clearer indication of the likely date for the implementation of the half-fare scheme on coaches?

I cannot at present give a date for implementation, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman and others who are as interested know the implementation date as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has repeatedly talked about people crossing the Solent to look for work and attend hospital appointments. As has been said, local authorities have the discretion to extend the scheme, and I understand that some health authorities are talking to local authorities about making such a provision.

The point is not so much that the local authority has no power to make the payment, but that it is unfair that part of a long-distance journey undertaken by someone from my constituency that begins with a ferry service and connects with a long-distance coach service is not paid for nationally, despite the fact that it cannot be undertaken by coach because there are no long-distance coach services from my constituency. Instead, Ministers expect the local authority to pay the subsidy.

The Prime Minister boasted that he was providing travel concessions at a national level for coach services, but people cannot access those services from the Isle of Wight unless they first access a ferry. It seems only fair that the provision should be funded nationally.

Local authorities throughout the country considered the needs of their communities and provided concessionary fare schemes before the Bill was introduced. Some had extended them to take the needs of their communities into account. They saw doing so as part of their responsibility and service to the public. We have extended the provision dramatically for old people and continue to improve it. However, local authorities, health services and others should play their part as well. The local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's area can use their discretion to provide services for local people. The issue has been dealt with repeatedly on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and we have probably exhausted it.

Will the Under-Secretary say something about train journeys? In line with the Prime Minister's statement in column 259 of Hansard for 4 July 2001 that pensioners should be able to get concessions on long journeys, will her announcement on long-distance coach journeys cover pensioners' long-distance train journeys as well?

No. We have prioritised buses because of their role in local transport services, and have not included trains. We are providing for concessionary fares on coaches, albeit through a slightly different mechanism.

On the basis of what I have said, and given that Opposition Members hope to get through the remaining clauses reasonably quickly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would deal more sympathetically with the points made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. She has not appreciated the fact that not only residents of my constituency travel back and forth from it to the mainland. One reason for the new clauses was the Prime Minister's boast on 4 July. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said to him:

``Pensioners are . . . asking for a concessionary scheme for longer distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?''

The right hon. Gentleman replied:

``We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys.''—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.]

A pensioner from Suffolk can take advantage of the scheme that the Government are proposing, which will get them as far as Southampton, but they cannot then get to the island by taking advantage of a similar concessionary scheme—terrific. The concessionary scheme is funded nationally by the fuel duty rebate and it should enable people to reach all corners of England and Wales, not just those corners that happen to be on the mainland.

New clause 4 is designed to put the concessionary coach fares scheme on a statutory footing because what the Government give today they can take away tomorrow—if not this Government, another one. I would like to make it clear that neither side intends that the scheme should be taken away tomorrow.

New clause 3 is designed to enable a pensioner from any part of the country to benefit from a concession on journeys to the Isle of Wight as they can on journeys to Bournemouth, Brighton, Blackpool or Barnstaple. That is an equitable way of treating pensioners and the only means of achieving it is to extend similar concessions to coach and ferry travel. That is what we are asking for. Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, said:

``Our intention is to extend fuel duty rebates to operators of long distance scheduled coach services in return for their offering half price fares to pensioners and disabled people. We are trying to make progress in relation to that.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1901.]

Pensioners from all over the country, not just those from the Isle of Wight, would benefit from the new clause.

I apologise to the Committee for intervening at this stage. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on his valiant efforts on behalf of his constituents. However, he is making rather heavy weather of his case because the issue is simple. We need a clear answer from the Minister so that we can move on.

Under the Government's scheme, as I understand it, and I would be grateful for clarification, any pensioner in Britain who embarks on a scheduled coach journey will be able to pay a half fare for that journey—funded through the fuel duty rebate. In this scheme it should not matter, as it does in other parts of the Bill, where the pensioner is from or where he gets on or off the coach. That would mean that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as soon as they disembarked from the ferry, would be able to get on a long distance coach and benefit from a half-fare scheme. If that is the case, half the hon. Gentleman's problem is solved. The other half relates to the ferry, with respect to which the Minister will have to suffer the ire and indignation of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

The hon. Gentleman used the relevant phrase, ``scheduled services''. The Bill is concerned only with scheduled services, so discussion of taxis and other forms of transport is extraneous. We must consider whether people can travel to places where there are scheduled services. That touches on some of the issues that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was talking about. If places do not have scheduled bus or coach services, that will obviously affect whether pensioners can travel to them, which is an unfortunate limitation.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that pensioners should be able to go to a long list of places; he presumably intends them to travel by coach. We are talking about scheduled services, so people who travel by scheduled services as defined in the Bill will receive the rebate. It is hard to say exactly how the coach scheme will work because we are still consulting and we need to know the details of the operation. However, it would not solve the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised so consistently. I congratulate him on that. In virtually every debate in which I have heard him speak—not only in Committee but in the House—he has consistently spoken about the difficulties that people have in crossing the Solent. That strip of water seems to be a problem for the hon. Gentleman. The fact that people can get a free coach when they reach the other side seems completely irrelevant to him. He must accept that if pensioners want to cross that strip of water, the concession will have to be paid by the local authority. Indeed, discussions are already taking place for hospital services. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, but that is as far as we can go. We must be absolutely sure to tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) exactly when the coach journeys come into effect, because I am sure that he has a particular constituency interest.

I hope that I am not pressing my luck. I absolutely understand that the Under-Secretary still has to consult on particular schemes and that she cannot give us the full details today. Will she give the Committee an indication of the scheme that she will be consulting upon? Does she envisage that it will follow the lines that I described a few minutes ago? I suggested that someone living on the Isle of Wight might travel to Southampton by the expensive ferry—it will not be subsidised by the Government in any way, shape of form—but that once in Southampton they could pick up a scheduled coach service and benefit from a half-fare scheme to wherever that person wished to go, perhaps even to Bath, where that person might spend lots of money, because we need it.

The hon. Gentleman always pushes his luck. The answer is yes.

Finally, what the Prime Minister said is happening. We shall extend the scheme, allowing for the possibility of long-distance travel, but the question did not specify whether it was travel by train or by coach. It is all part of trying to provide pensioners with a better deal—

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I shall not. We have reached the end of our discussion. There has been consistency in what has been said. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

I was thinking of withdrawing the new clause, but as the Under-Secretary would not give way I am not so sure. Perhaps that will teach her a lesson. We shall now be here for another five minutes. At least she had the grace to smile at that and I do not wish to carp.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. He is doing his constituents a huge service by pursuing the matter so doggedly. I hope that they recognise the tremendous work that he does on their behalf. It seems to me that what he has wrung out of the Government is a bit of an anomaly. If, as she promised, the Under-Secretary produces that long-distance bus travel scheme, whereby pensioners can get travel at half fare on all long-distance scheduled bus services, if the bus goes on the ferry from or to the island, the pensioner will get the concession, but if the pensioner goes by foot on to the ferry, he will not. That is daft. The hon. Lady tried to brush the matter aside by saying that the scheme applies only to scheduled services, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight that he is talking about scheduled ferry services. Transport for London provides the concessions for the scheduled services on the Thames, as I have demonstrated.

My reason for intervening on the Under-Secretary at the time when she would not give way—which was a pity as it would have been nice to have the matter clarified—was that she said that the question put to the Prime Minister on long-distance journeys did not specify coaches. I take it that the scheme will also include trains.

I am sorry that I did not give way. The question said:

``Pensioners in my constituency are very pleased that they have no longer to pay the £6 per year for their concessionary half-fare bus . . . Pensioners are therefore asking for a concessionary scheme for longer distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?''

The answer:

``We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys.''—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.]

It is very specific. It does not mention the train.

It does not mention trains, so we have that matter clarified. That leads to what I was about to say. I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the paucity of bus services in rural areas. Sitting in Northampton or London, it is hard to do so. Even scheduled long-distance bus services are fairly few and far between. I invite her—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury will join me—to come to Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend and I will organise it and we will show her the paucity of bus services. It might be instructive for her to find out the difficulty that some of our remote villagers have in travelling about our constituencies.

I am delighted to extend an invitation to the Under-Secretary to visit, so that we can show her our constituencies—not only to illustrate the lack of bus services but to dispel the myth that we are a prosperous area. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold travels down here every week, so he knows that although the train services from Cheltenham and Gloucester to London might be expected to be very good, they are not.

My hon. Friend makes the case for transport. Public services—full stop—in Gloucestershire are poor. I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to consider whether train services can be included in the long-distance travel scheme. A number of train services within Gloucestershire would offer some choice, albeit limited. I ask her to consider the matter seriously.

It is disappointing that the Government have not chosen to accede at least to the principles of the new clauses and to acknowledge the particular problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight faces in his constituency. Bearing him in mind, I recommend that he join me in voting for the new clauses and I give notice that I wish to press them to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 6Extension of concessionary fares to persons18 or younger (greater london)