---

Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]

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 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. 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.