---

Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10: 10: Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert— ““(4A) For the purposes of this section a disabled person is a person who— (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 drivea motor vehicle under Part III of the Road TrafficAct 1988, have his application refused pursuant tosection 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 TransportAct 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 is not clear enough, and that a definition should be included in the Bill along the lines of that in the Transport Act 2000. 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.