---

Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]

In supporting the amendment, I draw attention to the problem caused by the infrequency and lack of availability of buses, which is a particular problem for people living in rural areas. Organisations representing older people have welcomed the move to free cross-border transport in England in 2008 and, in due course, across the UK, but remain concerned that people living in areas without bus services or those unable to use buses will continue to be disadvantaged. The Minister laid considerable stress at Second Reading on the role of concessionary travel in promoting social inclusion. It seems inequitable that the concession continues to exclude older people who are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion because they are dependent on forms of transport other than the bus, whether because they cannot use public transport for mobility reasons or because they live in a rural area with no access to a car. It is currently estimated that 27 per cent of people over 65 living in rural areas have no access to a car. We also know that rural areas are those where a proportion of the older population is growing the fastest. In a recent survey which asked what alternative transport arrangements people would have to make to access similar services if their local post office closed, Age Concern found that only 46 per cent of respondents said that they would use the bus; 36 per cent said that they would use their car or that of a relative or friend; but 33 per cent said that they would need to use a taxi, with smaller numbers ticking the box labelled dial-a-ride or community transport schemes. Obviously, if we add up those percentages, we see that some people were ticking more than one box. There is thus a powerful case for extending the scheme to modes of transport other than the bus. The Bill continues to provide powers for local authorities to offer more generous provisions than the statutory minimum but we know from past experience that local discretion simply results in a postcode lottery. Funding pressure on local authorities to meet the requirements of improved statutory concessions has also resulted in the withdrawal of more generous schemes. Thus there is a case for extending the Bill to provide access to transport for all people over 60. Age Concern has estimated that a concession for community transport would cost in the region of£25 million, and that has been confirmed by the figures referred to earlier by the Minister when we were discussing Amendment No. 3. At the moment we do not know how to estimate the cost of those who are able to access buses but whose problem is the frequency or availability of the service. Age Concern would like to see a provision in the Bill for people to have the choice of applying either for a bus concession or for tokens to an annual maximum that would enable them to access alternative forms of transport, such as taxis or, more probably, community transport schemes. Some local authorities, such as Portsmouth, already offer such a scheme. If such provision is not seen as possible at this stage, perhaps the Government could produce a report within the next year or so on a concessionary solution for people who do not have bus services in their area or who, for various reasons, are unable to use buses.