---

Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments in the group. I want to emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that if I have been less constructive in my response to her amendments, there is nothing personal intended—it is the nature of the amendments that dictate the quality of our exchanges. I am not sure that I will be much more helpful with regard to this group than I was with regard to the last. I emphasise to the noble Baroness that local authorities have the discretion to offer travel concessions on other forms of public transport, such as dial-a-ride services and taxis, and for accompanying companions for disabled persons. A national scheme, however, raises profound issues of cost. The noble Baroness’s amendments do not constrain the extent of these provisions. It is one thing to talk of concessions on buses, which we can define in terms of the services being provided, it is another to talk of offering the same support to taxi services. It is not indicated here that there would necessarily be any mileage constraint on that, nor is it clear who the accompanying person might be, by any definition. Not that the noble Baroness’s intention is anything but entirely proper and to be supported in terms of objectives of enhancing opportunities for these categories of people, but one can see the open-ended nature of these amendments and the implications for costs. She has sufficient local government experience to recognise—but I am sure a word with her local friend, who also plays such a prominent part in local government, would confirm—that it is unlikely that local government would accept such an open-ended commitment without some idea of the potential costs and how it would guarantee that they were adequately reimbursed. Local authorities that exercise their role in this area are doing so responsibly and with care. The trouble with these amendments, if they were to be introduced into the Bill in national terms, is that local authorities would lose the discretion and would be obliged to meet the requirement. The Committee will recognise just how extensive those commitments might be. I assure the Committee, however, as I have done on the previous amendments, that the Bill preserves the flexibility for local authorities to offer concessions on other forms of public transport and to offer alternative travel token schemes, if they wish to do so, underthe discretionary schemes set up under the Transport Act 1985. There is also a power, under the Transport Act 2000, for the Secretary of State to extend a national concession to other modes of public passenger transport, including accessible community transport services. We have the legislative powers, therefore, to make progress in these areas. I am obviously hesitant—rather more than hesitant; reluctant—about accepting amendments that appear to impose upon local authorities not areas of discretion, but obligations, some of which look very open-ended indeed. We are not in a position to accept amendments that extend the principles of the scheme that far. I also recognise the strength of the representations made again by the noble Lord, Lord Low, on the question of the problems of disabled people with regard to the infrequency of inadequacy of local buses, particularly in rural areas. I emphasise to the Committee that there are many users of rural buses and we are concerned to improve the quality of those services. We are providing over £50 million a year to local authorities to help them support rural bus services. The grant has risen from £32 million a year when it was introduced in 1998 and will provide more than £55 million in 2007-08. So we are committed to increasing support for rural buses. I recognise the valid point of the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the availability and accessibility of these services, but I emphasise that we are concerned to improve them, both for the disabled and for the general community as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke to her amendment and emphasised the progress that has been made in Wales. I am well aware of her extensive experience of that. Even before she bobbed out from the Committee, the noble Baroness might have already detected that I was a little reluctant to accept examples from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in relation to the Bill. This is not because I am discriminating against the Welsh, being Welsh myself, the Scots or the Northern Irish, but simply because their circumstances, the provisions they make, the extent and costs of their schemes, are very different from the provision in England. It is entirely for the Welsh Assembly to make its decisions in these matters—I would be the last to intrude upon such deliberations—but that does not mean that its experience is automatically translatable into the English experience. I do not see why we should oblige local authorities to offer any particular concession. If we oblige them to do so, by definition we take away the discretionary nature of the schemes they employ. They have the power to make concessions if they wish to do so. Some English local authorities are very large indeed. They have populations which, although not as great as the whole of Wales, are certainly as great as a substantial part of it, and it is only right that they should have elements of discretion too. As I indicated earlier, we have no plans to extend the statutory concession to other forms of transport or to accompanying companions. Any such extensions are possible in the future. I have no doubt that noble Lords on the Committee and elsewhere and others of like mind—there are many in government who will join with them on this—will look in the future towards the enhancement of the present schemes. Any extensions can be effected under this legislation; we have the provisions in place. It will therefore be recognised that while the amendments may look valuable in extending the scheme, they would not actually increase the powers to achieve their objectives in the future. They would present a hefty bill immediately the legislation became law rather than when a more mature reflection had been made and resources were available. The noble Baroness will recognise that I am not against the principle she is putting forward—far from it. I am saying that we have the legislative framework within which such a principle could be implemented in due course. To avoid unintended consequences, any decision to extend the national statutory entitlement would have to be fully funded and the impact fully considered. The problems with regard to certain forms of transport and companions will need definition lest the opportunity for abuse completely overwhelms the scheme and the confidence of those who implement it is lost. This is true also in regard to Amendments Nos. 11 and 31. There is no limit on when services can be used, on whether or not the travel must be local, on the use of taxis and on the other services to be provided for free. Travel is a valuable and important resource and we recognise that categories of our fellow citizens benefit significantly from it. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put the case very forcibly indeed for people whose health might otherwise suffer because they are confined within a limited framework; but, in tackling that problem—I agree it is an issue which has to be assessed and tackled—we cannot create in legislation a framework that offers the potential for such widespread availability and access as to render the situation quite unmanageable from the Government’s point of view. With our proposed new national concession, the Government’s spending on concessionary travel will be approximately £1 billion a year. We are committed to accessible public transport for disabled people. Regulations requiring buses and other forms of public transport to be accessible have been introduced, but we must be realistic. It would not serve the interests of the disabled or the wider interests of the country to accept amendments that would open the door to such a wide entitlement to travel that would be ill defined and hugely costly.