Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hanham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL].
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not indulging in a burst of paranoia; I have seen the Minister often enough to know that he will not accept all my amendments. I am, however, simply feeling a bit tweaked in the early new year that I am not getting anywhere. I can see that I will get nowhere again. I shall say only two things. I did say that the outset that this was a probing amendment and I acknowledged that there were financial implications to it. It was tabled to hear the Minister’s reply to a very important point. The Minister has said that this can be done in future. I presume that these schemes can be extended only by order of the Secretary of State. They would therefore have to be extended by secondary legislation and across the board. Now that this is a national scheme, it would have to be accepted that people wanted it to be applied nationally, rather than by each local authority. The Minister may know the answer. If he does not, I would be grateful if he could ensure that I received an answer before we reach the next stage. This is what we are really looking for. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put it when speaking to her amendment, this is about the acceptance of the principle that people who are not in a position to manage public transport and are therefore in effect being denied access to a reasonable life and a reasonable existence. They might be able to have that access with a companion to help them. That is what I was alluding to when I talked about a companion travelling for free as a concession on public transport. I heard what the Minister said in reply. We need to look a little further at the permissiveness of other legislation, but the extent of the permissiveness of the current legislation without secondary legislation is also important. I expect that is what we are talking about. For today, I will withdraw the amendment. Perhaps we will return to this when we have looked at the matter in more detail, but I put on record the fact that I accept that there could be financial implications, so that people understand that I am not simply off on a flight of fancy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 12 to 18 not moved.] Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 [Reimbursement of operators]:
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c21-2GC
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disability Appeals Disadvantaged Bus services Buses Concessions Fares Finance Expenditure Greater London Ferries Local government Local government finance Older people Public transport Transport Underground railways Rural areas Timetables Trams
- Legislation
- Concessionary Bus Travel Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:45:40 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367203
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367203
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367203