Schedule
1
The
London free travel
scheme
Amendment
proposed
: No. 19, in schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at
end add—
‘(7) After
paragraph 5(7)
insert—
“(8)
Where a London authority considers the amount notified by Transport for
London under paragraph 5(1) to be
excessive—
(a) the
authority may within 7 days of being notified by Transport for London
apply to the Secretary of State to review the proposed charge;
and
(b) if the Secretary of
State agrees that the proposed charge is excessive, then he shall
notify both Transport for London and the authority of an alternative
lower amount.”.’.—[
Stephen
Hammond.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
2
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed
to.
Clauses 6
to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
9
Variation
of reimbursement and other administrative
arrangements
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I rise to make some brief comments and to seek
the Minister’s reassurance because, on the face of it, the
clause gives me and my colleagues some
concern.
The thrust of
the Bill is to extend concessionary free travel on eligible
services to eligible people. Until now, the mechanisms of application
to verify service provision, of operator reimbursement, and of travel
concession authority reimbursement have been via local government.
However, subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to alter that
mechanism by order, and to impose a central system in relation to
reimbursement and/or other administrative functions of the English
travel concession authorities under sections 145 to 150 of the
Transport Act 2000. The Secretary of State could therefore take such
powers and, in effect, underfund the scheme, which would impose greater
burdens on local government grants. Additionally, the Secretary of
State could take such powers and, by not using the mechanisms of local
government, render the whole scheme opaque, withno right of
appeal for operators or for local
government.
Although
the clause provides a mechanism to appeal to the Secretary of State in
the event that such powers are taken, the Secretary of State is not
actually under an obligation to take the powers. Will the Minister
therefore clarify under what circumstances the Secretary of State might
wish to take such powers, thereby altering the thrust of the Bill? Will
she reassure us that the relevant order would be dealt with by
means of the affirmative regulatory impact procedure, and that there
would therefore be an obligation to prior consultation? Will she also
assure us that, notwithstanding the making of the order by affirmative
procedure, there would also be a vote in the House? Will she further
confirm the exact nature of the parliamentary scrutiny that is intended
by the clause drafting, and, finally, will she explain the
circumstances in which the clause would
apply?
Gillian
Merron:
I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that if we
were to centralise arrangements by secondary legislation, it would be
consulted on and it would require an affirmative resolution. I hope
that I have reassured him of the scrutiny that would be
involved.
Stephen
Hammond:
I wish to clarify that that procedure would
require a debate on the Floor of the House and a vote
thereon.
Gillian
Merron:
The normal parliamentary arrangements would
apply.
Clause 9
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
10
Reciprocal
arrangements for providing travel
concessions
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 10, page 8, line 31, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 14, in clause 10, page 8, line 38, leave out
‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
Paul
Rowen:
The amendments deal with reciprocal arrangements
between the other nations of the United Kingdom. I wish to make it
clear at the outset that by proposing a minor change from
“may” to “shall”, we are not suggesting
that the Secretary of State should impose complete reciprocity at the
beginning for someone living in, say, the Shetland Isles to be able to
use the system in London. The particular areas about which we are
concerned were those referred to on Second Reading by my right hon.
Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He
raised the issue of authorities being on the border and circumstances
in which a pensioner may need to visit a hospital that is just over the
border. Under the current arrangements, there is no system in place for
reciprocity. We are concerned about limited circumstances in which
people in border towns may need to access services just across the
border.
This a probing
amendment. I hope that the Minister can assure us that such
arrangements will be put in place to cover those instances when it is
important that someone can access a service that is just over the
border. If that does not happen, we shall disadvantage many people who
might have to travel considerably further to access a hospital, whereas
just a few miles down the road in, say, Scotland—as is the case
in Berwick-upon-Tweed—is a hospital that people need to
access.
The amendment
is not about extending the provision across the piece, but dealing with
a specific situation in which there is a border town and the services
that people may need to use are only a few miles away. I hope that the
Minister can assure us that some reciprocal arrangements will be put in
place fairly quickly. That would certainly satisfy my right hon.
Friend, who represents a border
constituency.
Stephen
Hammond:
We recognise the intent of the two amendments.
Indeed, we are keen to see the introduction of reciprocal arrangements
for concessionary bus travel by residents in England established as
soon as possible in Wales and Scotland, particularly in circumstances
that are covered by the
amendment.
However, my
concern is that the amendment would not set any time frame by which the
Secretary of State could work. Conservative Members are worried that
the amendment could delay the start of the 2008 scheme in England,
which would not be wise. Unless a time frame can be established, we
shall be cautious about it.
Gillian
Merron:
I understand the intention behind the amendments
from our previous discussions. I accept the wish to move swiftly
forward in respect of the mutual recognition of concessionary bus
passes throughout the United Kingdom. However, now is not the time. Our
absolute priority must be to implement a workable, national concession
in England in April
2008.
Indeed, the Bill
provides for the legislative changes that would be needed to allow for
mutual recognition in the future. The hon. Member for Rochdale made a
specific point about short journeys across borders, to hospitals and so
on. I emphasise that local authorities already have the discretionary
powers that they need in order to allow their residents to cross into
and out of devolved Administrations and England using their
concessionary passes. That is the way to deal with that specific point.
However, there is a wider point to be made. As a Government, we want
older or disabled people resident anywhere in the UK to be able to
travel on any eligible local bus services in the
UK.
I remind the
Committee that concessionary travel is a devolved policy area. One of
the reasons why I cannot agree to amendment No. 14 is that we would be
legislating for Welsh Ministers without proper consultation and without
their agreement. Surely it is also not desirable to oblige the
Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to do something for which there
has not yet been full consultation with the devolved Administrations,
operators and users. We must ensure that the arrangements work
effectively and that the important work on the practical issues is
done.
4.30
pm
There
is also no guarantee that the recognition of Scottish passes in
England, as would be obliged by the amendment, would be mirrored in
Scotland or Northern Ireland, by the recognition of English
concessionary passes there, nor that the Scottish or Northern Irish
Administrations would agree to fund travel by their concessionaries in
England and Wales. Moreover, questions about eligibility, modes and
timing are just some of the issues that would need to be discussed and
agreed, in addition to pass recognition and funding arrangements for
the reimbursement of operators. To repeat a well worn figure, from
April next year the Government will be providing around £1
billion a year for concessionary travel in England. Further spending
will occur in the devolved Administrations.
Any move to mutual recognition
will of course incur further costs, which are extremely difficult to
predict at this stage. We know from the introduction of the Scottish
national scheme that people’s travel patterns change when
concessions are enhanced. It would seem wise to have in
place—and working well—the provision for people to travel
across England in the first instance. Once those data are available, we
shall have far greater certainty on the costs of extending coverage
still further. Hon. Members are already pressing me for more certainty
on funding and reimbursement in respect of the April 2008 changes. The
Department is working to provide that certainty in England for next
year, and we do not wish to put at risk all the hard work that local
authorities, operators and the Government are doing in preparing for
the implementation of the national concession.
Forcing the
arrangements for mutual recognition to be hastened, particularly where
there is provision for local authorities to come to a sensible and
local arrangement, would threaten the successful implementation of the
English national concession. I hope that hon. Members would not want to
do that. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
Having made the point, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
11
Orders
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause
11, page 10, line 19, after
‘10’, insert ‘, [Application to Isles of
Scilly]’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 4, in
clause 11, page 10, line 22, after
‘8’, insert ‘or [Application to Isles of
Scilly]’.
No.
5, in
clause 16, page 11, line 16, leave
out
‘Bus’.
New
clause 1—Application to Isles of
Scilly
—
‘(1) This
Act, in its application to the Isles of Scilly, has effect subject to
such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of
State may by order
prescribe.
(2) In particular,
an order under subsection (1)
may—
(a) provide for the
application of this Act to water-borne public passenger transport
services;
(b) amend the
categories of person who are entitled to concessionary travel under
this
Act.’.
Paul
Rowen:
Earlier today, we discussed the extension of what
might be classed as a committed public service vehicle. One of the
classes included the use of a ferry or boat. The amendment, which I
have been asked to move by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives
(Andrew George), relates to the Isles of Scilly. They merit a special
mention under clause 2, where the national arrangement is extended to
them. As was pointed out on Second Reading by some hon. Members, there
are no buses on the Isles of Scilly, and some people have questioned
why the scheme should apply there. I am sure that hon. Members know
that five islands make up the Isles of Scilly, and that just over 2,000
residents live on those islands. The Isles of Scilly operate as a
unitary and county council that runs all its services from a narrow
council tax base.
It is for
that reason that I am asking the Minister to make a specific and
special exception in extending the scheme to the Isles of Scilly. At
present, the cost of the ferry boat to the mainland is £7 per
trip. The council has reckoned that it will receive no more than
£10,000 in the revenue support grant settlement as reimbursement
of the costs of introducing a concessionary scheme. There is no way
that a council could operate its own special concessionary scheme with
that sum of money. Furthermore, it cannot fund such a scheme because
its council tax base for providing all the services for just over 2,000
residents is so narrow.
We are asking for the same sort
of arrangement that operates for Scotland. Residents from the islands
of Orkney or Shetland, for example, are permitted to take one ferry
journey a year to the mainland and then use the buses. I have not
specified frequency in the amendments, but we are looking for some
recognition from the Department that the Isles of Scilly are a special
case, and that there is no way that the council, which has to fund all
the other services on such a narrow council tax base, would be able to
introduce its own
scheme.
The amendment
would extend the scheme to use of the ferry boat by residents only. The
scheme would not apply to tourists who are visiting the Isles of Scilly
if they use the boat—they would pay the full price—but it
would enable residents to access services on the mainland via a free
ferry
ride.
Mr.
David Clelland (Tyne Bridge) (Lab): Under the Bill, people
who live in Tyne and Wear, for instance, will be able to use bus
services in London or another part of the country. Is the hon.
Gentleman suggesting that they ought to have their fare from Tyne and
Wear to London paid so that they can access
services?
Paul
Rowen:
No, I am not suggesting that. We discussed that
earlier.
It is clear
that the Isles of Scilly are a special case. There are no buses there.
To access buses on the mainland, residents have to take the ferry.
Given that it is the only mode of public transport available to them,
and given that everything is funded by only 2,000 residents, I am
asking for an exception to be made for
them.
Dr.
Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): Would
not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point be that, if
individuals live in rural parts of England where there are no buses,
they should be given a concession to get to the nearest bus service?
Otherwise, they would not be able to use the concession
either.
Paul
Rowen:
I accept that, and that is why earlier today we
introduced an amendment that would enable the Secretary of State to
extend the scheme to other forms of transport. I gave an example from
my constituency of a bus service that had been withdrawn. There is now
a service that residents have to pay for, although they qualify for the
national concessionary bus fare scheme. I would like that to be
established and developed.
I would not want an immediate
blanket exception—we had that discussion earlier
today—but the Isles of Scilly are a special case and, given
that, I have asked for an
exception.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman has already
acknowledged that the Isles of Scilly have no buses. Is he saying that,
if his earlier amendment had been accepted, someone in need of
community transport on the mainland who went to the Isles of Scilly
would be able to access community transport free of charge
there?
Paul
Rowen:
The amendment that I proposed this morning gave the
Secretary of State the power to implement that change. Clearly, I would
not have expected him to introduce a blanket exception right away; I
would have expected him selectively to introduce exceptions or to
extend the scheme, so that for rural areas without any other
services—no bus service, for example—community transport
would qualify under the concessionary fares scheme. That is
fair.
I do not
believe that the biggest cost would fall on rail if the scheme were
extended to everyone, as the Minister said this morning. My immediate
reaction would be to look at communities, particularly rural
communities—the Isles of Scilly would fall under that
definition—consider the alternative forms of transport that are
available and ensure that those qualify under the scheme. There could
be a gradual roll-out, enabling people who would otherwise not benefit
from the national scheme to receive some benefit. That is all we are
asking the Minister to
consider.
Gillian
Merron:
It is interesting to see the excitement with which
hon. Members debate the Isles of Scilly. I have not had the pleasure of
visiting them yet, but my predecessor did, and officials were there 10
days ago to discuss transport issues with the council. One of the
points they reported back to me on, about which I can assure the hon.
Member for Rochdale, is that the Isles of Scilly will, as I mentioned
earlier, be working closely with Cornwall county council in preparation
for April 2008. I commend them for doing
so.
The Bill is good
news for older and disabled people, because for the first time it makes
the council of the Isles of Scilly a travel concession authority,
meaning that it will be able to issue concessionary passes to eligible
residents that they can use anywhere in England when visiting the
mainland.
I am a
little bit surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, because
they would give the Secretary of State two powers. First, he would be
able, by order, to extend travel concessions
to
“water-borne public
passenger
transport”
serving the
Isles of Scilly, which in my language means ferries. Secondly, he would
be able to change who is entitled to concessionary travel in the Isles
of Scilly. The Secretary of State already has the power, under clause
8(1)(a), to expand eligibility for the national concession to new
categories of people living in the Isles of Scilly. Similarly, there is
a power under clause 8(1)(b) to include ferries serving the
Isles of Scilly in the statutory scheme, so that they can offer free
travel to all England
pass-holders.
In
addition, the council of the Isles of Scilly already has the power to
agree voluntary schemes with transport providers, allowing
discretionary travel concessions to its residents under section 2 of
the Local Government Act 2000. That could, for example, include free
travel on ferries. The people best placed to take account of unique
local circumstances—no or few buses, for example, or being on an
island—are those in the local authorities involved in
discretionary schemes. That is why we have protected that
right.
Paul
Rowen:
Does the Minister accept that, given that that the
Isles of Scilly only has a population of
2,000, the council tax base does not provide the resources to enable the
introduction of a discretionary scheme providing the full panoply,
including social services and education, which must have
priority?
Gillian
Merron:
I remind the hon. Gentleman that on Second
Reading, and earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, some hon.
Members mentioned the funding for concessionary travel that goes to the
Isles of Scilly through the formula grant system, even though there are
currently no bus services operating there. It is worth gently pointing
out that the council could use that money to provide travel concessions
on ferry services and other modes of transport. The hon. Gentleman
might take that constructive message back to the hon. Member for St.
Ives, who represents constituents on the Isles of Scilly, because there
is scope in that regard.
The amendments constitute
unnecessary duplication and they are somewhat inappropriate. I restate
my belief that it is right for local authorities, given their knowledge
of local circumstances, to decide for themselves what discretionary
enhancements are best for their residents. These proposals would simply
duplicate powers that are already held by the Secretary of State and
the council of the Isles of Scilly. I therefore ask hon. Members not to
press the proposals to a Division.
4.45
pm
Paul
Rowen:
Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clauses
11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
