Clause 129 (Hansard, 29 May 1968)

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
I beg to move Amendment No. 444, in page 170, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert: 'and the Executive shall only enter into such arrangements where they form part of an overall plan approved by the Authority for the designated area'.

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be in order, I think, to discuss with this Amendment 2029 Amendment No. 445, in page 171, line 23, at end insert: (3A) Any arrangements entered into by a local authority under subsection (3) of this section shall include provision that all the relevant travel concessions are available on each comparable service operating over the route, or in the area in question; No. 446, in page 171, line 46, at end insert: ' and it shall be within the power of the local authority to introduce a scheme that would discriminate between one person and another so as to concentrate their concessions on those persons with the greatest need'; No. 447, in page 172, line 18, leave out from ' commissioners' to end of line 19;
No. 448, in page 172, line 20, leave out ' or Minister'.

§ Mr. Heseltine
We would like to see various improvements in this Clause, which duals with travel concessions. I should make it clear that many of these Amendments are essentially probing Amendments, because there is room for further discussion. Every hon. Member representing a rural constituency must face up to this problem, so it is worth discussing this important and, I hope, non-political issue.
The Clause enables passenger transport executives to make agreements with each local authority in that area independently for travel concessions, so many different arrangements could be made, giving a patchwork quilt effect in many of the big cities. This is the situation at present, and it causes concern, and this is what Amendment No. 444 is designed to deal with. I hope that I will not be told that this is a wrecking Amendment, in the sense that it would provide that no one could have concessionary fares until everyone had them, since I said that it is a probing Amendment.
I want the more forward-looking authorities in each area to be the pacesetters. If they can reach these agreements only upon a uniform plan for the area, the impetus of these authorities will be towards the creation and adoption of such a plan. I hope the House will accept the point in the spirit in which I make it, especially when I say that the other possible interpretation of the wording is not intended.
2030 The Amendment would lead to the introduction into the great conurbations more quickly than any other way of comprehensive and identical schemes. Without it, the better authorities would adopt their schemes, which many have now, and the more wayward authorities would be less likely to do so. So the first object is to speed things up.
The second is to make the practice of the best authorities the uniform practice. This will happen if all authorities come together under the umbrella of the passenger transport authority and the more enlightened authorities and argue with the authorities which are not so keen on these schemes to persuade them to accept the standards prevailing in the good authorities. Thus, the Amendment will have a beneficial effect in these areas.
The object of Amendment No. 445 is equally clear. This deals with the second great dilemma of travel concessions. Often they do not refer to all the buses on a particular route. They cannot, as a subsidy from the rates, be paid to private operators. If they are paid to local operators of municipal buses there is the difficulty of varying boundaries and concessions between two municipal undertakings and it becomes a hotch potch arrangement which everybody agrees is undesirable.
If it were necessary for the scheme adopted in an area to be uniform in pattern all the good authorities would bring up to their own level the scheme finally adopted, and they would use the pressure of trying to continue with existing schemes to persuade wayward colleagues to join them.
First it will co-ordinate facilities, and secondly, it will make it possible for the grants we are discussing to become available for the private sector. Outside the passenger transport authorities there will be private operators running stage carriage services. It is desirable that if a subsidy is being given for the people who are not able to afford to pay the economic rate it should be irrelevant whether they are travelling on a privately owned bus or a publicly owned bus, on a stage carriage or an express carriage. All these things should come into a common pattern.
Amendment No. 446 might conceivably arouse more passion in the House. I will 2031 not try to avoid facing up to the issues. I appreciate that this is the dilemma of the Welfare State today. What does one do about the scarce resources available to the community in trying to ensure that they go to the people who need them most. Hon. Members opposite have had to face up to this and introduce quite discriminatory schemes of the sort I am making possible by this legislation. All parties have got to the stage where we accept discrimination as the only way this nation can afford to look after the people who really need help. This will increase as time goes on. There is the problem of real poverty which the Welfare State has not eliminated and will not eliminate, and we must search for ways in which to deal with the situation.
If a local authority of responsible people wants to introduce a scheme which concentrates the benefits which that local community has available on those people who need them most that is an exercise which this House should not prevent. It would have the advantage of limiting the resources available where they would do most good, and there would be larger benefits available for those with the greatest need.
Amendments Nos. 447 and 448 are not of great consequence to the main debate but are included in this group. They mean that if there are to be appeals about the costing of travel concessions, instead of finding their way to the Ministry of Transport they should go to the local traffic commissioners. There is enough centralisation, and the more one can begin to turn back the process and give local controls of the sort involved in these Amendments the better.
I hope that it will be possible for the Government to think about the points I have made. No doubt other hon. Members will wish to comment on these matters. At present the position is unsatisfactory and the Government could, by accepting this group of Amendments and—having thought the matter over and, if necessary, by taking steps in another place—by tabling further Amendments, improve the situation.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
Since this will probably be the last time that we shall hear the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on this subject for at any rate some months, and since the 2032 hour is late, perhaps we can forgive him for on this occasion not being up to his usual standard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We are all getting rather tired. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The hon. Gentleman demonstrated that he is facile first, ingenious second, adventitious third and confused fourth. Otherwise he made a good job of his speech. I will justify those points one by one.
First, the hon. Gentleman called Amendment No. 444 a probing one. This discussion is supposed to be non-political, although it is a highly political subject, as it has become clear. This Amendment is based on a misunderstanding of subsection (1), which has the essential purpose of enabling local authorities to arrange for travel concessions on services provided by P.T.E.s, the cost being reimbursed by the local authorities; and in such cases the P.T.E.s do not require the approval of the P.T.A.s for giving concessions.
I could give many examples to show how the present concessions vary. For example, in the Greater Manchester P.T. area, seven municipal undertakings give half-fare concessions for old age pensioners, or all over 65, male, and over 60, female. One gives half-fare concessions to those over 65 and one gives half-fares for those over 70. Two give no concessions at all. In the Merseyside area, one gives free travel to those over 70, one gives free travel to all over 70 and pensioners over 68, one gives 175 journeys free a year to those over 70 and one gives 3d. flat fares to all over 65, male, and over 60, female. There are similarly differing arrangements between undertakings in other areas.
To enable local authorities to go through the interim period before the P.T.A.s are properly formed, constituted and running, subsection (1) is an interim measure and allows local authorities to arrange for travel concessions on services provided by the P.T.E.s, as I explained. Since the cost will be reimbursed by the local authorities, the electors will, therefore, have direct access to those who will make the policy in this interim period.
Any attempt to try to change this arrangement along the lines of Amendment No. 444 would, to take a charitable view, make the best the enemy of the good. If we were not able to make these 2033 arrangements in the interim period, all concessionary fares would have to cease forthwith. That would not be desirable and I can hardly believe that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention. Having probed the Government by that Amendment, and having received this explanation, I trust that he will not wish to proceed with that proposal.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's ingenious argument on Amendment No. 445. Presumably this proposal was intended to ensure that if local authorities arrange travel concessions for the old, blind and disabled on bus services operated by non-municipal undertakings —not P.T.E. services—they would do so on all the services concerned without discrimination.
1.15 a.m.
I readily admit that the hon. Gentleman's argument about the anxiety to get uniform concessions is fair, but it is a little disingenuous not to see that there is concern in some undertakings that, if concessions are given on the services of one operator but not another, there may be an abstraction of traffic from the latter's services. That would be a legitimate argument, but it is not one that he has been willing to substantiate. I suggest that that argument has to be taken into account as well as the fair one that he put forward.
I am trying to emphasise that these powers given to the local authorities are essentially permissive. With the cost of them falling entirely on the rates, the local authorities must be allowed these permissive rights. We would be reluctant to impose provisions in a statute which would detract from the permissive nature of the powers.
Turning, then, to Amendment No. 446, I will not go into the arguments about universality or selectivity. I will content myself with saying that the Amendment is unnecessary. Subsections (1) and (3) already allow a local authority to give concessions to any persons such as are mentioned in subsection (5)". and subsection (5) says that the persons referred to in subsections (1) and (3) 2034 are persons mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c>) of the subsection or any description of such persons ". Here again, we do not have to make a distinction. The Amendment is adventitious.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 447 and 448, which the hon. Gentleman described as not very important, he fails to make the distinction here. There is provision for the costs of travel concessions to be determined by the Chairman of the Traffic Commissioners in the case of road passenger services or by the Minister in the case of other services. I hope that the two are seen to be distinct functions. The decision in either case is final, so a Chairman and the Minister are adjudicating in separate spheres. There is no question of an appeal to the Minister from a Chairman's decision, and, of course, it would be nonsense to suggest that there could be an appeal from the Minister to the chairman.
The Amendments would delete all reference to the Minister, so, while the road passenger services appeal system would remain unaffected, the other services' appeal system would be damaged. The hon. Gentleman has confused the point. It is not a case of Whitehall knowing best. It is simply that there are two separate systems of appeal, one to the chairman and one to the Minister. There must be a system of appeal, and, for that reason as well, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue his Amendments.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
I said at the beginning that I felt that the Amendments were probing. However, my main point still stands. It would have been likely to have achieved greater uniformity and a greater degree of concession for more people if my Amendments had been voted upon and put into the legislation. There is an argument for bringing about a universal scheme in each conurbation, and there should be no distinction made between municipal and private sector operations.
However, I do not wish to ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.