CONCESSIONARY FARE SCHEMES

HC Deb 12 December 1978 vol 960 cc566-86

7.52 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

I am glad to have this debate but I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has had to reply to two debates in the early hours of the morning. Our debate, however, underlines our strong feelings about what the Secretary of State has said about Conservative councils with low rateable values.

The elderly people who live in rural areas are in despair about the increases in bus fares, and they envy those who live in areas of high rateable value and are able to enjoy good concessionary fare schemes. The present system makes it difficult for areas of low rateable values to have reasonable schemes without a big increase in rates, which in these inflationary times hits hardest the retired and those on small incomes.

The Secretary of State is completely unaware of that, in spite of what we have said on the subject. He is telling the councils with low rateable values to make such increases when he says that they should introduce better schemes. He said: It is a local disgrace that a number of authorities do not provide schemes… for old people and the disabled.—[Official Report, 29th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 425.] It is a disgrace that the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to understand the position of the authorities which have low rateable values and which find it difficult to introduce such schemes as he has suggested.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the product of a penny rate in these areas is so different from the product in areas which give free travel for old-age pensioners? For example, the product of a penny rate in the Maldon district is about £75,000. For the Tendring district in my constituency it is £180,000. I imagine it is not so different from that in the Western Isles and in areas represented by my hon. Friends who signed the early-day motion which I tabled on 30th November.

There is an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who has done such a lot recently in pressing the Government to give fairer treatment on concessionary fares to elderly persons and to stop the unfair treatment as between one area and another which I have mentioned in the early-day motion. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) will underline that when he speaks, because his constituency is so near to others in which free concessionary fare schemes are operated. Indeed, it is the different operations of one area and another so close together which mark a very great criticism of the present policy being followed by the Under-Secretary.

With no increase in the rate support grant and, indeed, with having to make up for some cut-backs recently, to introduce even a half-fare scheme would entail a large increase in rates in these low rateable value areas. That is particularly so in my constituency in the Tendring district. To introduce a half-fare scheme would mean a gross increase of 5p in the pound in rates, although the subsidy given by the Government would help to a degree. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough says in his amendment, the Government stand to give only one-third of that back in the help that they are giving.

What a difference there is between the London area, where the product of a penny rate is £19 million—it is no wonder that London and the rich areas can afford the free concessionary fares—and in particular Essex, where we are struggling to find a suitable scheme to help people. Is it any wonder that, as the White Paper of June 1977 pointed out, of the then £80 million spent on concessionary fares 70 per cent. was spent in Greater London and the metropolitan areas, where only 38 per cent. of pensioners live?

Added to these unfairnesses we have the excellent fare schemes operated by British Rail for senior citizens. Elderly people simply do not understand why, if British Rail can operate such schemes, the National Bus Company cannot do so. How is it that EEC countries other than ourselves can enjoy concessionary fares for the elderly whilst we are still lagging behind? In the Republic of Ireland, anyone over the age of 67 can travel free anywhere in the country by rail or bus. In Northern Ireland there is half-price travel for people over 65. All other EEC countries provide reduced fares or free travel by rail or bus. We are lagging very much behind.

What, then, is the present position? I feel bound to comment that to me the present attitude of the Secretary of State is very hypocritical: "You do as I say, but I shall not help you to do it ". That seems to be his policy and his attitude. However, I welcome his intention to see that local authorities can work half-fare off-peak schemes, as the Under-Secretary stated to me in the letter he wrote to me on 5th December, in which he said: We are advocating half-fare schemes as the national minimum standard. One certainly welcomes that, but I earnestly ask the Under-Secretary to see how this can be achieved in areas of low rateable value such as I have described. I hope that he will explain this quite clearly in his reply, because this is why I am attacking the Secretary of State and the Government for their hypocritical attitude to areas of low rateable value. It is a two-pronged attack.

Is not the way out of this dilemma to make counties responsible rather than districts for these schemes? After all, Essex gets a transport supplementary grant of 70 per cent. on revenue supplied for loss-making bus services. At present, this works out at about £1 ¼ million to £1½ million a year. Cannot the transport grant for concessionary fares go to counties rather than to districts? Why cannot we make counties responsible for the concessionary fares rather than the districts, which are finding it impossible, because of the cut-back in the rate support grant and because of inflation, to put an extra burden on house owners who are retired? I am sure that this would be a great help to the poorer districts, and it would enable those enjoying better schemes at least to help the areas of low rateable value. If that could be done, it would be constructive without putting an extra burden on the central Government.

Something must be done. I press the Secretary of State to be more understanding and constructive. I am sure that along these lines we might be able to help many deserving people who have served their country well. If no progress can be made, we must look to the central Government for help for areas of low rateable value with such high numbers of retired people.

I want to act responsibly. I do not ask for increased Government spending unless it is absolutely necessary as a fallback position. That is why I ask the Minister to consider my suggestion about responsibility for concessionary fares being on counties rather than districts. More half-fare schemes could mean a cutback in the transport supplementary grant as buses would be used more frequently. Is it not logical that the authority receiving and being responsible for the transport supplementary grant should be responsible for concessionary fares as well? We must make it possible for more schemes to be introduced. It seems logical for this to be done by counties. If that cannot be done, we must look to the central Government for help for areas of low rateable value. It is a position of despair for the elderly in those areas.

We now face an alteration in taxation policy, which will put an extra burden on buses. I have not yet seen a reply to a Question which I tabled asking what the increase in bus fares will be because of the alteration in taxation policy. Then we have the usual inflation on top of past inflation. There has been no help for people who have to face vast increases in bus fares in these areas. An increase of 10 per cent. in fares is possible shortly. The position is acute for people living in areas of low rateable value.

Time is short for something to be done. I hope that it will be possible for counties to deal with this matter. As a last resort, the Government must play their part. I hope that concessionary fares can be introduced not with a vast increase in Government spending but in a human way. I also hope that when the Secre- tary of State makes speeches in future or comes to the Dispatch Box he will show more understanding for areas of low rateable value.

8.3 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I was somewhat astonished by the tone of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) regarding public expenditure, because, with his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, he usually takes a rigid line. I assume that, with the General Election getting nearer, the Tories, concentrating their gaze on winning it, have come to the conclusion that this nonsense about public expenditure cuts and refusing to provide services is not going down too well with old-age pensioners.

Mr. Ridsdale

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will one day learn to be pragmatic, not doctrinaire, because that is where success in Government lies.

Mr. Skinner

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have always believed in concessionary fares for old-age pensioners. I do not allow myself to be caught in the trap of arguing against public expenditure, because it sounds popular for about three years, and then, with an election round the corner, consult my electorate and find that they think that this is a great idea and that I should support it. The Tories who are now signing these motions are hypocrites, unless they explain to the Leader of the Opposition why they have changed their views. They should ask the right hon. Lady "At next Prime Minister's Question Time, instead of shouting and bawling, why don't you tell him ' I have a party which has come to the conclusion that it would be wise to have a mandatory policy of free travel for all old-age pensioners '? "

The hon. Gentleman wants only half fares, and I do not think he wants a mandatory policy. He should be telling his leader that she should get that message across to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is no good attacking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I can do that, and I do. During his period in office my lion. Friend has been trying to coax recalcitrant authorities, mainly Tory authorities, to introduce a scheme. I believe that the last figures showed 41 local authorities refusing to implement any scheme. Nearly all of them are controlled by the Tories or are an amalgam of what are known as independents, who in reality turn out to be Tories. We used to have a few in my area, and there still are a few.

The hon. Gentleman must convince his own leader and the guru for Leeds, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). The right hon. Gentleman will not fall for this one—spending Government money on old-age pensioners' concessionary fares. The hon. Gentleman has some work to do there instead of attacking my hon. Friend, who is trying to introduce such a scheme.

The hon. Gentleman must get the message across to the new Shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), because he is not in favour of all these things. We are told that he has been brought into the Shadow Cabinet in order to resist any further moves towards public expenditure.

We are getting near an election. The Tories want to try to give the impression to their local pensioners that "We're fighting for this, and we're fighting for that ". It is time they started influencing their own side. All the Tory Members should start a campaign, visiting the Tory authorities which refuse to introduce any scheme and saying" We have come to demand that you spend more money."

The hon. Gentleman was not very clear, but he seems to want the introduction of concessionary fares without Government spending. It appears from his references to rate support grant that he does not want the ratepayers to be burdened with the cost. Then he says that there should be extra Government spending only where absolutely necessary. He must understand that if a scheme is introduced along the lines that I want, or even along the lines that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wants, it will cost taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. It is a redistribution of wealth towards the most deserving. I was going to say that it would be exactly in line with our Labour manifesto, which has not been fully implemented yet. Certainly it is near enough going that way, because most of those who would benefit are those who really need the assistance.

There are now 9 million old-age pensioners and the number is growing all the time. Therefore, it is a very sensible exercise. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am telling my hon. Friend that I think it is time we took the matter on board to an even greater extent and made sure that local authorities had to introduce such a scheme.

For the life of me, I cannot see the Tories in Derbyshire introducing schemes, even if they had the powers which the hon. Gentleman rightly wants to give them. In their manifesto two years ago, the Derbyshire county council Tories said that they would cut all the bus subsidies and introduce a scheme to get the local do-gooders—the vicar and others—to use their cars for late-night transport. Instead of having bus stops, they would have stops for the cars. All the old people would be shovelled into the cars and taken to the main roads where the main buses run. That is their scheme.

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that gang of Tories on the Derbyshire county council would, if suddenly given the opportunity by my hon. Friend, start using the money. Of course they would not. The only reason why we have some concessions in Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire generally is that a system of concessionary fares using tokens was introduced. This is not satisfactory and needs to be improved. For the life of me, I cannot see Derbyshire county council, which from time to time engages in witch hunts instead of doing its proper job, introducing a free scheme, even if it had the chance.

I want my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to adjust his thinking a little. I want him to take another step forward. The Labour Party is the only party to have done anything on this issue throughout the ages. In 1965, long before I came here, I was marching in the streets for the Right-wing Labour Ministers then in power. They have not changed much. When I was doing that, I remember the Labour Government introducing a scheme to allow—to permit—local authorities to introduce schemes. The first one was somewhere in the North—in Newcastle, I believe.

The Tory Government in 1970–74 did nothing about this subject. The people must realise that progress will not come about because a Tory attacks my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It will be because I, who am helping to draw up the Labour Party manifesto for the next election, will try to ensure—not" ensure "; that is too broad a step—that such a free scheme is introduced.

I will tell the House what we did last night. I do not believe in leaking these things to the press ananymously. I believe in saying them loud and clear. I can tell my hon. Friend the latest news on this front. If the NEC and the clause 5 meeting agree with my proposal of last night, instead of half fares there will be free concessionary fares for old-age pensioners and for schoolchildren travelling to and from school. That will be the proposal in the manifesto. It was agreed after my intervention last night. This proposal has a redistributive effect.

Mr. Ridsdale

What would be the cost to the taxpayer for such a scheme as that?

Mr. Skinner

The cost to the taxpayer would not be as great as, let us say, it cost to bail out the Crown Agents. It would not be as great as it was to bail out the sleazy secondary banks, which had to receive taxpayers' money from the Bank of England. It will not cost much—

Mr. Ridsdale

How much?

Mr. Skinner

Now we are getting the real Tory imagine revealing itself once again. A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman was saying "Introduce this scheme. Please do it for my area. Never mind about the money. It does not mean all that much." The moment I say something that is more sensible and more appropriate to the occasion and suggest free fares for all old-age pensioners, the hon. Gentleman asks how much it will cost.

The Greater London Council operates a free fares scheme. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever gone round to Mr. Horace Cutler and asked how much the scheme was costing the Tories on the GLC. The Tories there wanted to drap the scheme but they found that it would be better to leave such a proposal out of the manifesto when it got near to an election, otherwise they would not have gained control. That scheme was introduced by the Labour Party.

The hon. Gentleman is mixed up again. Inside, the inner Tory is asking "How much?" The hon. Gentleman has the cheek to say that after all his pleading and attacking my hon. Friend a few moments ago.

Mr. Ridsdale

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my speech. He will see that I said I wished to be responsible, because I did not wish to put too big a burden upon the Government. I hope that this can be done in other ways.

Mr. Skinner

It cannot be done in other ways. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time. He knows a little about money. There are some people in the Tory Party who have said that they have to use matchsticks to calculate things. I do not have that problem and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has. I think he knows that if a free scheme were introduced there might be buses with more people in them. That is what I want. But it also means that the taxpayer and/or the ratepayer has to foot the bill. There is no other way round it.

I know that at General Election times lots of politicians go about giving the impression that they can bring down the moon without any expense—that they can do anything—but that is not what happens in the real world. When we talk about transferring income from one pocket to another, we have to be prepared to tell the electorate the truth, and at Budget time and rate-fixing time we have to say that people will pay a proportion as a result of the action taken.

I say quite openly that I want to see my local authority instructed to introduce a proper scheme. It will not do it otherwise. The Tories on the Derbyshire county council will not introduce a scheme unless they are told to do so.

The hon. Gentleman has made a nice point and suggested that it is all the handiwork of my hon. Friend the Minister that the Tories on the local councils are refusing to introduce some such scheme, but history shows that Labour has led the way. It has always had to be pushed—not by the hon. Gentleman and his Friends but by the likes of us on these Benches, the ones called the militants and all that. We are given all sorts of fancy names, but at heart we are moderates. It is a moderate proposal that I got into the Labour manifesto last night—free fares for old-age pensioners and free fares for children travelling to and from school.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say to his Right-wing colleagues on his campaign committee "Do not throw Skinner's suggestion out. Make sure it is free fares ".

Mr. R. A. McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

Your suggestion?

Mr. Skinner

Yes, it was mine. There is no question about that. I am not one to go about leaking things, whispering here and there. In fact, I introduced a lot of other things as well last night.

Mr. Ridsdale

Tell us.

Mr. Skinner

Well, it is not relevant to this debate. The committee was wandering off in dribs and drabs, and I used the old system—stay till the end and get a lot of things through. I got quite a number in—the 35-hour week, free television licences and all that.

The scheme that I am discussing now is one of the things that we should be campaigning for. It will certainly do us a hell of a lot of good in the election. I do not know what the hon. Member for Harwich will do when he is faced with the commitment to free fares for old-age pensioners and for children travelling to and from school. He will have to find out then whether his policy is really the one that he wants, with his timid half-fare approach. That will take the measure of the Tory Party, the Leader of the Opposition and her right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. They will have to decide what they will do on matters like this.

I am glad that we have had a chance to debate this matter. I think that we are honourable men who are here this morning, raising this question in the knowledge that there is no local press. To attend here and put forward this idea, knowing that it will not get reported locally, is to do a fine, sturdy job, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not do what I would not want him to do—that is, go and tell some of the black-legging Institute of Journalists people what he has been up to this morning. I believe that while the NUJ people are out we should black those others. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not do any scabbing by giving the story to his local press.

I am prepared to campaign inside and outside this place—inside the Labour Party machine and anywhere—to ensure that we get the free scheme through. I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board the fact that the timid approach of the hon. Member for Harwich is all right for the Tories. We expect them to do these things when an election is nigh. They will do a lot of other things. Of course, they will still complain about public expenditure. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read Free Nation this week, because it puts forward a proposal for slashing the transport subsidies to such an extent that there would not be an old-age pensioner on a bus unless he was paying through the nose. There is a whole list of such proposals, so obviously the hon. Gentleman is not exactly in line with the people who produce that Tory magazine Free Nation, published by the National Association for Freedom.

We have made a cautious start. A Labour Government introduced the scheme in 1965 to allow local authorities to go ahead. It is now apparent that that is not good enough. We need to move a stage further on and introduce a mandatory scheme to ensure that all old-age pensioners have an opportunity to travel about a bit in their old-age—to get round to the Peak district of Derbyshire and all sorts of other places. Let us remove the anomalies. It must be wrong that pensioners in the GLC area can have such a scheme—there must be 1 million of them—and South Yorkshire pensioners and others in the large conurbations can enjoy free travel while others cannot. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will move another stage forward towards fulfilling the Labour Party's next manifesto pledge—free travel for all old-age pensioners.

8.20 a.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

It is always a pleasure to follow the moderate Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and we have been particularly privileged at this early hour to discover that we are the first to hear of some of the contents of the Labour Party manifesto for the forthcoming General Election. It is also a pleasure to have confirmed that the spirit and verve with which he regales us at 3.20 p.m. has not deserted him when he chooses to address the House at 8.20 a.m.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have no official responsibility for the formulation of the policy of the party I represent. Therefore, I am unable to give a definitive reaction to the various points he has made. But, that qualification having been made, I think that it would be in order if I were to say just two things.

First, it would have been interesting if the hon. Gentleman had told us what decisions the Labour Party is about to reach on the question of taxation to pay for the very desirable schemes that he outlined. Secondly, I think that perhaps it would have been fairer of him to have taken on board that there is no inherent opposition to public expenditure in the right causes, as far as I understand, among the Conservative local authorities or on the Conservative Benches in this House.

I want to place clearly on record that it is my contention that what we should be striving for is, by the proper operation of taxation and industrial policies, the creation of such wealth that we shall be able to increase Government expenditure without affecting the standard of living of the ordinary man, and it is to that end that I shall be addressing myself at the forthcoming General Election.

The hon. Gentleman has indicated that it is only because of the onset of the forthcoming General Election that the Conservatives are turning their attention to matters such as this. I would like to put him right so far as I am personally concerned. I have always been a supporter of a concessionary fare scheme of some sort, and I am going to take a line in this speech which, although it will endorse the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), will, I think, be altogether more radical and detail the sort of scheme which can be justified.

But before I touch on my own feelings in the matter, I point out that the obvious discrepancies between the schemes of adjacent areas, or sometimes in situations where one area has a scheme and the adjacent areas have none, are such as to create considerable irritation among old people, and in some cases positive bitterness. I would exemplify my own area in this regard.

My constituency is just over the border from the GLC area. Within it there run London Transport buses and the end of the Central line of the Underground system. There is no point in denying that some of my elderly constituents find it difficult to understand why there should be virtually a totally free system for old people in the Greater London area whereas that situation does not apply in their area.

Before the House gels the impression that no assistance at all is given to the old-age pensioners in my area, I point out that both the Brentwood district council and the Epping Forest district council contribute a substantial amount each year to this end. Clearly, some assistance is given. But both those local councils, rightly in my opinion, have said that they do not believe they can afford the free system of the GLC area because they have a duty to balance the interests of the old people on the one hand against the interests of the general body of ratepayers on the other. I contend that one cannot take the extreme line that the hon. Member for Bolsover has been taking and at the same time wonder why there is an upsurge of reaction by the general ratepayer against the resultant impost on the local rates.

I hope that in singling out my two local authorities the House will accept that it is simply not true that Conservative local authorities have turned their faces against a concessionary scheme. That the more generous schemes appear to come from Labour local authorities I do not for the moment contest, but I believe that if I concede that point the hon. Member for Bolsover is in duty bound to concede in return that there has then to be an answer from the Labour Party as to its attitude and reaction to the general ratepayer who, in all conscience, has to be taken into account, because I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is every bit as much a voter at the forthcoming election as is the old-age pensioner.

On the general point of the desirability of a scheme of this sort, I have always believed that mobility among old people is strongly to be encouraged. It seems to me that nothing more quickly makes an old person feel that he has ceased to be part of the daily life than if he is obliged to stay at home, if he has no contact with his family and his friends; and the rising cost of transport, rendering it difficult, if not impossible, for old people to get around in the way that they would like, is such as to sap their independence. So I am all in favour of mobility being restored to old-age pensioners.

But leaving aside for the moment the desirability of mobility, and leaving aside the discrepancies between areas and between concessionary schemes, I should like to turn the attention of the House—and I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover will bear with me while I do this—to ask a much more fundamental question, certainly much more fundamental than either my hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman has posed so far. What is the rationale for having a concessionary fare scheme at all? It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to come and tell us of the desirability of having not just a concessionary scheme, but a free fare scheme, which is what I understood he was telling us.

Should we have a scheme at all? Is it the best use of public money, about which at least I am concerned if the hon. Gentleman is not? I think that in an ideal world I would minimise the number of occasions on which I would effectively tell people—old people or anyone else—how they should spend their own money. In a way, that is what we are doing. By having a concessionary fare scheme we are telling the people that the way in which we, in some paternalistic way, think they should spend their money is by going on the buses or the trains.

Having said what I have about mobility, if that is how a person wishes to spend his or her money I am totally in favour. But I ask a few questions which seem to have been overlooked in the onrush towards a concessionary scheme or, if we are to believe the hon. Gentleman, towards a free scheme. What does this do for the housebound? What does this do for the person who is either unable to travel or has no wish to travel? What does this do for the person who would prefer to spend in a totally different way any extra money the Government can dispense? I believe that those are questions which have as yet not been answered, and they are fundamental to a consideration of a concessionary scheme for elderly people.

What is the answer? I believe that it is twofold. If we are to have a con- cessionary fare scheme, there is a case for its being equalised throughout the country. I agree that a better way than the present system would be to feed resources through county councils, but there is a case for a reappraisal of Government policy so that the Department of Transport can administer the scheme. However, that is on the assumption that we believe that there should be a concessionary fare scheme. If I can persuade the House to cast aside the enormous difficulty of reversing the trend towards concessionary schemes and consider whether they are the best way to help, an alternative approach may emerge in the shape of an annual, indexed addition to the old-age pension intimated at the same time as the annual increase is now intimated, anyway, and paid to every pensioner, though it would remain a clear and separate amount.

The justification for that allowance would be that the old person who wished to travel would no longer have to be seen to be travelling on a concessionary basis but would be paying his full fare. Equally, the allowance would be given to the old person who was incapable of travelling or did not wish to travel. I recognise that it is late in the day to suggest that we should have such a fundamental reconsideration of the subject, but I believe that it would be a fairer scheme and, if we are thinking about its acceptability to the voters, there is something to be said for a reversal of the whole approach towards concessionary fare schemes.

I have always believed that there should be a partnership between central and local government and I wish to minimise the number of local affairs over which central Government Departments have jurisdiction. If we are to have a concessionary fare scheme, there is an argument for administering it through a local authority, rather than through a central fund, but, because of the difficulty that that has presented so far and because of the widespread variations, I think that, although consideration should be given to the county council being the administering authority, there is an argument that the Department of Transport should administer a centralised scheme.

We are dealing with a new phenomenon when we talk about concessionary allowances for this and that. It concerns me, because if we move on from concessionary fares to concessionary television licences —and the hon. Member for Bolsover said that that would be part of the approach for the Labour Party—how far will we go? We could reach the stage where almost all of an individual's expenditure was being decided for him by central Government and the freedom to decide how to dispense one's own earnings would be almost totally eroded.

That is the heart of this useful debate. Great care needs to be exercised in this difficult matter, but the bitterness and frustration to which I referred are sufficient to justify the Government carrying out a basic review of the methods by which concessionary fare schemes are operated. The Government should consider whether a national supplemental pension grant would be the best approach.

8.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

With the permission of the House, I wish to speak again. I hope that I shall be permitted to speak a third time later. I am glad that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) has given us the opportunity to discuss this matter again. I recognise his long-standing interest in concessionary fares.

It is important that the message is conveyed. Many district councils operate good concessionary fare schemes. Some provide totally free transport to concessionaires during the off-peak periods. They are as sympathetic as we could wish about the special problems of the blind and disabled. Many schemes are long-standing. Those districts which run their own bus services were the pioneers in this matter. They were all Labour-controlled. The opportunity to take action was given by a Labour Government. Therefore, the Labour Party can claim to have a distinctive and pioneering approach.

Some progress has been made by councils with poor schemes or with no such schemes, particularly since the beginning of the year when we took another initiative by putting out a circular advocating a half-fare approach as the minimum. Since then at least 14 districts have introduced new schemes, three have firm plans and others are considering schemes.

Many authorities with existing schemes have increased the value of the conces- sions. But there are still many glaring gaps. There are still 45 councils which have no concessionary fare schemes. All of those councils are Conservative or independently controlled.

In many parts of the country neighbouring councils operate different schemes. In some cases eligibility is tightly restricted so that only the very elderly—perhaps the over-70s—-or those receiving supplementary benefit have the concession. Other councils have steep annual charges which reduce the value of the concessions and effectively prevent many people from enjoying the concessions which are available nominally.

In the shire counties only 31 per cent. of pensioners live in areas which operate half-fare schemes. About 56 per cent. pay more than half-fare and 13 per cent. pay the full fare. We are aware of the deep concern felt by many hon. Members about these anomalies and inequities. We share that concern, as my right hon. Friend made clear on 29th November.

We wish to see every local authority providing at least half fares for everyone of pensionable age. We expect this standard to be implemented as a national minimum without qualification. There should be no complicated red tape about eligibility. There should be no charge which materially detracts from the value of the concession. Where tokens are used, we expect them to be increased in value with the rise in bus fares.

We also want councils to grant all-day half fares to blind and disabled people since they might be in regular work. We urge councils to deal sympathetically with the special problems of blind and disabled people—for example, invalid chairs and guide dogs should be carried free of charge. That is the national approach which we have advocated.

The Government have backed their words with resources. Last year we provided for the resources for concessionary fares to be increased by £31 million per annum by the year after next. We were and are prepared to give rate support grant towards that increase. However, spending so far has risen by only £8 million per annum. Therefore, more than £20 million per annum remains to be taken up.

I am familiar with the general argument that money in the RSG settlement cannot be related to the cost to local authorities of providing particular concessions. I accept that there are differences in rateable values between districts. The hon. Gentleman was accurate when he advanced that argument. However, I do not believe that that detracts from the force of the argument that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have put forward. We must consider other offsetting factors. For example, the formula by which the RSG is distributed takes account of the available rateable resources in each district.

In the RSG settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently announced, my right hon. Friend has agreed that the needs element should be distributed among district councils. That will give them a further chance to achieve an equitable distribution of resources.

Some district councils have a higher rateable return than others but by the same token some schemes will cost more than others. In the areas that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, bus services are less freely available than in the Greater London Council area or on Tyneside. Therefore, the scheme would cost less. There would be less money to pay for it, but the scheme would cost less. The inequity in the distribution of resources is not the problem that the hon. Member suggested. The RSG system is the same for everybody, rich and poor areas alike. Many district councils have schemes and many do not. For all these reasons, I take the view that in the final analysis it is a matter of political will whether councils have schemes given the standardised approach of the RSG.

Mr. Ridsdale

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the half-fare scheme in the Tendring district would cost about £500,000, which is a third of the transport supplementary grant that is given for the whole of Essex, and would be a 5p charge on the rates?

Mr. Horam

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's facts are correct. However, he said that we should consider transferring the cost of the organisation of schemes from the district councils to the county councils. The hon. Gentleman says that if we cannot do that we should go further as a last resort, although he is reluctant to increase public expenditure, and that the Government should step in. The latter proposition would certainly mean higher public expenditure. It is plain that there is no way in which the Government could step in without increasing public expenditure. Even if we went to the county council as a half-way stage, we would still be increasing the amount that the Government had to contribute.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the transport supplementary grant. It is paid at 70 per cent., whereas the rate support grant is paid at 61 per cent. or 62 per cent. Therefore, the Government are putting in more resources. Whichever way we try to get round the problem that the hon. Gentleman is centring upon—namely, that there are some district councils with a low rateable value—the result at the end of the day will be that somebody will pick up more of the bill. That must mean an increase in public expenditure. If we attack the problem in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, that should not be burked by the Opposition.

Opposition Members have expressed their strong feeling on concessionary fares. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the hon. Gentleman have initiated debates on the subject previously. Equally, Opposition Members should not be allowed to escape from the fact that there will be some increase in public expenditure. That is not consistent with the approach that they have been suggesting nationally of restraint on expenditure in all areas.

A concessionary fare scheme is a good social policy. Obviously it helps the elderly, the blind and the disabled to make essential journeys at a lower cost. It adds to the resources that are available to them. They are the most disadvantaged groups in our society. They would be able to make more trips for pleasure as well as for essential purposes. It would add incalculably, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) said, to the variety and interest of their daily lives. One of the great losses of advancing age is greater immobility.

This scheme is also an economical way to help people. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to the ideal solution of increasing pensions to such an extent that these fringe benefits could be done away with. However, if one allows people to travel for half fare on the buses, one is utilising a resource which would not otherwise be used. This is an economical way of giving people something that they need. Also, it gives them more mobility than they would get from a straight increase in the old-age pension. The Conservatives should think about this, because they are very conscious of the economical approach.

Also, such a policy makes good transport sense. One of the big problems with transport is "peaking" in the morning and evening. If one fills public transport in the intervening period with concessionary fares, it will even out the peaks and make transport much more viable.

For these reasons, there is everything to be said for a consistent approach to concessionary fares: it makes good sense from every angle. But there are incredible differences between schemes in some areas where they are free, and involve areas where they are poor, and involve high-cost tokens. There are also 45 districts where there are no schemes at all. This causes concern to all hon. Members and to the Secretary of State. That is why, in dealing with this issue at Question Time on 29th November, he said: I am looking at the possibility of some form of national concessionary fares scheme."— [Official Report, 29th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 426.] We shall look at this extremely carefully.

It is not just the diversity or lack of schemes that causes difficulties; it is the problem of transferability. It should be possible for pensioners to visit their children and grandchildren and obtain the same benefits as they receive in their own localities. We need to take account of that aspect. We shall also consider the strong feeling for a national scheme. I am proud that it has always been the Labour Party that has taken the initiatives in this area. We shall have consultations and time for careful thought.

In the meantime, while looking at the possibility of a national concessionary fare scheme, it is right for us to continue to ask the district councils with no schemes or poor schemes to make good that inadequacy. We cannot wave a magic wand and do things overnight. District councils without a scheme should stop dithering and put in a plan. The resources are available, and I do not believe that they can claim to be in poverty.