RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME FOR LONDON RESIDENTS (Hansard, 25 June 1984)

§ Mrs. Chalker
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.

§ Mrs. Chalker
The House will be well aware of the basis on which we introduced in clauses 50 to 52 the reserve statutory scheme for free travel for London's elderly and disabled people. We are determined to safeguard the continuation of a free travel scheme if the boroughs fail to reach agreement on a voluntary, uniform scheme. We are not anxious to impose on the boroughs uniquely in statute the financial burden implied by such a generous scheme.
On Report, we drew attention to the fact that under subsection (7) London Regional Transport could alter the powers when experience showed that it was desirable to do so. The House subsequently voted against the amendments, which were designed to remove the evening peak exclusion. Stong feeling during debates in this place and in the other place showed that the statutory reserve scheme should apply throughout the afternoon and evening peak periods, and the amendments tabled in the other place were carried.
Many hon. Members have known for a long time how popular and important the concessionary fares scheme is to elderly people. Therefore, the Government have 732 decided to accept the amendment. LRT still has the powers to alter the periods outlined in subsection (6) if free travel during the evening peaks puts a serious strain on LRT's financial resources.
The subject of concessionary fares has caused more anxiety than any other subject in the Bill. I hope that Opposition Members, who are always talking about democracy, will recognise that in recommending the amendment we are acknowledging and responding to the wishes expressed on all sides of the House. We are well aware of the additional costs that it could involve, and of what the Greater London council is doing at present. Because the amendments in the other place were accepted, I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Mr. Prescott
That is a simple exercise in democracy. The matter that caused considerable anxiety on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place was the Government's contentious view that the pensioners would not be worse off under the Bill. The Opposition made it clear what would happen if London Regional Transport took control and left the provision of a pension pass service to local authorities. The Government believed that local authorities would accept that responsibility. However, we made it clear that experience showed that London boroughs would not provide such a uniform and generous scheme for pensioners as that presently financed by the GLC.
The Government attacked Opposition Members, saying that we had no faith in local democracy or local authorities, and that we were scaremongering among the pensioners. However, the pensioners campaigned and complained bitterly that from their experience of different local authority pension schemes, which were introduced before the GLC introduced its uniform scheme. They knew what would happen in some London boroughs if it were left to the generosity of those authorities to provide them with a free pass. That pressure persuaded the Secretary of State to tell the House on Report that he had to move a reserve statutory scheme. He then claimed another victory, which was that the statutory scheme—the first one to be imposed—ensured that there would be no deterioration in pensioners' passes. On Report, the Secretary of State said of his new clauses: There is, however, no reason why any local authority, if it so wishes, should not negotiate extra concessionary benefits, either over and above the statutory' scheme, if it comes into effect, or with operators who are outside it. I believe our scheme to be superior. It is backed by statute, as no scheme has ever been before. It has powers to prevent the boroughs or the GLC from charging a heavy fee for bus passes. It concentrates on off-peak periods—9.30 am to 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm to 1 am. That in itself will save the ratepayers £10 million in a full year."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 978–9.] The difference between that scheme and the scheme presently enjoyed by pensioners and financed by the GLC, was that pensioners would not travel free during the evening peak period from 4.30 pm to 6 pm. The Government's only concession was that, in exchange for the loss of the off-peak period between 4.30 pm and 6 pm, pensioners' passes were extended from midnight to I am.
The Opposition's amendment to restore those privileges to the pensioners, which was defeated by the Tories in the House of Commons on 4 April, was made to the Bill in the House of Lords. We all welcomed that, especially the pensioners. I had thought that tonight we would have had a controversial debate in view of the Secretary of State's 733 remarks at Transport Question Time on Monday. He made it clear that LRT still had the power to make changes in the hours if it wished.
Through democratic pressure, the Government have accepted that the evening peak period should be restored to the pensioner's pass. Although I am unhappy that it was inserted in another place, it will be of great consolation to pensioners to know that, through pressure from them, the Opposition and the trade unions involved, we have established that they will not be worse off under the scheme. However, I warn the Secretary of State that if he tries to find a back door and to use LRT to do his dirty work, we shall with the pensioners, the GLC and the trade unions, fight him again.
We accept what the Minister said, although we should have preferred to hear it from the Secretary of State. He is better known for telling the House about the good sides of his policies than about the dirty sides. We accept that after a long struggle we have restored to the pensioners their right to retain a free travel scheme to operate from 9.30 am to 1 am as introduced and financed by the Labour GLC. That is the Opposition's great victory and it was achieved against massive Tory majorities.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
The concession accepted by the Government is logical and comes in due time. It would be wrong to say to pensioners who were setting out on a journey to shop or to visit their families or friends that they must go home early or wait until later to return home. They would not have had the freedom of travel to which they have recently become increasingly entitled in London. We have always believed that local authorities should decide what entitlement to public transport their communities should have. The Government have decided to introduce a Bill to remove the right of local government in London to make those decisions. The least they can do, and what they are now doing, is to ensure that pensioners are not immediately prejudiced by the change in authority and control of transport in Greater London.
On behalf of the millions of constituents represented by London Members, may I say that we are glad that the Government have seen the error of their earlier ways, albeit reluctantly, and that at last pensioners will have nondiscriminatory rights to travel tomorrow as they have travelled in the recent past.