HC Deb 25 June 1984 vol 62 cc757-62

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 50, line 6, leave out "off-peak"

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

8.49 pm
Mr. Ridley

Before we were transported from consideration of the London Regional Transport Bill to the Dartmoor Commons Bill, I was about to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a few words about the amendment on concessionary fares, which came from the other place. I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but the proceedings moved a little too quickly for me. I want to make the position clear.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the London boroughs will not put in place their own scheme for concessionary fares. I think that he is jumping to conclusions. I gather that they are making good progress towards doing so. We should all like to feel that they will succeed in doing so because it would mean that the local authority function remains a local authority function. The back-up powers would not then be required. I am sure that the House hopes that they will succeed in reaching agreement although the statutory back-up scheme is there should they unfortunately fail.

The hon. Gentleman made a slight slip when he gave his figures. He said that the cost of abolishing the evening peak restriction was £10 million. It is not; it is half that figure. The £10 million represents the cost of advancing the end of the morning peak from 9.30 am to 9 am plus the cost of the evening peak. They both cost a little under £5 million on London Transport's estimate. The cost of the evening peak that their Lordships sought to make available for free travel is about £5 million.

I am happy to leave the matter in the way that another place changed the Bill, but I must point out, in all fairness, that it was said in another place—I said it during Question Time last week—that the power to alter the peak hours remains in the Bill in clause 50(7). The other place was made aware that that was the case. I told the House last week, and I repeat it now, that if under clause 50(7) LRT wished to reinstate the evening peak ban or to change the hours of the morning peak, or any other hours that are put in place of the evening peak, it may do so after consultation. LRT will not require consent from me or anyone else. It has to consult, but it has the power to make the decision. That is how the Bill left another place. The other place is content that it should be like that. I cannot say what LRT will feel like doing or how it will react to the position. LRT has the power to determine at what hours it is difficult for it to carry large numbers of elderly people because the buses are full, to determine how much it will cost, and whether it can afford the scheme within the amount of subsidy provided from the boroughs and by the Government through the annual precept.

Mr. Prescott

If I understand the Secretary of State correctly, the scheme contained in the Bill means that he could enforce a uniform scheme upon the local authorities. As I understand it, if LRT wants to formulate a concessionary scheme, albeit reduced—let us assume that it was to take out the evening peak period—and it was agreed between the local authorities and uniformly implemented, that would be acceptable to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley

That is not quite right. The London boroughs may agree on a scheme, ask LRT to implement it and pay LRT the cost per pass that they issue. The only power that remains with LRT, as the Bill now stands, is that it may, after consultation, alter the hours. It can alter the morning peak or re-introduce the evening peak. It can do so for operational reasons—because the buses are full—or if it thinks it right. LRT has to consult first, but none of us in the House, or whoever may be in my shoes, has the power to stop LRT. I want to make the position clear, as their Lordships changed the Bill and as the Government recommended the Bill should remain if the House approves.

Mr. Prescott

I am sorry to trouble the Secretary of State, but this is an important point. As the Bill stands, if the Secretary of State enforces the scheme because there is no agreement between the local authorities, he has no leeway to change the scheme embodied in the Bill. After the amendment in another place, all the peak times would be free, but if LRT changed the hours and said that the concession no longer applied to the evening peak period, the Secretary of State would have two schemes. One would be the reduced scheme which would be cheaper and not cover the evening peak period about which, presumably, LRT could reach agreement, and the other would be the more expensive scheme which is the wider one that the Secretary of State is talking about. Do we envisage a two-type scheme? If the local authorities do not reach agreement they face the possibility that the Secretary of State will enforce a more expensive but better system on the pensioners. That will presumably force the local authorities to reach an understanding with LRT to achieve a reduced and cheaper scheme which will be worse for the pensioners.

Mr. Ridley

I should like to make it clear that that is not quite right. As the Bill is drafted, and if the boroughs do not agree a scheme, I will implement the powers contained in the Bill to introduce the statutory scheme, which will be free transport for old-age pensioners on bus and tube from 9.30 am until 1 am the next morning. That will come into existence and be the starting position after the GLC is out of the picture.

It is possible that LRT will say that 9.30 am is the wrong time. It may suggest 9.45 am or 9.15 am. I do not know. It might also say that there should be an evening peak during which the bus passes will not be valid. We do not know what times LRT will say. LRT has power to do that as the Bill now stands, and neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would have the power to stop it. It would be for LRT to make the decision because the reason that there has always been concessionary travel for old people when buses are not running full—off the peaks—is that it costs little for old people to fill the seats. We all welcome the fact that they should. That is a different concept from the rush hour when the buses are packed. Then if more people are put on the buses extra buses will be needed and that will lead to more congestion.

I am not expressing any views about the matter; I am trying to explain the position. When Lord Pitt moved the amendment, he was fully aware of what the results would be. I am describing the precise nature of the statute as it now stands. I shall be delighted if it proves possible for LRT to carry pensioners throughout the day. The problem for LRT will be to decide whether the operational requirements of the system make it possible for it to do that. There is evidence that the evening peak has been decreasing and broadening which means that it might be easier for LRT to do so.

Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking)

I was going to intervene to say how satisfied we all were that what the Opposition and pensioners have striven so long for had been achieved. A tribute must be paid to pensioners for their persistence and dedication in trying to obtain what they want.

However, it seems to me, from listening to the last five minutes' worth of the Secretary of State's remarks that he has re-erected a sword of Damocles above the heads of pensioners. He is putting forward the same arguments as were put forward in Committee. Here, we have in the Bill from the Lords a clause that restores the position virtually to what it was before the London Regional Transport Bill came in.

Mrs. Chalker

It does not.

9 pm

Ms. Richardson

The hon. Lady says that it does not, but it almost does, except for the fact that the Secretary of State has been at great pains to underline the fact that at any time LRT could say, "No. We shall vary the off-peak hours from those set out in the Bill." Surely that is like wielding a sword of Damocles above the heads of pensioners.

What notice will be given of any variations? Will they be seasonal variations, with one period lasting from January to March and another between March and the end of the summer? What will happen, for example, when there is an influx of tourists from abroad? They are all welcome to come here but they use London Transport and create an extra load upon the system. Will that mean that LRT will be forced to say to pensioners, "Sorry, mate, you will not be able to travel under the same set of circumstances as those set out in the Bill."?

The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he has made no attempt to explain. We are still—I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are with me in this—confused about the matter. Will the Secretary of State please explain the position to us, especially in view of the pressure over the past few months that has resulted in a change of policy by the Government and has restored to pensioners the idea that they will be able to have free bus passes and travel with reasonable freedom on London Transport?

The Secretary of State has entered a caveat at this late hour suggesting that the Bill says something but that LRT will be able to vary it. There is nothing, as the Secretary of State has just said, that either he as Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend, if he were Secretary of State, would be able to do about it. The Secretary of State should give us a better explanation.

Mr. Ridley

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady should read the Bill. I shall quote clause 50(7). It says: The daytime, evening or late-night off-peak period for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) above may be altered from time to time by London Regional Transport by notice published in such manner as they think fit, specifying the new period or periods and the effective date of the alteration. That has been in the Bill since it was published. It was not challenged in Committee, on Report or in another place. When Lord Pitt moved the amendment in another place he accepted that that power remained in the Bill.

I simply want to ensure that there is no misconception or misunderstanding about what Parliament has done to the Bill. Parliament has left those words in the Bill, and they cannot be taken out now. I should not want anyone to think that he had been cheated or misled. Those words remain in the Bill and there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Prescott

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is trying to make this important point clear to us. We are making progress towards understanding it. The subsection has been in the Bill since it was introduced, but the argument has always been as to whether a statutorily enforced system and powers could be in the Bill because no one trusted the authorities to reach a uniform scheme. That issue constantly plagued the Committee, and has continued to trouble us on Report and in another place.

The purpose of statutory enforcement—it was, indeed demanded by the pensioners—was to secure a guarantee that pensioners should keep the service because the Secretary of State was taking over London Transport. In those circumstances, pensioners wanted an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. He left us in no doubt when he brought in the clause introducing a reserve scheme for statutory enforcement. As he pointed out, it was the first one of its kind in the country. No doubt it created a precedent for the metropolitan areas, but we shall leave that question for another time.

Although the scheme was the first of its kind, the only argument that was put forward by the Secretary of Slate as to why it was introduced was that the Opposition had made a clamour and caused much upset among pensioners, who feared that they would lose their free travel. That was the basis of the argument. Therefore, if we got a statutorily enforced scheme, we would achieve what people were looking for—a promise, written into legislation, that a statutorily enforced scheme would be implemented if, and only if, the local authorities refused to agree to a uniform scheme.

The Secretary of State told us that negotiations are well under way towards achieving that objective. I do not know whether the local authorities involved were working on the Secretary of State's scheme of deleting the words "evening off-peak". Local authorities would consider the new maximum that could be enforced on them and could buy the LRT cheaper package, not including the off-peak period. Presumably, the negotiations would be about that. The Secretary of State's statement makes it clear that it is a much wider game, with very different hours of coverage.

We must be agreed upon this. It is true that subsection (7) has been in the Bill from the start. It makes it clear that LRT can make a change. It would look for a sign from the Secretary of State of what his thinking was. It would have been identified in the statutory scheme. LRT would enter into negotiations with the local authorities. I have put this point to the Secretary of State before. It is reasonable to assume that the Labour boroughs will be more likely to go for the maximum scheme but the Tory boroughs will go for the minimum scheme.

Mr. Ridley

Will they?

Mr. Prescott

There is a general pattern, and I shall not argue much about that.

Mr. Ridley

The Labour boroughs will be rate-capped.

Mr. Prescott

The Secretary of State has introduced the fact that the Labour boroughs will be rate-capped. Now we know what this is about. It is the same as with the Diala-Ride schemes. Some local authorities that put their money towards such schemes are presently penalised for over expenditure on schemes such as Dial-a-Ride.

Therefore, the Labour authorities will not be able to buy the expensive package, not because they have no desire to do so, but because they will not have the resources to do so, as they will have been rate-capped. However, let us assume that they throw the lesser LRT scheme out and stick to the pensioner's free pass. If one Labour borough out of the 32 London boroughs sticks out and refuses to accept the lesser scheme, presumably the Secretary of State will have to enforce the whole scheme under the Bill, and nothing less. That is what the amendments mean. If authorities are rate-capped, they will turn round to the Secretary of State and say, "If you are forcing a statutory obligation on us, you had better pay for it because it is your scheme." We went through all those arguments in Committee. We can see the mess that we shall get into.

The Secretary of State has no means of changing the hours or times. The only flexibility in the system remains in the clause, with the power of LRT to negotiate with the local authorities. I am sorry to say that, because I was a little more persuaded earlier by the Minister, when it looked as if the Government had accepted democracy. The Minister of State referred to that, but I am more suspicious of the Secretary of State. We have learnt more from his throwaway line than from his statements. Rate-capping will have an effect. My gamble is—it is almost a prediction—that London pensioners, having fought the battle by means of democratic machinery both here and in the other place, protesting and demonstrating to everybody, will now be robbed of their democratic right to retain the pension system.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)

I ask the leave of the House to speak once.

I should like to add something to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The real problem is that it is now possible for the scheme to be worsened by an authority that is accountable to no one. That is the important thing. I do not know why the Secretary of State makes such a virtue of the fact—he repeated it several times—that he has no power to intervene in a decision by LRT in respect of reducing the hours. LRT people may take it into their heads to reduce the available hours considerably. They may want to cut services and the number of their personnel. They may see a reduction of hours in the concession to pensioners as a vehicle for reducing services and the number of personnel.

I do not know why the Secretary of State made a virtue of the fact that he did not have such a power. I would sooner that he rather than London Regional Transport made the decision because he is accountable. He can be questioned by the representatives of those pensioners and called to account for his actions. No one can call LRT to account. It can vary the provisions as it wishes, and give whatever notice seems appropriate to it. LRT is not accountable. No one can say to LRT, "Don't be rough. Let's have warning in advance."

The prophecy of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will probably be fulfilled. I shall be surprised if, before the new arrangements hve been in operation for long, LRT does not decide to worsen the scheme. I am sorry that the Secretary of State does not regret that he will be unable to do anything about that.

The Secretary of State can say that the provision has always been in the Bill and that everyone knows about it, but when LRT first makes a cut in the value and availability of the concession, millions of pensioners will come screaming to him. No doubt he will shrug his shoulders and say, "There is no good talking to me about it because I have not done this. LRT did it and you cannot talk to LRT because you have no representation." LRT's lack of accountability makes it probable that it will worsen the conditions, and the worst of it is that it cannot be taken to task for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.

Forward to