MANDATORY CONCESSIONS OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON (Hansard, 15 November 2000)

§ Mr. Hill
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 91, 95, 148 and 149.

§ Mr. Hill
These amendments concern the statutory minimum concessionary fares scheme under clauses 133 to 139. The main effect is to extend the half-fare concessions to people defined as disabled, and to empower the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance in connection with eligibility, to which authorities must have regard.
The Bill, as originally introduced, applied the statutory minimum scheme to elderly people only. Amendments were agreed in another place to extend the mandatory concessions to disabled people, and that extension has been widely and warmly welcomed. It will mean that up to 1.5 million disabled people will benefit from concessions, in addition to the 5.5 million pensioners who were previously eligible.
In extending the scheme to disabled people, the amendments do two things. First, they refine previous statutory definitions of the various categories of disability, in the interests of consistency and clarity. Secondly, they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on eligibility for concessionary fares, to which local authorities must have regard. This provision follows representations from both local government and members of DPTAC—the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to the effect that such guidance would be helpful to those implementing the new requirements at the local level. The amendment requires that guidance should be subject to prior consultation, and we shall be circulating a draft in due course.
It may be helpful if I say a word about the funding implications and about bringing these provisions into force. During our discussions with the local government associations, it was put to us that the amount of funding we proposed to provide was inadequate to cover the likely costs of the scheme. We have listened to what was said. We have looked again at the figures and in the light of those representations, we are now proposing an annual injection of £54 million into the revenue support grant, which will be distributed to local authorities in the normal way.
We believe that this is a fair settlement, based on the best information available. It represents a further £7 million a year on top of our previous estimates of £47 million a year to offset the additional costs to local authorities. However, I assure the House that we will keep these matters under review in the light of early experience with the new scheme.
1030 We also recognise that there are timing constraints in bringing this new scheme into force, not least for those local authorities that have no concessionary travel scheme at present or will need to make changes that require them to give the statutory four months' notice to the bus operators. Our present intention, therefore, is that the requirement outside London to offer half-fare concessions should not be commenced until 1 June 2001. Again, we expect to be consulting local authorities on that very shortly.
We believe that that should allow sufficient time to put the necessary arrangements in place. Equally, many authorities should be in a position to bring in the concessions sooner, and we would encourage them to work with bus operators to do so. The funding adjustments to revenue support grant will be in place from 1 April.
I should stress that we have sought throughout to take into account representations received from local government and DPTAC, and to respond to what all those people have said to us. We believe that the result is a better, more generous scheme, and I commend the changes to the House.

§ Mr. Syms
Passenger transport authorities, among other organisations, always complain that, with regard to concessionary schemes in the past, Governments have never fully compensated them, pound for pound, for the additional people riding on various forms of public transport. They have always felt a little short-changed.
The Minister spoke of £50 million for local authorities, and I presume that that includes passenger transport authorities. Has he discussed with them whether they are happy with the resources given to them to do the job? In meetings that I had leading up to the introduction of the Bill, a number of PTAs made the point that governmental organisations always assume that these are extra riding passengers and that sometimes the authorities were not fully compensated for the additional costs.

§ Mr. McDonnell
My point is on a related issue, specific to London. The Association of London Government has welcomed the Lords amendments, which clarify the approach to criteria for eligibility and the issuing of guidance and consultation. The ALG is grateful for the consultations that have taken place with the Minister.
The London boroughs are already funding the freedom pass concessionary travel scheme, which offers 100 per cent. discount to those eligible. There are no plans to change this level of concession. However, the ALG is concerned that the broadening of eligibility will increase costs for boroughs. The current estimate is that the proposals could result in an additional cost of £14.7 million, which would fall on the boroughs. We welcome the additional money that has been allocated. In the negotiations between the London boroughs and the Government there has been some enhancement, specifically in relation to the acknowledgment that the census data are unrelated to the real needs of Londoners.
There is still a funding gap, and a range of issues needs to be addressed in the continuing discussions—particularly those which arise from double counting and take-up rates, which we believe will be enhanced as a result of the additional publicity. There is no provision currently for administrative costs. The boroughs believe 1031 that there is little choice but to have a full-fare scheme for London, bearing in mind equity in terms of existing schemes. On that basis, the ALG has asked for assurances that the extra resources that the Government provide will be re-examined in the current negotiations. It is keen that the resources should be passported through to the boroughs rather than lost in the vagaries of the rate support grant system.
As the Minister has said, there will be further discussions and consultations. It would be welcomed if the matters that I have raised were taken into account. Rest assured that, the London boroughs are committed to the extension of this excellent scheme.

§ Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)
My point is similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Having considered the Association of London Government brief, I took the opportunity this morning of speaking to the chief executive of the London borough of Havering. A rough estimate is that the cost of the proposals to that borough will be between £300,000 and £500,000 a year. If the additional funding to take account of these welcome amendments is not passported, local authorities will be left in a worse position. At a time when local authorities are struggling to implement a welcome range of initiatives, funding is extremely important. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

§ Mr. Brake
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) about a possible funding gap in the travel concessions schemes. Local authorities are concerned about the tightness of the definitions that are being used, in relation to the partially sighted, for example. Perhaps there is scope for that to be considered more widely than a definition would suggest. There are concerns about cost implications. Perhaps the Minister be able to offer some reassurance.
I ask the Minister to clarify when he expects guidance to be issued. I know that he has said that it will shortly be forthcoming, but local authorities need to plan and they need more precise information than that.

§ Mr. Hill
Departmental officials and I have had long and detailed discussions with local authorities, the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government on these matters. I was left with a powerful impression that their chief anxiety related to issues surrounding the definition of disability, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) spoke. I think that we have been able to offer them considerable reassurance, both in terms of the changes in definition in the Bill and the specific commitment to provide guidance.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked about tightness of definitions. It will be the job of my Department and local government associations to consult and discuss as guidance is being drawn up. As for when the guidance will be issued, the answer is certainly shortly. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about the allocation of funding to PTAs. They will benefit from the new money via the metropolitan districts. We have increased the money by an extra £7 million, which is good news for the PTAs.
1032 On the other issues raised by London Members, I can offer an assurance that London boroughs will benefit from the extra money. We are still discussing the details with them. On passporting, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Hayes and Harlington, we are still talking and are happy to continue to do so until we reach a satisfactory resolution.