§ Mr. Clifton-BrownI beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, leave out from "on" to end of line 7 and insert—
'the day six months after Royal Assent has been signified to the Act.'.The amendment's basic purpose is to ensure that the Government enact the provisions as soon as reasonably practicable. Since the Minister used the interesting parliamentary device of saying that she could not accept amendment No. 2 because it would delay implementation of the Act, I had anticipated that she would similarly turn down this amendment. I hope that I have anticipated her wrongly, because I am certain that all the men out there aged between 60 and 64 will be looking carefully at this debate to see when they are likely to be able to qualify for concessionary fares. Indeed, no less a person than the Speaker's Secretary made representations to me earlier today, saying that he hoped that the Bill would be on the statue book as soon as possible.Having rejected amendment No. 2 because it will be simpler to operate the provisions under the standard spending assessment, the Minister is on much weaker ground in rejecting this amendment, as there is now less reason still why the Government cannot enact the provisions sooner rather than later.
The Minister said that she intended that the Act would come into effect on 1 April 2003. I am reliably informed by the Clerks that, as the Bill has completed all its House of Lords stages, theoretically there is no reason why it should not come into operation in a matter of days.
§ Mr. WoolasTomorrow.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownThe Government Whip, who one would not normally anticipate saying anything, has just made an interesting comment. He has just said, "A month."
§ Mr. WoolasTomorrow.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownAll right, tomorrow.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)Order. I do not want to encourage sedentary comments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will not provoke them.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownThe hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) made a helpful, illuminating comment, showing that if the Government moved with great speed, they could enact the Bill very quickly indeed. However, let us be generous and allow enough time for the parliamentary procedure to proceed at an orderly pace and assume that the Bill could be on the statute book by 1 March. Under our amendment, the provisions would then be brought into effect on 1 September—a full seven months earlier than the Government intend. The 1 million men who are likely to benefit from the provisions would warmly and heartily welcome that. I therefore urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously.
§ Chris GraylingHas my hon. Friend considered the perhaps mischievous possibility—I am sure that it is not really a possibility—that those men will have to wait an extra year because it is less convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend the money in the next financial year?
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownI am sure that there are expenditure implications, and that might be one of them. I hope that it is not, because Mr. Matthews first took his case to the European Court as long ago as 10 October 1997, so the Government have had four years' warning that they would be likely to lose such a case. To delay implementation until 1 April 2003 therefore seems unnecessary, as they should have been able to conduct all the necessary consultation to bring the provisions into effect sooner rather than later.
No lesser an organisation than Help the Aged said in its briefing:
If local councils were reimbursed through the forthcoming Revenue Support Grant"—which the Minister has determined to do—then the system could be introduced in the spring of 2002.I do not know how long ago that briefing was written, but there is no practical reason, unless the Minister tells us otherwise, why the Bill should not be brought into effect on 1 September.All those watching this debate will need to hear the Minister make a cast iron argument why that should not be so, particularly because the case has already been lost in the European Court of Human Rights. If such cases are to mean anything, the Government should move expeditiously to implement that judgment, which they 475 rightly upheld. We therefore very much look forward to what the Minister has to say on when the provisions can come into operation.
§ Ms KeebleOur commitment to equalising the age of entitlement is clear. We introduced the Bill very early in this Session. It made speedy progress through the other place and, hopefully, the House will today give the Bill its blessing and it can go forward for Royal Assent.
If amendment No. 2, which would have changed the basis for the financial calculation, had been agreed to, there would have been a substantial delay in implementation. We expect to have the measure fully implemented by April 2003, and that remains our firm intention.
I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern; implementation a full year off sounds a long way away. However, it is debatable whether the amendment would help local authorities, as they will have set their budgets and be part way through the financial year. As I said, the arrangements were designed for the efficient and orderly introduction of the scheme, as well as to ensure a proper financial basis. There is also the important point about ensuring that equalisation does not lead to any reductions in the number of such schemes.
There are very good reasons for putting new and changed concessionary travel arrangements into operation at the beginning of a local authority financial year, rather than part way through it. Legislation governing schemes in London requires the boroughs and Transport for London to agree their schemes by 31 December for implementation at the start of the following financial year. So, implementation in London would in any case have to wait until April 2003.
Furthermore, implementing the Act in April 2003 will harmonise other legislation to bring about age equalisation for concessionary fares across England and in Wales on the same day. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownThe Minister has been somewhat parsimonious. It would be perfectly possible to introduce the scheme half way through a financial year and to adjust the revenue support grant next year to take that into account. I accept that, from the point of view of the orderly running of government, it is more tidy to introduce it on 1 April 2003, but we are talking about elderly people who may be on low incomes, and every little help makes their life just that much easier. I should have thought that the Government would be only too willing to get the Bill enacted and implemented as soon as possible. From the tone of the Minister's reply, I assume that she will reject the amendment. However, I hope that she will have an open mind on introducing the scheme by the end of the year, if not earlier, outside London—in the rest of England, which is where the bulk of people live.
§ Mr. Don FosterThe Minister made some sensible points, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, on the value of a 1 April date. Does he agree that she should at least stop saying that it is the Government's hope and intention to bring the Bill into effect on I April 2003, and assure us that that will be the latest date for implementation?
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownBefore I decide whether to press the amendment to a vote, I am happy to give way to the 476 Minister so that she can give a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will be implemented on 1 April 2003, because that would help the 1 million men to whom the debate is relevant.
§ Ms KeebleDiscussions have to take place with local authority associations and Transport for London. Subject to those and the agreement of the House—for all I know, the hon. Gentleman might decide to vote against the Bill—the provisions will come into effect in April 2003.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownTo be reasonable, that is the strongest assurance that we could hope for from the Minister. We will, however, watch her every move closely and hold her to account if that does not happen. On the basis of her genuine assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
3.42 pm§ Ms KeebleI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are all aware of the purpose of this small but important Bill. It will entitle men to take advantage of all concessionary travel schemes from the age of 60 instead of 65. Equalising the age of entitlement for concessionary fares further demonstrates our commitment to tackling social exclusion and to ensuring that older people in society enjoy a full and active life. We want bus travel in particular to remain within the means of those on limited incomes and those with mobility difficulties. Bus travel is the most used form of public transport, especially by older people, and is of the most value to people as they move about their communities and go about their day-to-day lives.
The House will recall that last year we brought into effect the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, which for the first time require local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions for pensioners and disabled people on local bus services. The necessary bus travel pass must also be issued free of charge. Those changes are already benefiting 7 million people across England and Wales. In addition, many local authorities have more generous schemes that allow concessionary travel on other modes of transport. Some also provide free travel. The Bill will enable an extra 1 million men aged between 60 and 65 to enjoy the concessionary travel that is offered in their area.
The debate has been constructive at all stages of the Bill's proceedings. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have taken part. I know that many Members have much to say on concessionary travel. I am pleased that there is a general appreciation of and, despite the minor reservations, support for what the Bill attempts to achieve. It will bring real benefits to many people.
§ 3.44
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownWe had a good debate on Second Reading and examined many issues in Committee on a fairly consensual basis. The Government did not accede to many amendments, but the broad consensus is that the Bill is welcome. It will benefit 1,177,700 men aged between 60 and 64 in England. They will be grateful to 477 Mr. Matthews for taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights and to the Government for implementing the judgment. It is worth reiterating that the problem could have been put right had the appropriate amendment to the Transport Bill been accepted.
There is still some dissatisfaction, however. The level of concessionary fares, which are in place throughout the country, varies according to where one lives. We support the principle that the Minister outlined: local authorities should be responsible for their spending and taxing decisions, and we would expect some variance. However, the variance is considerable, and I ask the Minister to urge all local authorities to aim to match the best schemes.
As with all schemes, it would be interesting to discover why thousands of pensioners do not take advantage of the benefits that are on offer. The Minister should not let the Bill be the end of the matter—indeed, perhaps it should signal the beginning of a new era of providing a better service for our pensioners. I have a particular interest in the Bill because my constituency has the third highest number of over-85-year-olds in the country. There must be something about the Cotswold air that makes them live longer. I am delighted about that and hope that the average age continues to increase. Mercifully, advances in medical science are enabling the population to live longer. I am all for it because it means that I shall live longer too, much to the chagrin of Labour Members—but then they, too, will live longer, so we will also have to put up with them for longer.
If we are a civilised society, we should do all that we can to help people at the end of their working life, and the Bill goes a long way towards achieving that. It is interesting that a significant number of men in the 60 to 65 category are still working and may benefit from the scheme, as I said in Committee. I suspect that there might be an uneven take-up among authorities, especially metropolitan authorities in London and those on its edges, because people in that age group who commute are likely to want to benefit from the scheme. I know that the concessions do not apply in normal working hours, but people who are at the end of their working life, especially those in more senior jobs, can work more flexible hours. They may well be able to amend their hours to take advantage of the scheme. That is a good thing.
We will watch the Government carefully on costs. I do not want to go into them in too much detail, but they are important and we need to ensure that the Government make adequate provision for the full costs of the scheme. The Minister for the Environment said that local authorities will be reimbursed for reasonable costs. A good general principle is that when Government impose additional burdens on local authorities, those authorities should be reimbursed for the full costs of those obligations.
The Government have recently imposed a raft of obligations on local authorities, and authorities are losing out because they are not being reimbursed. Examples are the best value initiative, changes in arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste, the fuel tax and extra pension costs, but the list is pretty long. Because the Government have not funded council tax properly this year, most rural shire counties will have to raise council tax by an average of 7.5 per cent., three times the inflation rate. That is one of the biggest stealth taxes imposed by 478 the Government. I hope that, once the Bill has been enacted, all local authorities will consider carefully how it can be applied to their citizens' best advantage.
It is regrettable that the scheme does not apply to local authority boundaries. That is unfair on those living near such boundaries. In Committee, I pointed out that someone travelling from Moreton-in-Marsh, in the north of my constituency, to a hospital in Evesham would have to cross at least one—possibly two—local authority boundaries. The scheme would not help that person if they wished to travel by bus, which would be perfectly feasible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) nods. His constituents living in and around Evesham might want to make the journey in reverse, and travel to the hospital in Moreton-in-Marsh. I would urge them to do so, because that would benefit the hospital.
We have engaged in a long debate on a relatively simple Bill. I think all Members now wish it godspeed, and hope that the Minister will consult local government associations and major metropolitan counties so that authorities can benefit their citizens as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Don FosterI have already made clear that Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We have engaged in helpful discussions of what is, as the Minister says, a relatively small Bill—discussions that have ranged widely, and have provided an opportunity for a number of further points to be discussed with Ministers.
In Committee, for instance, there was a fair amount of discussion of the need for better facilities for disabled people on public transport. Members on both sides mentioned that. We have been able to discuss the need to extend concessionary fare schemes, not least for young people. More than 50 per cent. of those who have not taken advantage of further and higher education cite lack of public transport as one of the main barriers.
Today we have had an opportunity to ask the Minister for an assurance that existing schemes that are more generous than the mandatory minimum schemes will not be jeopardised. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), we have also had an opportunity to discuss other possible extensions to concessionary fare arrangements. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of boundaries, to which Age Concern referred cogently in a briefing that was used in Committee:
The government"s present limitation seems to expect that elderly and disabled people should keep all of their family and friends, all their health care providers, all their shopping, entertainment and recreations, all their places of worship—indeed all their possible reasons for travel—in the same local authority area as themselves. The government may believe in strong local neighbourhoods, but this seems to be carrying the principle a little too far.Members of all parties supported that view then, and I suspect that they still do.The Committee then moved to the issue of concessionary fare schemes for coaches. When I asked the Minister about that, she replied
I cannot at present give a date for implementation, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman and others who are as interested know the implementation date as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 56.]479 I should be grateful if the Minister would remind us of the implementation date, and also give absolute assurances that the funding regime has been established and accepted by all parties.As is often the case, we have been ably supported during our deliberations by a number of organisations with particular interests in the issues. It is only right for us to pay tribute to the good work of many of them, such as Age Concern, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Local Government Association, the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People and Greater London Action on Disability. The greatest credit, however, must surely go to Parity, which, by taking the original Matthews case to the European Court, put pressure on the Government to introduce this much-needed and long overdue legislation.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownLet me associate the official Opposition with the thanks the hon. Gentleman has conveyed to all those organisations. Without their help, the debate would have been much the poorer.
§ Mr. FosterI am more than happy to do so.
The Bill is important. We hope that it will be enacted on the earliest possible date, and if that is 1 April 2003, so be it. Sadly, however, as it leaves this place for the last time a number of questions remain unanswered.
We are still not sure that the Bill will have no impact on existing schemes. We are still not certain that the Government will find a fair mechanism for the distribution of the pot of money that they make available to compensate councils, and we are still not certain that, however it is distributed, it will cover the full cost. That said, however, I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Cotswold and wish the Bill godspeed.
§ Mr. WigginLocal authorities' power to offer concessionary fares was introduced as early as 1955 under a Conservative Government. The latest Transport Act seeks to ensure that pensioners and disabled people are guaranteed half-price fares or better on local buses. Bus travel is vital for my constituents. Access for disabled travellers at Leominster station is already negligible, and the estimated cost of putting that right is well over £400,000.
Under current legislation, eligibility for travel concessions is linked to the state-pension age, currently 60 for women and 65 for men. I personally welcome the equalisation of the qualifying ages at 60 and accept the wisdom of increasing the qualifying age to 65 by 2020, but I expect that in 2032, when I am eligible, it will have become even higher. Local authorities are obliged to reimburse bus operators for their forgone revenue; in theory, local authorities are reimbursed from central Government through the revenue support scheme. In my area, Malvern Hills district council was forced to introduce concessionary fares by the Government, but did not receive compensation through the revenue support scheme. Indeed, the only money which it received was a tiny sum to help pay for consultation, which forced it to increase council tax. I am worried that that is another gap in the funding chain, forcing councils with higher proportions of elderly people to charge more council tax and further penalise people on fixed incomes, especially 480 pensioners. They may win on the buses, but they end up paying more council tax, as I said earlier. That is not exactly what the Government set out to achieve initially.
The Government's failure to follow their funding through gives rise to serious concern. The travel concessions scheme will cost £54 million, which has been factored into the local government finance settlement. However, distributing funds via the standard spending assessment means that smaller district councils that receive no revenue support grant will not be properly compensated. That is another flaw in the scheme which needs to be corrected. I am not making a spending commitment for the Government, as they have already pledged to fund the scheme; what is needed is a fair and effective distribution of money.
Councils already suffer enough from red tape and stealth taxation without another burden being imposed on those of us who pay council tax. We want guarantees that those holes will be plugged so that we can support the alteration to the concessionary travel age. We want a reduction in ring-fenced funding, which has risen from 4 per cent. to 10 per cent.
The fact that buses cross local authority boundaries gives rise to another problem. It would be fair for travel concessions to be valid across boundaries, which may result in a higher take-up of the scheme. That would be a tremendous asset, as well as a positive and sensible step. It does not make sense for the Government to go to all that trouble to introduce a less popular scheme. Indeed, the target in one of their 10-year plans suggested an increase in bus usage of up to 20 per cent, so it would be wise to budget for a rising uptake. An amendment tabled when the Transport Act 2000 was in Committee gave the Government the chance to equalise the age for concessionary fares. However, despite the fact that ageism and sex discrimination are prohibited and reviled, the Labour Government chose to vote against it. Today, let us put right that wrong.
§ 4.2 pm
§ Ms KeebleI shall detain the House only a short time in replying to the points made in our debate.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) urged us to ensure that all local authorities raise their schemes to the level of the best. The Government have repeatedly advised and exhorted local authorities to do just that. However, I pay tribute to all those local authorities, most of them Labour-controlled, but also some Conservative ones, which pioneered concessionary fares for pensioners and people with disabilities, and kept that going through all the years of cuts under the Conservative Government. It is an acknowledgement of their work over the years that the Labour Government are now able to extend the concessionary fares scheme nationally and to back it fully, I remind the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), with Government funds.
The hon. Member for Cotswold talked about providing better services for pensioners. Again, I remind him that the Government introduced the winter fuel allowance, as well as the concessionary fares scheme, which we are now extending. We abolished eye test payments for pensioners. The Bill is not the last word on what we are doing for pensioners; we are discussing the extension of fuel duty rebate to coaches, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). That plan will be introduced. Another 481 of our initiatives is the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. We plan to extend fuel duty rebate to community transport, which will benefit many older people. Extra money is going to the rural bus challenge and into rural transport, which will be of overwhelming benefit to pensioners. A number of schemes introduced under the rural bus challenge, for example, will make sure that older people can get to hospital.
The hon. Member for Bath talked about concessions to students, which are being progressed through the Department for Education and Skills, and trialled in local authority areas in the north-east with the aim of a national extension. There is genuine progress on that issue. Interest in the Bill is in direct proportion to its benefits. I believe that I am the only Member in the Chamber at present who will not benefit from it at all. The hon. Members for Bath and for Leominster expressed uncertainties, queries and qualms about it, but I urge the House to give it a ringing endorsement. Whatever the difficulties or pressures involved in its implementation, it gives us the certainty that all over-60s, men and women alike, will have a national system of concessionary fares for the first time ever. That will result in a genuine difference in their quality of life, as they will be able to travel and lead the kind of life that we want older people to lead. For the first time, there is the certainty of a concessionary fare backed by Government funds; people will recognise that a Labour Government achieved that.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.