Buses (Concessionary Fares) (Hansard, 6 July 2004)

§ Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester) (Lab)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about concessionary fares on buses for elderly persons. I believe that the Bill tackles several issues that are important not just to my constituents but to more than 7 million other people throughout England. Concessionary bus fares have been a contentious issue across the country for some time because of the patchwork of different schemes that has developed over the years.

The Transport Act 2000 amended the legislation covering concessionary fares in England and Wales from 1 June 2001 outside London and from 1 April in inner London. Local authorities must now provide elderly and disabled people with at least half-fare concessions on local bus travel. Since April 2003, men have been eligible for travel concessions from the age of 60. Local authorities also have discretion to offer further concessions on buses and other public transport services if they wish, under the Transport Act 1985. Concessionary fare schemes for local public transport are the responsibility of local government and are funded and administered by it. That is the nub of the problem.

As a result, the nature and extent of concessions have varied from region to region—in Worcestershire, even from parish to parish. It is that inconsistent patchwork approach that rightly causes resentment among pensioners. The Bill's purpose is to create a uniform approach, ending the postcode lottery for free bus travel.

Pensioners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already enjoy free bus travel, as do those in London, Merseyside and the west midlands conurbation. The Government estimate that that covers some 20 per cent. of pensioners. There are other isolated areas with free bus travel for pensioners, such as Redditch in Worcestershire, but they are all too few.

The national concessionary scheme was needed in the late 1990s and was welcomed, but it does not go far enough. Back in 1998, 10 local authorities in England had no concessionary fare schemes. One was Malvern Hills in Worcestershire. The Government have started to make progress, but more is now needed. It cannot be right for a pensioner in one part of the United Kingdom to have a free bus pass and free bus travel while others still have to pay. Let me give a personal example. Both my grandmothers are still alive, and both are 90. One lives in Birmingham and has had free bus travel for 30 years; the other lives in south Staffordshire and has not. The best way of avoiding a postcode lottery is to introduce a scheme providing universal entitlement to free bus travel for pensioners.

There is no doubt about the benefit to pensioners of free bus travel, apart from the obvious economic gains. The aims of reducing the sense of isolation, supporting independence in old age and giving some of the most socially excluded people a chance to travel should be uppermost in our decision making. There are also wider public benefits, including reduced traffic congestion as fewer car journeys are made, and consequent reductions in pollution.

703 It has been said that free bus travel is of no use in some of the more rural and sparsely populated parts of England, as there are no buses on which to travel. With universally free bus travel, demand would obviously increase. Bus operators would respond by providing services that could be used not just by pensioners but by other members of the public. The lack of public transport is still one of the major concerns of young and old alike in rural areas.

Under current legislation, making the concession universal would force local authorities to grant the concession. I accept that in areas with two-tier local government that would create more challenges, with districts having a smaller tax resource base to fund the subsidies. One solution is to get rid of the two tiers of local government in England as soon as possible, giving unitary authorities a bigger tax base on which to fund the concession. That would also allow greater purchasing power in dealings with bus operators. Rather than six Worcestershire districts dealing with one bus operator, there would be a united voice that would almost certainly generate a better deal for the taxpayer, making free bus travel more affordable to the authority.

Such a move would also get rid of another lottery that blights the travel concession scheme—namely, who benefits, as it is up to local councils to co-operate with each other for mutually advantageous concessions. For example, someone living in Malvern in the Malvern Hills district can get a half-fare return to Worcester, crossing local council boundaries to go to Worcester's historic cathedral, but someone living in Worcester gets a half-fare only as far as the city boundary and has to pay full fare to Malvern to take in the water or walk on the hills.

The other anomaly is that a pensioner who lived in Worcestershire up until retirement would not have contributed to free bus travel for pensioners, but, upon retirement, if they moved to Birmingham or Dudley, they would immediately benefit from it, and, importantly, vice versa. Indeed, changes in local 704 government boundaries, not unusual in themselves, can lead to changes in entitlement to free bus travel. Universal free bus travel would avoid those problems.

I know that some in local government believe that the subsidy to pay for pensioner bus fare concessions is not the most effective use of scarce resources. Indeed, the Commission for Integrated Transport shares that view. However, I reject the idea that developing quality partnerships with bus companies and new park and ride sites alone will increase use of public transport by some of the neediest in our society. What use is a park and ride site for a pensioner in Worcester who does not own or drive a car?

It is no use subsidising bus companies to operate extra services that have no customers. Therein lies nothing but false delivery—more buses but not more bus users. I support quality partnerships as a concept and park and ride at the appropriate site, but not at the expense of what should be a real passport to freedom for pensioners—free bus travel.

If I were to look at free bus travel purely as a benefit to pensioners, I would compare it with other benefits that the Government give such as the winter fuel allowance. A pensioner in the north of Scotland has considerably more justification for receiving the winter fuel allowance than one living in Cornwall. Climatic differences account for different needs, but we universalise the benefit because it is fair to do so. How can we accept universal winter fuel allowances, yet allow a postcode lottery for free bus travel? We should not do so. My Bill would put an end to that unfair treatment of pensioners in Worcester and other areas alike.