HL Deb 20 May 1996 vol 572 cc651-3

2.52 p.m.

Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will discuss with the Royal British Legion the effect of rail privatisation on disabled pensioners in London.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport would carefully consider any representations he might receive from the Royal British Legion.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome reply from the noble Earl. We are grateful that all parties in another place and in this House support the Royal British Legion. However, we now face the problem that older people who were wounded in the war find travel more difficult than those who served throughout the war but were not wounded. Those are some of the issues about which we should like to talk with the Minister. I sincerely hope that he will seriously examine them. We in the Royal British Legion are confident that all parties in both Houses will always continue to give us their full support and will endeavour to understand the problems of those who were badly wounded serving their country in war.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will congratulate the Royal British Legion on its work, in particular with ex-servicemen and women who have been injured in the defence of their country, and also the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as national vice-president of that organisation.

I can assure the noble Lord that concessionary rail fares for pensioners and disabled people in London are being safeguarded under privatisation, and that applies just as much to ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, there seems to be some confusion. I understand that Mr. Simon Green, the chair of the London Committee on Accessible Transport, has had discussions with the Ministry which has told him that it is not willing to ask the people who will take over the privatised transport to continue the scheme for more than a year although the period had recently been settled at seven years. Will the Minister clear up that point? Will the period be a year or seven years?

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord has been brought to my attention. I understand that the British Railways Board decided that as the train operating companies serving the London area were due shortly to be franchised it would be inappropriate for them to sign a contract which would commit as yet unknown private sector franchise operators to a seven-year London concessionary fare scheme. I must point out that there has not been a previous seven-year concessionary scheme; this would have been the first seven-year period.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little more. I understand that there are 100,000 transport vouchers for disabled people in London. If the scheme had been included in the contract to be signed by the privatised companies, those companies could have allowed for it in the price that they were willing to pay. Why could that not have been done? It would have reassured people.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I believe that there was more concern with the details as regards how the scheme was charged to London boroughs. We believe that franchise operators will be in a better position to negotiate with the London boroughs once they hold their franchises.