HL Deb 18 October 2001 vol 627 cc740-4

Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Clause 2 [Commencement and transitional provision]: Page 2. line 10, at end insert— ( ) Before the making of an order under subsection (1), the appropriate Minister shall set up a scheme to compensate local authorities for the additional costs incurred by them in consequence of the changes in eligibility to receive travel concessions under the provisions of this Act.

Baroness Wilkins

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House with this lone amendment, which was most eloquently proposed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It pursues the issue that I raised on Second Reading. I also apologise for the fact that, due to other engagements, I was unable to attend the debate in Committee.

The amendment would ensure that disabled and elderly people do not lose their more generous travel concessions as a result of the Bill. Those travel concessions provide an essential means of enabling blind or other disabled or elderly people to remain part of their communities, which maintains their physical and mental health and their general well-being.

I ask noble Lords to consider the amendment again because there is evidence that many local authorities have withdrawn their more generous concessionary travel schemes and that others will do so. For instance, although a campaign by Birmingham Focus on Blindness during the summer led to the reinstatement of free travel for blind people for the remainder of the financial year, the lead councillor is concerned about the fact that the lack of adequate funding for concessionary fares for men aged between 60 and 64 may force free travel for blind people to be cut again. That would happen despite the fact that the reinstatement gained huge public support—96 per cent in a telephone poll were in favour.

Another example involves Lancashire county council, which proposes to stop issuing passes to blind people—the pass allows them to travel for a flat 30p fare. In future, blind people will be issued with only the statutory half-price pass for buses.

The Minister said in Committee that a compensation scheme is not necessary. I ask him to reconsider that. The evidence suggests that the extra subsidy in the revenue support grant will be insufficient to cover the costs of introducing the statutory minimum half fare for men aged between 60 and 64.

Would the Minister consider offering a transitional grant to those local authorities that offer more generous concessionary fare schemes and protect disabled and elderly people? That arrangement would be similar to the way in which they were protected by a transitional grant when care in the community was transferred from the then Department of Social Security to local authority social services. If that was offered for only a fixed-term transitional period it would give local authorities time to adjust to the costs of their new duties and prevent cuts being made as a result of budget crises.

Furthermore, would the Minister consider altering the revenue support grant formula to give more money to those local authorities that demonstrate good practice by providing more generous concessionary fare schemes for blind or other disabled and elderly people? The Government said that they wished to encourage that. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I declare an interest as a member of Suffolk County Council and as vice-chairman of the Local Government Association transport executive. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has any need to apologise to the House for raising this important issue. Funding for the concessionary scheme and for this additional scheme has concerned us for some time. It was discussed fairly fully during the passage of the Transport. Bill and again at Committee stage of this Bill.

We must understand that before the Act which brought in a national scheme, the pattern of provision for local authorities was varied. Some local authorities have now had to find a considerable amount of extra money in order to implement this provision. As a result of representations made in your Lordships' House, among other places, the Government have made available extra money through the rate support grant.

One of the difficulties is that decisions are currently being made about the level of support for future years. At present, it is too early to tell how much the scheme costs. Local authorities report that in some cases the bus operators in their areas simply have not given them the figures. Other local authorities which are bringing in schemes for the first time report that take-up is slow but is rapidly increasing.

We also know that the Association of London Government expects take up of the additional scheme to be very high. Many men who are eligible under the new scheme will still be working. Therefore, the cost will be high. If local authorities with cash-limited budgets have to find extra money for the scheme, they will simply have to spend less on something; else. That has given rise to the situation about which we have heard today in which some of the more generous schemes are being withdrawn.

It is also possible that in other areas, local authorities will be forced to reduce the subsidies on buses. We could easily end up with a situation in which we have concessionary fares and fewer buses on which to use them. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government. During the passage of the Transport Act, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave an assurance that the cost to local authorities would be monitored. I should like clarification of how that monitoring will take place. How will local authorities be recompensed if they find that the costs are significantly higher than what the Government estimated?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, presumably the funding given by the Government comes under the standard spending assessments, which are constantly monitored and rated. Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that when the scheme comes in there will not be a lag? Will the standard spending assessments be reassessed in time, so that those local authorities which find that it will cost them considerably more will not be greatly out of pocket?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point first. It is a factual point of importance and at the heart of this matter. The extra money will be distributed by formulae in the normal way. Concessionary travel falls within the EPCS (environmental protection and cultural services) standard spending assessment. The other option would have been to pay the money by ring-fenced grant. We are opposed to that. The right course is for local authorities to decide how they best wish to spend their money. In the past we have perhaps been criticised for ringfencing grants. The right way would be to do it as part of the SSA process.

The issue of funding was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and others at Second Reading and in Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, stated, there is no need to apologise for raising the matter again. It is obviously an important issue. I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I am grateful to her for informing me in advance of the particular points she raised. I am afraid that I will disappoint both her and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, with what I am about to say.

As we made clear both at Second Reading and in Committee, we are strongly committed to the new burdens principle. That requires us to reimburse local authorities for the extra costs they face. We shall be working hard with the local authority associations as we finalise our estimates of the financial implications for councils of the extra provision for men aged 60 to 65, which will be included in the annual local government settlement. We shall therefore be working with the relevant associations to ensure that we are giving the extra money to enable local authorities to provide the additional concessions due to the age change.

Perhaps I may reassure the House once more that the local authority associations will be consulted on all our proposals for the local government settlement. We shall listen carefully to the points they make, alongside all other representations, before making final decisions.

As the noble Baroness stated, it is regrettable if local authorities have taken the decision to offer their elderly and disabled people less generous schemes as a result of a statutory minimum requirement. The noble Baroness cited examples, particularly in the West Midlands. I am pleased that one of the local authorities involved has now decided, as she rightly pointed out, to continue the previous concession.

The purpose of the statutory minimum requirement is to guarantee all elderly and disabled people the opportunity to take advantage of cheap travel on their local bus service and to ensure some uniformity of provision across the country. That is a considerable improvement on the previous situation. We are presently undertaking a survey to measure the effects of the implementation of the statutory minimum requirement. The survey is one of a series undertaken whenever there are significant changes to the concessionary travel regime. The results of the survey, which should be available early next year, will identify whether there is a problem of concessions having been reduced or whether there are just a couple of isolated examples.

I turn to the two specific points raised. I refer, first, to a transitional fund to help the change. We have carefully considered that point. However, that would simply be an additional grant to fund the proposed effect of the change. We are trying to deal with the cost of the change under the revenue support arrangements, which we will work hard to ensure genuinely meet the costs. Secondly, I refer to changing the formula. The formula is one that applies in practically all transfers of this size, and there is no scope to change it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the costs would be closely monitored. I hope that I have referred in my reply to the kind of processes we are adopting to ensure that that is the position. That is an important issue. The principle underlying it is that the Government will fund the extra cost of the effect of the Bill. Therefore, there should not be the need for local authorities to reduce other concessions they give. However, because of the way in which local government finance works in this area, it is for them to make the vital decisions about what other travel concessions they apply over and above the minimum required by the Bill.

In the light of the reassurances I have given about consultation and the purpose of the Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilkins

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her support for my amendment. I am disappointed by the Minister's response. The Minister mentioned a survey to measure the effect of the changes. If that survey reveals that there is a damaging effect, I would ask that further funding be provided. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.