Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2001.

Standing Committee A

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move,

That, during proceedings on the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet on Tuesday 20th November at half-past Ten o'clock and Five o'clock, and thereafter on Thursdays at five minutes to Ten o'clock and half-past Two o'clock and on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson.

The motion is straightforward. It allows the Committee to sit twice today and if necessary to sit twice on Thursday. The terms of the motion are well precedented and give the Committee ample time to consider the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will approve the motion.

If any Members have examined the official record of the Second Reading debate, they will know that the Bill is small, but none the less important. It concerns a matter of equality. Under current legislation entitlement to travel concessions for elderly people is linked to pensionable age as defined in the Pensions Act 1995. Women may take advantage of concessionary travel schemes offered by their local authorities when they reach 60, but men must wait until their 65th birthday. There is no age barrier to entitlement to concessionary fare schemes for disabled people. Given that current legislation has been questioned because it discriminates on grounds of gender, we have decided to end the anomaly. The Bill will make men entitled to travel concessions at the same age as women—at 60. We expect the Bill to take effect from April 2003 at the latest.

Concessionary fares are for cheaper travel on public transport for people who are economically disadvantaged. Our commitment to fighting social exclusion and to ensuring that bus travel, in particular, remains within the means of those on limited incomes and those who have mobility difficulties is clear. We have implemented legislation requiring local authorities for the first time to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions for elderly and disabled people on local buses. The statutory minimum requirement is benefiting some 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people across England and Wales. With this Bill, a further 1 million men aged between 60 and 64 will be able to share the benefits of concessionary travel, bringing the total number of people benefiting to around 8 million.

Local authorities also have discretion to offer further concessions on bus and on other public passenger transport services such as local trains, metros, ferries, or the London underground. They may also provide concessionary travel outside their boundaries if they wish. Many local authorities offer concessions on other modes of public transport, and fares cheaper than half price, or join together to offer an area-wide scheme—an obvious example is London. However, they must not offer a scheme less than the half-fare statutory minimum. I hope therefore that the Committee can now turn to the detail of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I begin by welcoming you and your fellow Chairmen Mrs. Adams and Miss Widdecombe to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I would also like to welcome two Ministers to the Committee. For a relatively small Bill it is a delight to have such expertise on the Government side. Consequently, we shall be expecting rapid answers to the probing questions that we shall raise.

I am pleased to have the chance to speak on the sittings motion. In particular, I am pleased to tell the Government Whip, who cannot speak for himself, that I am delighted that the usual channels should have negotiated a timetable that is not limited. It is admirable that we should be allowed to sit indefinitely on both Tuesdays and Thursdays—although after six weeks of us probing them in full measure, Ministers may have second thoughts about that. I hope that we can deal with this relatively straightforward three-clause Bill expeditiously and in a civilised manner. Nevertheless, we shall want to probe the Government on a few points that were not adequately exposed in the other place.

The Bill ought to be renamed the Williams Bill because, as the Minister said, it arises out of a case brought by a Mr. Williams in the European Court of Human Rights. Mr. Williams argued that that men were being discriminated against on grounds of sexual equality because they could not obtain travel concessions until they attained the age of 65, whereas women reach pensionable age at 60. As a result of that case, the Government announced that they would legislate.

The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment in another place to the Transport Act 2000 that would have obviated the need for the Bill. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will wish to crow about that, but the simple fact is that if we sometimes thought more carefully and in more depth about legislation before rushing it through, often under a guillotine or timetable motion, we might sometimes pass better legislation. I welcome the sittings motion. It will give us plenty of time to debate the Bill.

The amendments cover a relatively narrow area. As it is only a three-clause Bill, I hope that we shall have a clause stand part debate on each clause, because we shall wish to speak on matters other than those raised by the amendments. The principal matters on which we wish to probe the Government are the total cost of the Bill, the number of people who will benefit from it and the number of groups that may be disadvantaged by it because local authorities already offer more generous schemes than would be allowed under the Bill.

We shall be particularly sensitive to suggestions put to us by groups such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind that some local authority schemes will be reduced. Lord Falconer said in another place that he hoped that local authorities would not cut their concessionary schemes, but they may be forced to do so because, as we shall find out during our debate on the first group of amendments, if the Government do not provide adequate funding for those schemes, local authorities will have no option but to cut them. It would be unfortunate indeed if we passed a measure that was supposed to help some of the most vulnerable people but ended up damaging their interests. I am sure that we shall probe that aspect in full measure.

We shall wish to probe the Government on how they intend to reimburse local authorities, and especially on how the scheme will work in rural areas. Hon. Members who represent rural areas know that many areas do not have any bus schemes that could operate a concessionary fare. The services have been eroded to such an extent by the lack of funding under the bus grant scheme that there are very few buses. Not only are people in rural areas such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) already suffering from the lack of bus schemes, but because my local authority has up to five different authorities on its borders we wish to probe whether it is possible for the local authorities that have discretion in the matter under the terms of the Bill to operate cross-border schemes. It is difficult to see how the scheme will work for those who live on the borders.

Finally, at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), we shall wish to see whether the scope of the Bill can be widened to encompass other forms of travel. Many people in his constituency wish to use ferries to cross the Solent, in order to reach the mainland. We wish to probe the Government as to whether they are prepared to allow the concessionary scheme to operate for the benefit of his constituents.

I am sure that other matters will arise in the course of our scrutiny of the Bill. It is a relatively straightforward Bill, founded on very complex law within the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. It amends the Transport Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999. That also brings problems, particularly about how it will operate in London, how the London boroughs and Transport for London will be refunded, and whether they will be refunded in sufficient measure to continue the current 100 per cent. concessionary scheme operated by many of the boroughs.

Those are the matters that we shall cover. I look forward to a good-tempered, constructive debate under your very stern and wise chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I was slightly confused by the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who requested rapid answers from Ministers. I assume that he meant brief answers, rather than speeches at high speed. I was concerned when he spoke of the possibility of the Committee sitting indefinitely, and whether in six weeks' time the Government might think of bringing in a programme motion. I hope that his latter remarks, to the effect that it might be possible to make rapid progress, were correct.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hope that in nit picking over words we are not starting as we mean to continue. The hon. Gentleman knows that when I asked for rapid answers, I meant expeditious ones, so that we should not still be sitting in six weeks' time. We all hope that the Committee will deal with matters in a business-like way.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I know all the hon. Members on this Committee and, having had the pleasure of chairing Committees on which they have sat in the past, I have no experience of nit picking. However, the odd reference to Tuesday and Thursday would be appreciated.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As I was just about to say, Mr. Stevenson, I hope very much that because we shall be able to make expeditious progress, we might well have to talk about only one Tuesday and possibly one Thursday. I hope that during that possible Tuesday and even more unlikely Thursday, we shall have an opportunity to discuss some of the issues rightly raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold, as well as other subjects that are before us. It will be important to explore with the Government their plans for the extension of the concessionary fare scheme to other groups, not least young people. We need to have more detail from Ministers about Government plans in respect of extending eligibility for concessionary fares to coach travel, because, despite an assurance by Ministers that that was to go ahead, it came out on Second Reading that little had been done to set the groundwork for it to happen. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to explore that subject briefly.

Another important issue that we need to tackle—it was touched on by the hon. Member for Cotswold—is that of cross-border travel. All members of the Committee will be aware that we began to discuss it on Second Reading, and I hope that we can take that discussion further.

The issue that will be uppermost in many of our minds is that of cost, about which local authorities and various groups are concerned. We are aware that the Transport Act 2000 introduced concessionary fares and that the Government announced that £47 million would initially be made available to local authorities to fund the scheme. Following subsequent discussions with the Local Government Association and others, the Government acknowledged that the sum was inadequate and increased it to £54 million. That shows that mistakes can be made and that consultation and discussion can lead to different figures. To judge from amendments tabled by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the Opposition are anxious to suggest ways and mechanisms whereby the Government can ensure that the sums of money that will be made available under the provisions to ensure equality at the age of 60 are correct.

The hon. Member for Cotswold suggested that I might crow about the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in another place. I remind him—I think that he served on the relevant Committee—that those amendments were first seen in this place on 29 February last year. We do not want to crow about it, because several organisations have campaigned on the issue for a long time—since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I draw attention to the great deal of work that Parity has done on the subject. Like members of the Committee, it will be aware that the issue of equality raised its head with the British Rail senior travel card, which was available from the age of 60 for both sexes in the early 1980s. Some victories were achieved long before any proposal that I made in February last year.

I will not crow, but many organisations that have campaigned for equality might. They are grateful to the Government for recognising that something had to be done, notwithstanding the pressure that was placed on them by the Williams case. In our brief discussions in Committee, I hope that we will explore in a little more detail one or two of the issues that arise from the Government's proposals.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I want to discuss reasons why we might not need to extend the sittings of the Committee too much.

It is unfortunate that any such Bill should be introduced. It demonstrates yet more interference in our affairs and, more importantly, it would be far better if transport undertakings and local authorities were free to determine such concessions as they felt appropriate, in association with other authorities. However, we start not from that position, but from one of a great deal of complex legislation, so I ask the Minister for Transport whether he can explain some of the differences between the various pieces of legislation that apply to different authorities, which will be altered by the Bill.

The Minister might help to reduce the number of sittings if he clarifies two statements made by the Prime Minister—one on 4 July and the second last Wednesday, on the coach concession scheme that the Government are introducing. On 4 July, the Prime Minister said that he would bring the scheme forward in association with the Bill, but it does not refer to the scheme. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to incorporate it in the Bill.

If the Minister intends to deny what the Prime Minister said on 4 July, it would be helpful if he could do so before we got to the amendments. The right hon. Gentleman told me in answer to a question last Wednesday that the Government had already delivered the coach concessionary fare scheme. There is a press release on the subject, although I am not sure whether it was issued by the Minister's Department or with his authority. If he brings a copy to the Committee, we might not need to sit this Thursday and certainly not on subsequent Thursdays, as the hon. Member for Bath suggested. If the Minister deals with those issues, we may be able to get home before Christmas.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the range of amendments that Opposition Members have tabled. The Bill presents us with a unique opportunity to improve the methodology behind the allocation of funds for travel concessions. Huge iniquities in the allocation of public funding exist behind an opaque screen of decisions on funding allocations and the practical end result is that individuals lose out.

The most profound example of that is found at the fringes of London, as I shall discuss in an Adjournment debate tonight. Individuals in adjoining streets encounter totally different frameworks for concessionary fares.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I am prepared to allow wide-ranging debate on the sittings motion, but amendments have been tabled on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. Perhaps we can return to the motion.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Stevenson, and look forward to working with you. It remains to be seen whether that will be for a long time.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I welcome our fairly open-ended timetable—if that is not a contradiction in terms. We must discuss important issues, including the introduction of the equal ages qualification in the Bill. The proposal is eminently sensible on the face of it, but I wonder what impact it will have on other aspects of life. Perhaps the subject is a little too wide to get into at this or, indeed, any stage of the Bill, but we should bear it in mind.

Another issue is the Bill's impact on local authorities, which is more important and more relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold touched on the difficulties that our areas experience when trying to provide transport in the first place. I receive many letters from constituents on the issue, although I do not know whether other hon. Members do.

Mr. Clifton-Brown indicated assent.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend indicates that he does, too. Perhaps that is because we represent large areas. It is difficult to travel from one area to another in my constituency as Tewkesbury covers only one tenth of it. It is important that we allow enough time to consider such problems to determine whether the proposals are relevant to the people of Tewkesbury.

We must also discuss what impact the measures will have on local authorities. Authorities such as that in Tewkesbury are hard pressed and we must ask whether the proposals will place another financial burden on them. If that is the case, we shall need to hear what will be done about that. We shall also need to consider how the other concessions that local authorities are allowed to provide will be dealt with.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That during proceedings on the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords] the Committee do meet on Tuesday 20th November at half-past Ten o'clock and Five o'clock, and thereafter on Thursdays at five minutes to Ten o'clock and half-past Two o'clock and on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Before we consider the amendments I remind hon. Members that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. I am told that copies are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule my co-Chairmen and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. Finally, will hon. Members turn off their mobile phones. I am sure that they have already done so. Clause 1 Eligibility for travel concessions: age

Clause 1 - Eligibility for travel concessions: age

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—

`(7) The appropriate Minister shall publish each year a breakdown of the cost of travel concession schemes by local authority area.'.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—

`(8) The appropriate Minister shall publish each year at the time of the Revenue Support Grant Sub-committee the proportion of the Revenue Support Grant for each local authority being allocated to meet the costs of the concessionary fares scheme.'.

No. 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

`(6) The appropriate Minister shall consult local authorities over the methodology for compensating local authorities for the cost of the scheme and shall also consult further if there is to be any change in such methodology.'.

No. 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

`(7) The appropriate Minister shall ensure that the methodology for compensating local authorities for expenditure under subsections (1) to (4) above is published.'.

No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

`, and

(c) not be made until there is agreement with the relevant local government associations concerning the funding provision for the scheme in the annual Revenue Support Grant negotiations.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I have great pleasure in speaking to the four amendments that I have tabled, which form a logical set that is clear and straightforward. I hope that the Government will be able to accept them or, if not, that they will provide clear answers about how local authorities can be fully reimbursed for the costs of the travel concession scheme under the Bill.

In the past, there has been too much of a pattern of placing additional duties and burdens on local authorities without their being fully reimbursed for those obligations. I hope that the Committee will not impose another burden on local authorities. I emphasise that we welcome what is being done, but I want local authorities to be reimbursed.

The amendments are in a logical order. Amendment No. 6 would provide for the appropriate Minister to

``publish each year a breakdown of the cost of travel concession schemes by local authority area.''

That is pretty straightforward. We want to know what the scheme is costing each local authority area. Once that has been done, we want the Minister to publish each year when the revenue support grant is announced the proportion of revenue support grant for each local authority being allocated to meet the costs of the scheme. We want to know what cost each local authority has incurred and what amount the Government have reimbursed to them. That will enable us to see clearly whether each local authority has been fully reimbursed.

Next, we want the Minister in question to consult local authorities about the methodology for compensating them when there is a shortfall or surplus and we want to ensure that the methodology is correct. Finally, we want the Minister to ensure that the methodology fully compensates local authorities. On the face of it, that is a pretty straightforward request. We know, just for the record, that bus companies are to be fully reimbursed. The amendments in no way touch on that matter. The amendments are concerned purely with how the Government will reimburse local authorities.

The Government already spend £571 million on concessionary schemes of one form or another under the Transport Act 1985. The measure will cost the Government about £50 million. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the original calculation was for about £47 million. The Bill will affect 1 million men aged 60 to 64 who cannot use the concession scheme at present. Of those 1 million men, it is calculated that 147,000 are still at work, of whom 10 per cent. are in the disabled category. There are probably 127,000 men who travel regularly to work, which is particularly important for some local authorities.

The Bill will place an extra burden on authorities that deal with large numbers of commuters. I mentioned the matter on Second Reading, but I do not think that we received a full reply from the Minister. We need to cover the so-called generation factor in our discussion of the amendments. It is easy to calculate for retired people and disabled people who have a normal weekly journey pattern, but it may be less easy to calculate the effect of the Bill on local authorities dealing with large numbers of commuters.

On Second Reading, the Minister for Transport brushed us aside—I do not mean that in a critical sense—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I was in brushing mode.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hope that we can deal with the matter in more detail. The Minister brushed us aside by saying that we should not worry because the Bill applied to people travelling between the hours of 9.30 am and 11 pm only and most eligible people who work will travel before 9.30 am. I doubt that that is the case. I suspect that because of flexi-working and because people aged 60 or more are likely to work either in senior positions or part-time jobs, they will travel outside peak hours, particularly in the morning. The so-called generation factor will therefore affect certain local authorities, because people will be encouraged to travel more once the concessions have been implemented and will perhaps travel into work more than they would otherwise have done. That issue must be dealt with.

The issue of London and reimbursement is a core matter. Approximately half the London boroughs run a 100 per cent. concessionary scheme for all eligible people travelling on the London underground, docklands light railway, London Transport buses and the Croydon tram link. Under the Bill, the boroughs will be eligible for concessionary reimbursement from the Government of only 50 per cent. The boroughs are faced with a considerable problem. Either they will have to offer men aged 60 to 64 a half-price scheme and everyone aged more than 65 a full-price scheme, or they will have to pay the difference out of their own pockets.

The Government need to tell us clearly how the London boroughs will be reimbursed, if they will, because it would contravene the spirit of the Bill if men aged 60 to 64 were still allowed only a half-price concession whereas women in that age group were allowed a full-price concession. Under those circumstances I would not be surprised if a man who felt disadvantaged could go back to the European Court of Human Rights and win his case, necessitating another Bill. The Government must concentrate seriously on that area and give us some answers.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument—with which, incidentally, I entirely agree—does he accept that the Government's decision on the Bill has wide ramifications for any form of concession? In 1990, the House of Lords made a ruling relating to Eastleigh borough council that stated that the use of pensionable age as a basis for determining concessions would be against the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must be clear today about how they understand the implications of the Bill and say whether they understand it to relate to a wide range of concessions, not only in London but elsewhere?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was about to mention some of the other schemes, in Birmingham and elsewhere, through which people are already disadvantaged. I hark back to what the noble Lord Falconer said on Third Reading in another place, which I hope that the Ministers will repeat today. He said that no concessionary scheme operated anywhere, by any local authority, would be eliminated or reduced. It would be a terrible indictment of the Committee if any of these schemes, which are aimed at helping some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, were curtailed as a result of the Bill.

No one could argue that it would be wrong for the Minister to publish the local authority costs, but we should address how that would relate to the revenue support grant. If a local authority is out of pocket, we should be told how that has arisen and what the Government will do about it. An assurance from the Minister today that, if a local authority is out of pocket, it will subsequently be reimbursed, would go a long way to reassuring local authorities, the Association of London Government and other local authority bodies that they have nothing to fear from the Bill. Otherwise, some local authorities will be doing some figures and burning a lot of midnight oil to decide what they will do about it.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend refers to extra costs. Does he agree that to some extent the situation in his constituency and mine will be open ended because of the extra concessions that local authorities will be allowed to provide, which will be discretionary. If they do not provide those extra concessions in our areas—they cannot provide help when there are no bus services—will not the cost be open ended and does that not reinforce the need for the amendment?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Bill has a number of shortcomings, not least given the paucity of buses in rural areas and the fact that the schemes cannot cross local authority boundaries.

I cite an example of why the Bill will make it difficult for authorities such as my hon. Friend's and mine. Let us imagine someone travelling from Inverness to Ullapool, which is a distance of 100 or more miles—although that journey is used only as an example, because the Bill has a different effect in Scotland. If that distance were covered in England, one would get a half-price ticket. A long journey within one local authority area is no problem, but if one of my constituents travels from Mickleton in the north of my constituency to Evesham, which is six miles away, he crosses a local authority boundary.

Unless the local authorities pay out of their own pocket without being reimbursed by the Government, that will not be covered by the Bill. That is a good, practical example. It is far easier for someone living in Mickleton to shop in Evesham than Cirencester, which is some 25 miles away. The journey from Mickleton to Cirencester would be more expensive for the Government, but it lies within one local authority area so the concession could be provided.

The Government need to think carefully about the cross-boundary issue and about long distance journeys. I suspect that eventually there will be one national concessionary scheme for all pensioners, although it may not happen in this Bill. It may, in fact, be some years away and not under consideration at the moment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The one national concessionary scheme for all pensioners may sound attractive to those for whom there are lots of bus services, but it would be no earthly good to those for whom there are none.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I accept what my hon. Friend says. I have been talking about that with regard to constituencies in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and I represent the most rural of all the constituencies represented on the Committee. There is a particular problem in rural areas. The Government recognise that in various White Papers and they will be using separate mechanisms to deal with that issue. It may not be strictly appropriate for the Bill to tackle the paucity of bus services, although if there are no bus services, there are no bus services on which to promote concessionary schemes.

Amendment No. 6 would provide for each local authority's costs to be published. Amendment No. 7 would provide that the Government published what they had given to local authorities. Amendment No. 4 would deal with how the Government worked out the methodology for distributing grants to each local authority, and this is where I run into a problem. As a chartered surveyor—a declaration that is in the Register of Members' Interests—I know something about that. I know that the Government, to their credit, have taken steps to simplify the SSA methodology. Formerly it contained some 100 elements, including some highly complicated mathematics that dealt with regression analysis. The methodology is still complicated and not transparent, and I am certain that, for some of the reasons to which I have alluded, it will give rise to considerable anomalies for some local authorities.

The Government are not prepared to alter the SSA methodology for at least two years, although they are considering it. The constituencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and I represent do not get the area cost adjustment and our local authority in Gloucestershire suffers considerably compared with neighbouring local authorities in terms of the amount of money that our schools receive. It would be especially unfortunate if the Bill added to that anomaly and I hope that the Government will not simply rely on the existing methodology to distribute the money under the Bill, but will consider carefully how anomalies arise and how they can quickly be put right.

I want the Government to tell us why they must distribute the money in that way at all. In London, the money is reimbursed on the number of journeys made. One could not ask for anything simpler. Each year, an estimate is made of the number of journeys and an amount is paid. At the end of the year, an audit is carried out, a reckoning is made and the Government are either reimbursed or pay out the extra money.

I am a great believer in keeping things as simple as possible. There are those in government who like to make matters complicated, because it makes them less transparent. I believe in a good democracy and total transparency. Part of the problem with all Governments, but especially this one, is that they need to keep amending the regulations and making more bureaucracy. Let us have less bureaucracy and keep things simple. The kernel of the Bill revolves around that fact. Why cannot we simply reimburse on the number of journeys made? After all, that is what happens in London. Why cannot that happen in the rest of the country? I am concerned about this complicated methodology and how the Government will reimburse local authorities.

Amendment No. 5 states:

``The appropriate Minister shall ensure that the methodology for compensating local authorities for expenditure under subsections (1) to (4) is published.''

One hopes that the Minister will publish some indication from the Government as to how they will deal with anomalies arising from the methodology, because to publish the methodology would be to say that the following local authorities are disadvantaged and the following advantaged, which would be unhelpful. It would be useful if the Minister would publish the information in a form that was helpful to local authorities.

Amendment No.3 to clause 2 would insert the paragraph on the amendment paper. Local government organisations represent local authorities, which can make representations to the overarching bodies, which can then discuss matters with the Government. The Government need to focus on the methodology; perhaps they have, but neither House has been told their conclusions. If we can be told how the local authorities will be reimbursed, those on local authorities who are listening to the debate and reading the report of proceedings will feel that the Committee has done a good job today and have much less anxiety about the Bill. If they are confident that the Government will fully reimburse them, they may be able to say, ``We have a bit of extra money so we can offer the additional scheme to some of the most vulnerable in society.''

The amendments are straightforward, but they have considerable knock-on effects. If the Government do not accept them, they should answer my questions so that we can decide whether or not to divide the Committee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Cotswold said. I was interested in his enunciation of the virtues of the various amendments; he gave the impression that amendment No. 3 was in his name, but it is not. However, I am delighted to learn that he would support it in a Division.

Without wishing to score debating points, I should say to the hon. Gentleman that although I agree with amendments Nos. 6, 7, 4 and 5, without the crucial amendment No. 3 they would be in vain. Amendment No. 3 would ensure that the scheme would not proceed until there was agreement between central and local government about the cost of introducing it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is right; I support his amendment No. 3. I hope that accepting the amendments will not give the Government an excuse to delay implementing the Bill, because it needs to be enacted before 31 December for the concessionary scheme to start working in London.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is right, but I suspect that the problems in London may be far greater than has been suggested. Indeed, the problems in implementation in other parts of the country may also be far greater than we anticipate.

I tabled amendment No. 3, and I support the other amendments in the group, in order to give effect to the commitments made on behalf of the Government in another place. On 24 July in Committee Lord Falconer said:

``We accept that the funding for delivering the increased concession—which means extending it to men between the ages of 60 and 65, which is not the present position—will cost money. That money will come from central government. A process will need to be developed whereby, properly, the amounts of that extra cost can be assessed between central government and local government. I made it clear at Second Reading—I make it clear again—that that is the objective that central government and local government must work towards in trying to reach a solution in relation to the funding. It will be done through the revenue support grant.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1905.]

Lord Falconer made it clear that the entire cost of the measure would be met by central Government. I hope that that commitment will be reaffirmed by the Ministers today. Like the hon. Member for Cotswold, I should like to know what progress the Government and the local government associations have made in developing a process whereby those extra costs can be assessed and then allocated to the individual local authorities. Those issues must be sorted out before the provisions of the Bill are implemented.

In an intervention on the hon. Member for Cotswold I raised another important issue that will have a significant bearing on the costs that will be borne by local government. There have been a number of concessionary fare schemes since the Eastleigh borough council case in 1990 when the House of Lords decided that the use of the pensionable age as a test for concessions was in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The vast majority of concessionary fare schemes have continued to be in breach of that Act. In view of the Williams case, the Government have now accepted the principle that it would be wrong to have concessionary fares at different ages for men and women.

I hope that we will hear a clear statement from the Government about what they believe to be the implications of that decision on all other concessionary fare schemes that are currently operating in the country. The London case raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold is a good example, but it is not the only one. If the Government are now saying that they accept that any concessionary fare scheme that discriminates by gender would be in breach of legislation, there will be a huge financial impact on many local authorities and London boroughs in particular. The Government must explain how that additional cost will be borne, not just the cost of the 1 million men already identified.

I hope that the Minister will make a clear statement about the issue. If we do not have a clear statement about the Government's view and the financial consequences, I suspect that organisations such as Parity will take all sorts of further cases to all sorts of courts at huge cost, when a decision was made by the House of Lords more than 10 years ago and long before there was a need to go the European Court. It is vital that we have some clear answers from the Government about these funding issues. Our decision whether to press the amendment depends on the Minister's answers on this important issue, so we will be listening carefully to every word that he has to say.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that one basis on which Williams brought the case in the European Court of Human Rights was the equal rights directive. It would be extremely unfortunate if, in passing the Act, we created a situation, particularly in London, in which someone could successfully return to the European Court. The Government will have to consider carefully how to deal with London, because it is clearly a major part of the scheme.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I for one would not mind if someone had to return to the court on a similar issue as long as they succeeded, as I am sure that they would. The hon. Gentleman's point was that that would be a fatuous exercise to have to undertake and, given the fact that one case has succeeded, the principles should now be applied across the board to all forms of concessionary fare schemes. On that point, we agree.

We have debated funding, and I want to find out whether the money that the Government are saying will be necessary for the scheme is the right amount. As well as answering the more detailed points, will the Minister tell the Committee whether the original proposal of £53 million is still deemed to be adequate?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but his points are important. Is he aware that the Association of London Government estimates that reimbursement in London alone will cost £28 million? That puts the Government's total figure of £50 million under severe scrutiny.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am aware of those figures, and we could trade figures backwards and forwards. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Plymouth, for example, has said that it will need about £250,000. Questions are being raised about the Government's global figure. The point is that it is difficult for the Government to form a view unless they have worked out a mechanism to calculate the figures that is agreed with the local government associations. The amendments address the mechanism and its agreement with local government associations on behalf of the councils that will have to operate the scheme. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear whether the Government are having second thoughts about the global figure as well.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I shall begin by referring to amendment No. 4, which is about the methodology for reimbursement. I served on a local authority that ran a reimbursement scheme based on usage, which seemed to work satisfactorily both before and after the Transport Act 1985. There was an obvious traffic generation issue, but the local authority, Oxford city council, was able to meet the cost of the bus companies, which competed effectively after the Act carried through by predecessors of my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Tewkesbury. That was an excellent and successful Act in that city. It is possible to devise a scheme that reimburses fully the number of journeys made, rather than one that makes predictions at the beginning of the year and then finds that there is not enough money at the end. That was a parenthesis on amendment No. 4.

I will pose a few questions about possible ways of reimbursing local authorities for the scheme's implementation and ask Ministers whether there are perverse incentives associated with different methods of reimbursement. Let us imagine the situation in three hypothetical authorities. Authority A offers no concessions to anyone under the age of 65; authority B offers the current requirement—a 50 per cent. concession for women, but not for men between the ages of 60 and 65; and authority C offers a 100 per cent. concession for travel to all women, but not to men between 60 and 65. Authority A is breaking the law, but requires reimbursement to be able to meet its obligations under the Bill. Authority B is providing exactly what the Government want at the moment, but will incur additional costs in providing what the Government want under the legislation.

The Government are committed to a 100 per cent. reimbursement of the additional costs of meeting the minimum requirements under the legislation. However, in my example, authority C is already providing more than is required and to extend the rights in the Bill to men, it would require twice the amount of expenditure per man—assuming equal use of public transport. Does the Government's promise to reimburse the full cost of meeting the requirements extend to paying £2 a head in London, for example, for every £1 a head paid on the Isle of Wight? If so, it is a wholly unfair system based on historical provision rather than a rational method of allocating resources between local authorities.

If the Government intend to provide £2 a head to people in London and £2 a head to people on the Isle of Wight, my local authority will not have any objection—but the Chancellor may have. Much additional money will be necessary and it may not end up being spent on bus concessionary travel. Will the Minister clarify the Government's commitment on that? An authority providing the minimum may get £2 a head for doing nothing. If an area did not have bus services but had the potential for them, would £2 a head be provided for every bus journey subsequently undertaken? The point is that £2 a head for London and £1 a head for the Isle of Wight would mean a significant imbalance. Obviously, I use those merely as examples and I am talking in general terms about metropolitan areas and areas that have provided generously on the one hand, and rural areas and areas with less generous schemes on the other. It is pouring money into areas of the country where a large amount of money has historically been spent and not into areas where little money has been spent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The Minister needs to tell us to which schemes the concessions will apply. His constituency, like mine, probably has a number of community bus schemes run by volunteers. Does the Bill apply only to schemes that get a bus grant or will schemes that get other grants also be eligible for concessionary fares?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is certainly a range of different types of bus service and other public transport services, which I shall come to shortly.

The second issue relates, again, to the imbalance in the size of areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned the journey from Inverness to Ullapool, which I confess I have never made. However, I have undertaken a number of bus journeys in my time from, say, Westminster to Walworth road. That journey takes me through the areas of three local authorities in London. If I were a pensioner and I went through three local authorities outside London, perhaps in Gloucestershire, my journey would not be eligible for any mandatory subsidy and in some areas no subsidy would be provided. However, there is a requirement on London authorities to get together to provide a scheme. Therefore, people in London have a benefit that I assume—I do not know the details—does not apply to people travelling from Cheltenham, through the Cotswold district, to Tewkesbury. That is unfair.

Again, additional resources will be put into London, because it already has a scheme. I am referring to a large area with 10 million people who can all travel by bus because a dense network of bus routes has already been provided. We can therefore assume a high take-up per person of bus journeys. If reimbursement is on the basis of the number of journeys made, we shall start with a heavy disposition of resources in favour of one of the richest cities in the country. The corollary is that that is paid for by some of the people with the least dense network of bus services, who are least likely to use those services or even to have an opportunity to travel on them.

Will the Minister comment on the fairness of a system that pours more money into London, because it happens to have many bus services and an area-wide scheme, as compared with the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Tewkesbury, where there may be no such scheme?

The law provides that an authority may make agreements with neighbouring authorities. The Isle of Wight, however, has no neighbouring authorities, so the local authority cannot make an agreement about reciprocal arrangements for a scheme even if it were willing to do so, which for the time being it is not.

My third point relates to local government reorganisation. The Government spokesman in the Lords said that it was likely that county councils would be abolished in the near future. We have already seen the results of that in my near neighbouring authority of Hampshire. Until recently, it had one local transport authority, but now there are three. I do not know what the particular arrangements are in Hampshire, but there is no requirement on Portsmouth city council, Southampton city council and Hampshire county council to formulate one travel zone so that travel concessions can be inter-operable. They are permitted to do so, but there is no obligation on them to do so.

Let us consider people who live just outside Southampton city in, say, Totton, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Is the Minister saying that Hampshire county council should not benefit from the money that the Government are putting aside to assist authorities to meet the costs of the Bill, because there is no legal obligation on that council to provide a concessionary scheme between Totton and the centre of the city of Southampton? Or is he saying, conversely, that where local authorities have got together to form an inter-operable scheme, the Government will provide for that scheme too?

I should like to know for which of the different modes of transport the scheme in London provides. I understand from the Library brief that

``the scheme provides free travel for passholders on bus, underground and the Docklands light railway (DLR) services.''

The hon. Member for Bath mentions the Croydon tram. I should like to know to which of the services the Government promise of reimbursement applies. Does it apply only to bus services?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold tells me that it applies to all such services, but will it apply to the Gosport tram, which is being constructed? Does it apply to water bus services in London? There is no mention of that. If it applies to water bus services in London, why does it not apply to water bus services elsewhere, such as between the Isle of Wight and Southampton, the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth or the Isle of Wight and Lymington?

A ferry is not different from a large water bus: it goes from A to B, it goes on water and it stops at various points. In most cases, two stops could easily be extended to three or four. Does the scheme apply to water taxis, which are merely a different kind of water bus? Some of them operate on an on-call basis, but others operate what is, effectively, a scheduled service. There was a scheduled service during the America's cup jubilee week between the Black Watch, a large cruise ship that was moored off Cowes, and the parade in Cowes, where champagne was drunk and entertainment took place. That would be a popular service on which to provide a concessionary fare for the many hundreds of rich Americans who stayed on the Black Watch and drank champagne on the parade at Cowes—at the expense of the Isle of Wight council, I might add and I am thankful for that—during the America's cup jubilee week. I hope that the Minister will deal with those questions when replying.

Finally, I endorse the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about traffic generation. It is well recognised that consumption increases if the cost of a commodity is lowered. That will surely be the case if we lower the cost of transport for a large group of elderly people. Whether they travel to work, as my hon. Friend suggested, or for leisure or education purposes, I have no doubt that there will be a great deal of additional travel. To what extent are the Government committed to dealing with the additional traffic generated by people taking advantage of the concessions?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned the differences in support provided within London and elsewhere and the consequences of that support. My greatest concern about the Bill—it is one reason why I strongly support the amendment—is that it sets financial support in the context of what exists today. It does not reflect the fact that many authorities, particularly those around London, are struggling to implement concessionary fare schemes because they have been forced to divert available funds into supporting socially necessary bus routes. The problem with legislation that bases compensation on current schemes is that it ratchets up the costs for any county councils that aspire to introducing a concessionary scheme but have not yet been able to do so. It makes it much more difficult for them to do that.

I will give the Minister a practical example from my county of Surrey. Its bus services suffer from great pressure, which comes from two sources. First, the bus routes in several areas are not adequately used by the population but, because they remain an essential artery for those who genuinely need them, the county council has rightly judged that it needs to support them. Secondly, bus routes in Surrey are adversely affected by the degree of financial support that is provided by central Government to transport in London; it is hugely disproportionate to that provided to services outside London. That has manifested itself most recently in the question of the survival of one route that runs across the border from Kingston-upon-Thames, through my constituency and into southern Surrey. The problem is that the introduction in London of a £1 flat fare for buses has meant that, on that route, operators that come out from central London as far as Epsom can charge £1 on their route, but operators that come back from Surrey into the fringes of London do not receive the same subsidy and so cannot charge the same fare. The inevitable consequence is that those operators will be driven off that route.

The knock-on effect of the operators losing what is probably the busiest and most profitable section of a long route that covers much of the rest of the county—it goes all the way down as far as Guildford—is that the remainder of the route is now under threat. The remainder of the route contains the only principal artery to several villages on the way, but it also represents the major bus service to one of the principal local hospitals. It is inevitable that if the subsidy that is provided to operators in central London causes Surrey operators to lose the most profitable part of the route and they ultimately decide that they can no longer provide the full service, the county council will have to step in and provide additional subsidy from the small amount that it has to support bus services in the county to enable the key parts of the route further into Surrey to survive.

In the past few years, Surrey county council has been working towards achieving a concessionary scheme that offers a 50p flat rate to pensioners in the county. It has so far been unable to do that, simply because so many of the resources at its disposal for public transport are being gobbled up in supporting bus services in the way that I described. The dilemma is that if Surrey county council continues to aspire to deliver a 50p flat rate concessionary fare scheme, it will cost it more money to do so. The only reason that it will not receive the funding that will be provided to other authorities that can provide such a concessionary scheme, is that it has had to support socially necessary schemes elsewhere.

The legislation fails to take into account that several local authorities in this country are working hard to develop and introduce concessionary schemes, but have yet to do so. There is a real danger that unless the financial support provided to local authorities that operate schemes is extended to those authorities that have schemes on the table and have realistic, short-term ambitions to introduce them, there will be fewer schemes, not more.

I urge the Minister for Transport to consider that issue as he considers the detail of the Bill and to realise, as he considers the amendments, that there must be complete transparency in setting out the parameters whereby local authorities receive funding as a result of the changes and Government support and decisions on concessionary fares in general. It is important that those people who are frustrated by the absence of concessionary fare schemes in their areas can see exactly what is being decided, where the money is going and why.

That becomes apparent with regard to concessionary fare schemes for people who live close to boundaries, especially in and around London. Many people live on the fringes of London and look with jealousy and frustration at their neighbours a few streets away across the London boundary, who enjoy totally or partly paid-for concessionary schemes, as a result of the additional subsidy in London. I receive endless complaints from pensioners in my constituency, who ask why their neighbours get a concessionary fare scheme but they do not. I suspect many Members receive similar complaints. That frustration will increase as they see the change come into force and men between the ages of 60 and 65 become entitled to concessionary fare schemes and yet their neighbours across the boundary cannot do so because of the distortion in public subsidy. That is why it is so important that we set out clearly the funding mechanisms and that the process becomes more transparent. People must be aware of the amount of money that goes to different authorities and of the fact that they have the right and ability to challenge that process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend raised an interesting point, which the Minister must tackle. If a local authority wishes to change the range of services eligible for a concessionary scheme during the year, will it be reimbursed at the end of the year? At the moment, the Government make a calculation at the beginning of each year, which determines the total amount that a local authority receives. That sets in aspic the range of services that a local authority can offer.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are going to operate in a prescriptive environment, a national scheme may be needed to ensure that disparities of funding do not occur among different authorities and neighbourhoods. The Government must consider that.

I hope that the Minister will welcome the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended and that he will offer the Government's support. Conservative Members have no desire to undermine the aspirations of the Bill; our goal is to ensure that it is improved when it leaves the Committee and that those improvements can make a difference to a subject that is a minefield for many.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Transport is important, especially these days. I acknowledge the great car-owning democracy, but many people do not own cars and cannot get about as they wish. Whether transport is for leisure purposes, to do vital shopping, or to visit hospitals, it is important to do what we can, particularly in the sort of areas represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and myself. Our constituencies include a few towns and villages with big spaces in between. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will help my constituents. I have received many letters on this issue, not only because of the difficulty of getting from one place to another, but because of the unfairness of the present situation. At the moment, local authorities have to offer concessionary bus tokens. They can offer further concessions at their discretion, but it can be controversial if they do not.

The national cost for the change of age qualification will be about £50 million. Presumably, administering the changeover will incur an extra cost. That cost may not be significant, but will local authorities be able to cover it? On the extra concessions that local authorities can provide, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, authorities are under greater pressure to grant concessions where the bus service is inadequate. I presume that if they do so, they will not be compensated. Counties such as Gloucestershire experience great unfairness. For example, Cheltenham borough is not under pressure to give further concessions because it is a small area and it is easier to get about. Someone living there who needed to get to hospital in Cheltenham would easily be able to do so, but it would be more difficult for someone living in Tewkesbury. Tewkesbury borough council or Cotswold district council will therefore be under pressure to give further concessions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend touches on a real problem in our area—I suspect that it is a problem in other rural areas. He will know that the health authority has tightened considerably the criteria for using hospital transport. In one or two cases, I have persuaded the county council to re-route bus services so that they pass Cheltenham hospital. I presume that people using those bus services will be eligible for the concessionary fare. That aspect of bus travel will become ever more important for people wishing to travel to hospital. Elderly people who need to go to hospital are the most vulnerable group and the scheme could help them.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend demonstrates that extra pressure will be placed on some areas and not others. He touched earlier on a further problem. I said that someone living in Cheltenham who wanted to go to hospital in Cheltenham could get there easily, and without the extra concessions they would be able to do so under the ordinary bus permit scheme. However, those who live in Tewkesbury would probably need an extra concession, but that will not be available. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the journey would cross borough borders and would therefore not qualify.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I confirm that cross-border arrangements are outside the scope of the Bill and that the amendments do not come within its scope. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to confine his remarks to the scope of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I certainly will, Mr. Stevenson; I am grateful for your guidance. I move to a slightly different point, which I hope is relevant.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Your ruling has raised an important point. The operation of cross-border schemes is clearly a matter of great concern. It seems to me—I should be grateful for your guidance—that the long title of the Bill is very wide. It says that it is a Bill to

``Amend the law relating to the age at which certain persons become eligible to receive travel concessions on journeys on public passenger transport services; and for connected purposes''

Why cannot cross-border schemes be included in the Bill if an appropriate amendment is moved?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to reflect that in the course of debate, but I was referring specifically to the amendments on cross-border facilities. I am advised that they are outside the scope of the Bill. However, in the ensuing debates, I have tried to allow the maximum flexibility to hon. Members so that they can make their arguments. Secondly, we shall have a clause stand part debate, when reference may be made to cross-border facilities. I simply point out that the amendments are outside the scope of the Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am grateful for your ruling, but I would appreciate further clarification. You have agreed to a debate on new clause 4, which relates to coach travel, which by its very nature is cross-border.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Again, I am advised that amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are outside the scope of the Bill because they attempt to change the format of existing travel concessions geographically rather than changing the age at which people become eligible for benefits. I realise that it is an important distinction, but as Chairman, I have to make it. The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold leads me to repeat that I have tried to allow the debate to be as flexible as possible. I intend to call a stand part debate and I am sure that hon. Members will want to refer to matters outside the Bill. However, I feel obliged to point out what is within the scope of the Bill and what is not.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I wanted simply to ask you to define a border, for the purposes of the Bill.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am tempted to speculate on that. I was fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of a water bus service as opposed to a ferry. I am sure that he is much more qualified than I am to make such a distinction.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I think that the net result of that exchange is that I must move on to a different point—but that I may be allowed to return to my original subject later.

We are talking about publishing a breakdown of the cost of travel concession schemes. How certain will the cost be? Many areas have two-tier local government, and bus transport schemes seem to be administered by the county council. However, the district council or borough council will run the scheme under discussion. To a large extent the provision of transport will be determined by the county council, possibly influenced by Government grants given as an encouragement. What impact will that have on the scheme, which will be run by the district council? It may be a matter of logistics or of finance coming through in one year rather than another. However, it is an important point, and I would be grateful if the Minister picked up on it.

Amendment No. 7 refers to the revenue support grant, one aspect of which always puzzles me. Can we be sure that local authorities, which will have extra requirements, will receive the total sum due to them through the revenue support grant system? Is there any possibility that the extra sum is given with one hand, while the other chips away elsewhere to withdraw money from another area? If an authority was given, say, a baseline figure of 100 and something cost five, would it receive 105 under the revenue support grant or 104 because one had been taken away from something else?

It is important that we consider that issue, as local councillors always tell me that extra work and burdens are placed on them yet the resources do not come their way. That has especially been the case in Tewkesbury, which has not received very generous revenue support grants during the past few years, forcing the council to decide whether to continue to provide services and to put up council tax. It is in that dilemma now, as it has to decide whether to put the council tax up after it has cut back on services. That brings us back to the issue about the further concessions that councils would like to offer but are not necessarily in a financial position to offer.

Given the restrictions that you rightly placed on me, Mr. Stevenson, I do not want to make any further remarks.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The debate has certainly been quite discursive, especially on an underlying issue that has run through debates on local government for several decades. If there is discretionary expenditure as well as minimum standards, that will inevitably lead to differences and anomalies, which will inevitably lead to arguments about whether people in different authorities are treated fairly by comparison with their next-door neighbours. Equally, there will inevitably be border issues in respect of service provision, be the differences perceived or real. That goes to the heart of the question of local discretion, because the only way in which to iron out such differences is to have national uniformity.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I fear that he might inadvertently have misrepresented the argument of this side of the Committee. When discretionary schemes become mandatory schemes, the discretionary ones tend to disappear. We saw that with student grants. We are concerned that the Bill, by introducing a mandatory scheme of which we wholly approve, will cause existing discretionary schemes to disappear. We have already heard anecdotal evidence of that from Birmingham and elsewhere. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that he does not wish discretionary schemes in Birmingham or elsewhere to disappear.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

First, I understand that the situation in Birmingham has been or is in the process of being remedied. I believe that that is happening under a number of other authorities. We certainly should not wish to see people becoming worse off as a result of the improvement. However, as has become apparent, local authorities have differences in priorities. Those differences can lead to anomalies between their residents and, inevitably, to comparisons being made. As I said, that goes to the heart of discretion in local Government and of the ability of local authorities to make distinctions.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

While I accept that the differences between authorities and the differences in funding provided to local authorities is not at the heart of the Bill, my point was that we should ensure that the financial action taken to accompany the Bill should not add to those differences and should not make it more difficult for local authorities to launch schemes in future.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Yes, but authorities have to, and do, make different decisions according to the requirements of their local populations. The Government have to deal with a different dilemma—to decide the extent to which national minimum standards are set and to deal with the financial consequences of that and of ensuring that local councils do not lose money. I appreciate that that is not the immediate purpose of the Bill, but it is an issue that has been underlying the debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold for explaining the purpose of the amendment. As has been clear throughout the debate, funding is an issue that will arise throughout our deliberations. I have listened to hon. Members, but I feel that I must disappoint them and urge the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 6 and 7. My explanation, in terms of the amendments, will not necessarily relate to all the issues that we have discussed, as we have covered broader issues.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are unnecessary. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounts already publishes information for each authority on concessionary travel scheme expenditure, along with information on other areas of local authority spend. In addition, amendment No. 7 is defective, because the rate support grant is only one element of the funding that councils receive for their revenue expenditure. It is not, therefore, appropriate to talk about a certain proportion of the grant being used to meet particular expenditure.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I do not have a reference to hand, but am I correct in saying that, one of the Minister's colleagues in another place said that the mechanism for funding this issue, and the finances arising from measures in the Bill, will come specifically from the rate support grant?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Yes, but a wide range of grants goes to local authorities for a wide range of expenditure. Therefore the percentage formula might not provide an accurate representation.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would add a further unwelcome layer of consultation into the local government finance settlement. As hon. Members are aware, the Government are already consulting local government on the review of grant distribution methodology in 2003-04. We know that local authorities are actively engaged in that discussion. In addition, the Government already consult local government on each year's provisional local government finance settlement.

Finally, amendment no. 3 would effectively hold the Government to ransom by preventing the Act from coming into force until an agreement had been reached with the local government associations on the level of funding. As I am sure the Committee realises, the danger is that that could delay the benefits of the Bill being enjoyed by men aged between 60 and 65. I am sure that that was not the intention, but it is the logical consequence of the amendment. It would gridlock the system.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Regarding amendments Nos. 4 and 5, is the Minister saying that the Government will simply tell each authority what it will receive?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are already involved in widespread discussions on the mechanics of the local government financial settlement. Ultimately, it is for the Government to decide. In the arcane intricacies of local government finance, the Government wish to engage with local authorities associations to achieve the best outcome and to modify the system to take account of circumstances. That is why those complicated negotiations are taking place, and why local authorities are deeply immersed and interested in them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It would be very helpful if the Minister were to explain how it will work in practice. He is negotiating with local authorities now on what they will receive. Will an audit system be in place at the end of the year to uncover discrepancies—for example, in the generation of extra traffic—so that local authorities that are disadvantaged will be reimbursed?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is a regular problem for local government, and not only with regard to transport finance, that when an assessment of anomalies is made an adjustment is proposed to take account of them. However, it has always been recognised that there will be winners and losers at the margins. That is a continuing feature of local government finance, and local authorities are not backward in coming forward in telling the Department of significant problems if such anomalies arise. Those changes then become incorporated into the methodology. We do not think that the suggested mechanisms are the right way to do it, because the process is already being undertaken.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister confirm that in the other place, Lord Falconer made it clear that the entire cost of the implications of the Bill would be borne by central Government; yet he has said today that there will be winners and losers? The implication is that the Government will seek to demonstrate that the total costs have been met in the round, but not for individual authorities. However, all local authorities will want to know that the full cost of implementing the legislation will be met by central Government. I hope that the Minister will explain how.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The mechanism will be that the extra costs will be fed into the rate support grant, at the lower end of the environment protection and cultural services block. All other things being equal, local authorities will broadly receive additional funding in proportion to their current share of the EPCS lower tier.

Several hon. Members rose—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. The Minister has not given way.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I give way to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am grateful. I pick up on a point that the Minister made a moment ago. If the process of consultation is happening, why should he object to amendments Nos. 4 and 5? If it is not happening, and he does not believe that the results of the process should be picked up by central Government—again, why would he object?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Quite simply, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary because they would create an additional layer of discussion as opposed to the discussion that is taking place already. It is very straightforward. They are unnecessary because, as I said to the hon. Member for Bath, we are committed to the new burdens principle, which requires us to reimburse local authorities the extra costs that they will face. We are working with the local authorities associations as we finalise our estimates of the financial implications for councils. I am aware that the Association of London Government made an estimate of £28 million of additional costs for London authorities. Our officials are engaged in discussion with them on those figures.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am still concerned, and I can see that the hon. Member for Bath is too, by the Minister's use of the word ``broadly'', which implies that there will be winners and losers among authorities. If that is to be the case, let us have it clearly on the record so that local authorities know where they stand. Will the Minister say why it is impossible to reimburse local authorities for the actual number of journeys taken, so that they are reimbursed precisely for the costs incurred, as is the case for London boroughs, which are reimbursed for each journey on which they give a concession?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the way in which the rate support grant works in any case. Discussions are taking place about the methodology for the rate support grant, and it is difficult to pick out one particular element. If significant anomalies arise, however, they will be drawn to our attention and taken into account in future settlements. That is the normal procedure for handling such a matter in local government.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath, who asked for specific reimbursement of additional costs, will the Minister say whether that will benefit the people in the authorities who are already getting additional benefit beyond the minimum laid down by the Government and disbenefit proportionately the people in those authorities who are not getting benefit beyond that minimum? Is the Minister saying, in fact, that he will pay to authorities—broadly or otherwise—only the sum that enables them to pay for the minimum laid down by Government?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

No. We are saying clearly that the change in legislation places an additional burden on local authorities. Accordingly, the Government will make money available to cover that additional cost. We are in discussion with the local authorities as regards the methodology involved, following the well-established procedure for the rate support grant. If that procedure throws up significant anomalies, local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman will probably accept, will not be backward about raising the issue.

The hon. Gentleman can see that there are several balancing items within the procedure that we are following. The funding of the extra provision needed for men aged 60 to 65 will be included in the annual local government settlement. As we always do under the rate support grant, we will consider the anomalies.

I assure hon. Members that local authority associations will be consulted on our proposals for the local government settlement and that we will listen carefully to their comments alongside all the other representations that will inevitably be made on other elements of the scheme. That will happen before we take the final decisions on the local government settlement. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold will feel free to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister. Since he clearly intends to draw his remarks to a close very shortly, will he answer an important question that I raised, and which other hon. Members touched on, about the Government's view on other current concessionary schemes involving an age distinction between the sexes? Those include London schemes in which, over and above the arrangements that the Government are concerned with, free passes are offered at different ages to men and women. Will the Minister categorically state whether it is the Government's view that any scheme with a different starting age for men and women is now in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or, equally, that it would be likely to cause problems in the European Court, were a case to go before it?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We would have to look at the detail. We would certainly examine the current state of affairs as to concessionary fare passes. I am not sure what other concessions the hon. Gentleman had in mind. Obviously, the local authorities in question would have to adjust their procedures to take account of our understanding of the legal position.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

In that case will the Minister accept that the Bill will give rise to additional financial burdens for some authorities, in view of the clear opinion that he has given of the status of the relevant provisions? Will those additional costs also be covered by central Government?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is for local authorities to draw to our attention particular schemes that they run, so that we can examine them together. The Bill deals with the specific issue of concessionary fares and prescribes a remedy for the problem in question. It also allocates Government funding to local authorities to cover that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that other schemes might give rise to similar legal requirements, the local authorities in question should raise the matter with the Department.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, and I apologise if I appear to be badgering him, but the point is an important one.

The Minister will know that in different parts of the country there are already travel concession schemes that are of greater benefit to the people there; nevertheless, those schemes—the freedom pass in London is just one example—operate at a different age for men and women. The Minister has just said that he believes those schemes would now be considered inappropriate and in need of change, in the light of the Government's decision about their own scheme. If the local authorities running relevant schemes are to make the changes, they will incur additional costs. The Minister has agreed that they can raise those matters with the Government. The question is how the Government will respond.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

At this stage we are dealing with the Bill. It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the freedom pass is not a concessionary fare scheme in the sense used in the Bill and covered by it accordingly. Is it not a concessionary fare scheme?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

So will any scheme of concessionary fares provided under any of the legislation referred to in clause 1, eligibility for which is equalised under the Bill, be funded by the Government?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

If concessionary fares are covered by the Bill, the Government will deal with that. We are committed to the new burdens principle, which means that we will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost that they face as a result of local authority concessionary fare schemes requiring action under the Bill.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

So in the case of a scheme that is not mandatory, such as an interoperable travel concession scheme between, say, Southampton unitary authority and Hampshire county council, which is available at the moment to men aged over 65 and women aged over 60, the Government will meet the additional cost to those two authorities to men aged between 60 and 65?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

If it is an existing scheme that must be amended to comply with the Bill, the Government will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for another opportunity to comment on the amendments before I decide whether to divide the Committee. The Minister has been helpful in that he has put it on the record that if any existing scheme, wherever it operates, currently operates a system of different ages for men and women, it will be reimbursed by the Government. That clearly included London, and the hon. Member for Bath is right—the Association of London Government has produced a figure of £28 million. I assume, therefore, that the Government's current estimate of costs of £50 million for the implementation of the whole Bill is a serious underestimate. If I have got that wrong I should be grateful if the Minister would intervene. The issue is very important. When considering the measure, we need to know the Government's best estimate of the cost of implementing it.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I will deal with that in my response.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for that. However, the Minister has still not answered a number of points. I know that he is trying to be helpful to the Committee, so I would like to press him on them.

The standard spending assessment methodology is all very well, but I have been involved with councils who have met the Minister to talk about why they have been disadvantaged. All councils do that—the Minister will have seen delegations from several of them. Unfortunately, a range of issues get put in a melting pot and so particular issues tend to be ignored. I cannot understand why, with modern accounting mechanisms, the actual cost of the schemes cannot be reimbursed. It seems so simple—the local authority would produce a complete list of all the journeys undertaken that qualified and the costs incurred and the Government would reimbursement it. There would be no question of any local authority being out of pocket.

I fail to understand why the Minister cannot adopt that system. It is at the heart of the amendments. We need a clear answer from the Minister as to why we must go through a complicated process involving the SSA, the revenue support grant, total spending assessment and all the other things that apply to local authority spending. The reimbursed sum will represent a very small part of the environment block grant and will therefore get lost in the wash. If the Minister gives me a clear answer to that question, it will be easier for us to decide whether to withdraw the amendments or press them to a vote.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I hope that I was clear, even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with my answer. I am advised that we can be confident in our £50 million estimate for England. We understand that the Association of London Government has estimated that the measures will cost more and we are therefore meeting its representatives soon to discuss the matter. Obviously, we cannot respond until those discussions have taken place. Although several interesting issues have been aired during the debate, we will resist the amendment for the reasons that I have given.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I still have not heard a clear answer from the Minister on why the actual costs cannot be reimbursed. He makes various statements that do not address that key issue. Unless I receive a clear answer, I shall press the amendment. I am giving the Minister one more chance. Why can local authorities not be reimbursed for the actual costs that they incur?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I believe that I have answered that question, so it is probably unnecessary to prolong discussions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As we have failed to receive a clear answer from the Minister, and as some local authorities will lose out under the measure, it is essential that we press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—

`(9) The appropriate Minister shall publish each year the number of users of the scheme by local authority area, with estimates for the age and employment profile of the users.'.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—Concessionary fares schemes (publicity)—

`. The appropriate Minister shall publish each year a list of the scope, benefits and eligibility requirements of every mandatory concessionary fares scheme offered by each individual local authority, and make such information available on the Department's website.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Having had that opening canter in the debate on the finance of the measure, we now come to the subject of the people involved. Amendment No. 8 would add an important provision to the Bill. Unless we had published information of the sort suggested in the amendment, we could not easily evaluate how well the scheme worked.

I have already referred to the problem of generation of use, especially in relation to men still in employment, and the effect in different areas. Of the 1 million men between 60 and 64 who will benefit from the Bill, 147,000 are still in some paid employment. If we estimate that 10 per cent. of them may be disabled, that leaves 127,000 non-disabled men still in work who would gain the benefit of the scheme. We wholly welcome that. However, it is incumbent on the Government to help us gather better information.

We need to know if, for example, the take-up of the scheme is low in an area relative to the number of pensioners, because we must ensure that individual local authorities have the appropriate advertising or other methods to inform pensioners that the scheme is available. There is no point in having a scheme unless it is used. Today, we have heard about a number of schemes; it is important that they continue. For example, we know of the scheme that had been operating in Birmingham since 1913 and was ended without any consultation with blind and partially-sighted people. The Minister told us in passing that the problem in Birmingham had been sorted out. I should be grateful if he would say how it has been sorted out, and that the scheme will be reinstated.

The Royal National Institute for the Blind has made a number of points. Blind people with white sticks have particular difficulty in travelling. If the schemes from which they have previously benefited are withdrawn they, more than the rest of us, face a real problem.

It is essential that we ensure that the scheme is taken up and that we help people with their quality of life. If we do not, people will become increasingly isolated, particularly in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury has mentioned the decline in the number of bus services—and do not forget that the scheme applies to bus and rail services. In rural areas such as his and mine, there are not that many services. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell has made the point that in city areas there is often more than one mode of transport. Amendment No. 8 is necessary so that we can be clear which schemes are being used in which areas. There is no point in operating a scheme unless we can persuade people to use it. If we cannot persuade them to use it, we should operate a different scheme—we need to be inventive.

The Minister has been very helpful in telling us that existing schemes where there is an age differential will be fully reimbursed. However, he did not explain—and I press him now—how local authorities will be reimbursed for new schemes that they might wish to operate. Nobody wants such provisions to be set in concrete. We want local authorities to come up with innovative schemes and it would be useful to know what mechanism will be available when a local authority proposes to change a scheme. I presume, but the Minister will tell us, that the local authority will have to consult his Department and it will have to approve such schemes. Perhaps authorities will have discretion in the matter. If they do, how will they be reimbursed for all the changes?

New clause 5 requires the Minister to publish each year a list of the scope, benefits and eligibility requirements of every monetary concession fares scheme offered by each individual local authority and to make such information available on the Department's website. That is a thoroughly good idea. All of us, in representing the people, want to improve people's quality of life. None of us has a monopoly of wisdom. Where one local authority operates a particularly innovative scheme, it would be useful for it to be detailed on the Department's website as that would allow other local authorities to gain from the knowledge. There might be a cost to that, but few benefits come without some cost. Details of best practice can be disseminated faster than ever using modern electronic communications. That would be a useful innovation to come out of the new clause. It would help if the Minister could say something about that.

It would also be useful if the Minister could say something about rail schemes. We have hardly mentioned rail today, but in many areas rail and tram services are becoming an increasingly useful form of transport. I know that the Government want to encourage such services. How does the Minister expect the Bill to benefit pensioners aged over 60—and those other groups covered by the Bill? We should not forget that the Bill covers disabled people over the age of five, people with impaired vision and learning difficulties and anyone who cannot apply for a driving licence. That wide range includes mentally impaired people.

One reason why the information should be published—officials are now scrabbling for their papers, so the Minister will doubtless tell me if I am wrong—is that, for one reason or another, blind people or mentally impaired people living near a mental hospital might not be benefiting from an existing scheme. I shall let the Minister answer; we shall then know whether we need to probe further.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. Before the Minister replies, I must advise the Committee that the Bill is about the age requirements of concessionary travel, not concessions for blind or disabled people. I should be grateful if Members would abide by that advice.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I understand that the Bill amends the Transport Act 2000. According to the House of Commons brief, Ministers announced on 5 June that the existing concessionary travel scheme would be extended to the disabled people described under section 146. Will you clarify your ruling as to whether the scheme does or does not include disabled people, because it is clearly an important consideration?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the Minister can help, but my advice is that the Bill amends the age requirement from 60 to 65 and that it does not deal with travel concessions for blind or disabled people. That is my advice and that is my ruling.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold for explaining the purpose of the amendments, which deal with the annual publicising of details of each local authority's concessionary fare scheme. We are not clear what effect the changes might have, but I shall deal with what I think are the main issues.

The Transport Act 2000 places a duty on all local authorities to offer their elderly and disabled residents a free bus pass giving them half fares or better on local buses. It is up to individual authorities to decide whether to offer further concessions over and above the statutory minimum. The Bill will change the statutory minimum requirement and provide the related funding.

The extent of concessionary fare travel schemes over and above the statutory minimum is best decided locally, in the light of judgment of local needs and circumstances and local authorities' overall financial priorities. I alluded to that in my previous remarks. Against that background, it would be difficult for Ministers to justify through statute regularly publishing information detailing each local authority's concessionary fare scheme, especially in the way in which it is described in the amendment. To obtain meaningful data, it would be necessary to undertake detailed on-bus surveys of the estimated age and employment profiles of users, and that would impose extra costs on local authorities that would produce marginal benefits. Concessionary fare schemes are the local authorities' responsibility within the statutory framework.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister is suggesting that taking on-bus surveys would impose additional costs on local authorities to no obvious benefit.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It would produce marginal benefits.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Most local authorities and bus companies will already be undertaking the collection of such data—the authorities to assess the costs of their existing concessionary fare schemes, otherwise they would have no data on which to base their budgeting for the provision of those schemes, and the bus companies to be able to judge where to provide bus services in future. It would be a peculiar scheme if that kind of data were not being collected.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Local authorities and central Government will from time to time assemble data to evaluate the success of schemes and best practice, but it would be a different thing to write that into statute and to have a statutory requirement on all local authorities on an annualised basis.

We are keen to see what changes local authorities have made and we are surveying all local authority concessionary fare schemes to get a snapshot and identify the changes. The results of that survey will be published next year. Ensuring that we have clear evidence and data available is not at issue; the real question is whether we need to enshrine that in statute and create a legislative matrix. We believe that that is unnecessary and bureaucratic and hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold will withdraw his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I can well understand that the Minister does not want to incorporate the requirement in the Bill. He says that it would create a lot of what he terms unnecessary work for local authorities. Nevertheless, I would have hoped that he might have accepted the purpose behind the amendments, because most of the work that I have outlined is sensible, especially the dissemination of best practice. If the Minister had told us today that local authorities should be doing that work and that his Department would co-ordinate it and make best practice available on its website, we could dispose of the amendment and not press it to a Division.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are very much in favour of pursuing that idea, either through our mechanism or through the local authority associations' information network, which also has websites. I do not think that the mechanism is a point of issue between us. The hon. Gentleman wants to encourage best practice and make specific information available, and I fully support him in that. I am sure that we can discuss with the local authority associations the best way to facilitate that. I hope that I have been helpful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That is extremely helpful. The Minister has given an undertaking that, in addition to funding, his discussions with the local government associations over the implementation of the Bill will include the implementation of best practice. That is helpful and, on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock till this day at Five o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Clause 1 - Eligibility for travel concessions: age

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Before I call the Minister, may I remind all members of the Committee to switch off their mobile phones and pagers; I take a dim view of anything that goes ring in the night.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. First, it is very nice to see you in the Chair—welcome back after your absence; we look forward to being under your chairmanship. Secondly, we had a discussion at the end of this morning's sitting about the scope of our debates on the Bill. I also had an informal discussion with your co-Chairman as to whether it was in order to debate other groups that might be included in the Bill.

The long title of the Bill states that it will

``Amend the law relating to the age at which certain persons become eligible to receive travel concessions on journeys on public passenger transport services; and for connected persons.''

The Bill principally seeks to amend section 240(5) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and section 146 of the Transport Act 2000. I have looked up those two sections, which, in addition to talking about people of pensionable age, discuss all other categories of people. I put it to you, Miss Widdecombe that if we are not allowed to talk about those sections of previous Acts which the Bill seeks to amend Standing Committees would become so narrow that it would be almost impossible to amend any Bill. It is unfortunate if we cannot discuss disabled people, blind people and people suffering from mental disabilities. If we are going to be ruled out from discussing those groups, interest groups outside this Room will be surprised. I seek your ruling on this matter.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I have, of course, already been appraised of what has gone on. There is a distinction between amendments, which must be limited to the strict scope of the Bill, and discussion, which it is within the discretion of the Chairman to allow to go slightly wider if it is deemed appropriate. Mr. Stevenson has allowed reference to the impact of age equalisation on other concessionary schemes, for example those concerning disabled and blind people. It is therefore my intention to take a very relaxed view during the stand part debate.

Mr. Clifton-Brown indicated assent.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Not too relaxed. I shall allow the debate to go slightly wide, but not wild.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Miss Widdecombe. How is your ruling affected by the words

``and for connected purposes''

in the long title? It seems to me that that allows scope for amendments in the way in which I have been proposing.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Bill has been drawn up in a narrow way. There has been a ruling, which I cannot overturn, by Mr. Stevenson that there must be a narrow interpretation of the scope of the Bill as far as amendments go, but that does not preclude discussion. The hon. Gentleman must make his case in the course of discussion if he wants us to reconsider that ruling.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

This clause is the substance of the Bill and directly provides for the age entitlement to concessionary travel to be equalised at the age of 60 for both men and women. Subsections (1) and (2) amend the Transport Act 1985 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 so that both men and women are eligible at the age of 60 for travel concessions granted at the discretion of local authorities in England and Wales.

Subsection (3) changes the definition in section 146 of the Transport Act 2000 so that elderly persons entitled to the mandatory half-fare concessions on bus services are men and women who have reached the age of 60.

Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales to link the provisions in the Bill to the formula in schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995, which provides for the age entitlement for state pensions to rise to the age of 65. Should the power be exercised, the link to entitlement to concessionary travel with state pensions would eventually be restored. In fact, orders made under the power would treat a man as if he were a woman born on the same day. The age of entitlement will still be the same for men and women, but it will gradually rise every couple of months, as prescribed in schedule 4 to the 1995 Act, until 2020, when men and women will be eligible for the state pension and travel concessions at age 65.

Subsection (5) provides for any orders made under subsection (4) to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

After that quick canter through the scope of the Bill, we should perhaps try to get the Minister to expand on what he envisages will be covered by it, by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and by the Transport Act 2000. As I have said, it is clear that those Acts, which we are seeking to amend, cover a wide range of other categories: the disabled, the blind, those with mental impairment, and all who would otherwise be unable to get a driving licence. It seems quite reasonable for those people to be included in such schemes. They form part of the overall sum that I referred to this morning, which the Government are giving to the people of this country in the form of travel concessions.

We have also discussed the important matter of the scope of clause 1 in relation to cross-border issues. I have already mentioned my local authority, Gloucestershire county council, which has five bordering authorities. Under the Bill as drafted, a person who travels from Mickleton to Evesham to shop, draw benefit or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said this morning—visit the local hospital will be unable to do so. That will put men aged 60 to 64 who fall within the scope of the Bill at a considerable disadvantage. In effect, we are creating two social groups: those who are already eligible by virtue of the 2000 Act and the 1999 Act, and the men who are covered by the Bill. The Bill could therefore perhaps be clearer on cross-border issues. Those Acts refer at length to journeys that are begun in one transport area and end up in the next, or that are begun in one area, cross another and end up in a third.

In particular, the Government need to clarify that issue in relation to the Prime Minister's wish for pensioners to be able to take long bus journeys, because they involve crossing many local authority boundaries. In that regard there is a certain amount of fog, and if the Minister could clear it my constituents would benefit, as would those who live in rural local authority areas that are lot smaller than mine. The chances are that such people will cross county or local authority boundaries much more quickly than do my constituents. The geographical area of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is much smaller than that of mine, and I have no doubt that many of his constituents will want to cross from Gloucestershire into Worcestershire and Warwickshire, and perhaps further afield into Wales. The example of the pensioner who takes a bus journey to Wales—it is true that the Bill covers Wales, but such a journey would cross from one jurisdiction to another—raises yet another problem. The Minister therefore needs to consider some of these issues carefully.

The Minister dealt with clause 1(4), which relates to schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995, a copy of which I have in front of me. I also have a copy of the table, which is quite long, covering two and a half pages. I am not sure where the Minister fits into that table, but I have an interest to declare because I come within it and would not be covered by the scheme until 6 March 2016. The Minister can quickly look at the table and work out my date of birth. We all have an interest in the matter and I suggest that it does not make much sense. If one concedes the principle that everyone aged 60 or over will receive the concession, can we realistically believe that any Secretary of State in the year 2010 will want to increase that age? Imagine him sitting in that chair and saying that he will not put it down to 60 for everyone, but that he will raise it to 67 or 68 for everyone to make it fair. There would be an outcry.

It would be worth putting on the record whether the Minister realistically expects clause 1(4) to be enacted and the pensionable age to be altered. Under subsection (5), an order must be made by statutory instrument in both Houses to do that. Unless the Minister's successor--I doubt that he will still be the Minister in 2010--intends to have the Standing Committee that considers the order particularly well under his control, I suspect that there will be difficulty in getting the order through.

Others matters will be discussed later. During our debates this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned waterways and I have some interesting news for him from the 1999 Act in relation to the precise matters that he discussed this morning and the Thames. However, before you rule me out of order, Miss Widdecombe, that is for a subsequent amendment.

Are we to have a reply from the Under-Secretary?

Mr. Spellar indicated dissent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

No. The Minister of State is going to reply. I hope that his response will clarify what other groups the Bill may apply to, the cross-border issues and whether he realistically believes that his successor will ever enact the pension age changes.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Thank you for calling me, Miss Widdecombe. I welcome you to the Chair.

I want to retrace our steps to some of the Minister's final words this morning when he gave certain pledges--I am grateful to have heard them--on support for the extension which the Bill requires to apply to non-mandatory as well as mandatory schemes, including cross-border schemes with interoperability of travel concessions between different local authorities. That is not of local interest to my constituents, because, as you know well, Miss Widdecombe, it has no borders. It is a matter of interest to most other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those outside the metropolitan areas. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred to the clash of criteria across the metropolitan boundary of London.

The Minister said that it was possible and, indeed, expected that the Government would support the extension of the scheme to cross-border travel. Miss Widdecombe, I would like to draw attention to a ruling by your co-Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, who said that the Bill does not apply to cross-border travel. I asked him for his definition of a border in that context because the Bill clearly applies across some borders, such as those where there in one scheme, whether it is a statutory or non-statutory scheme. It applies in the London area, where there is a statutory scheme and in an authority, such as Hampshire, between Hampshire county council and Southampton city council. Were there to be such a scheme between those two authorities—I have no knowledge as to whether there will be—the Minister's promise would apply, as would the Bill. I am therefore a little unclear as to which borders are and are not relevant under the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend raises a good point indeed. In the light of the vast Transport Act 2000, under which we are seeking to amend clause 146, I direct him to clause 147 to observe the gobbledygook that we pass in this place. I shall quote that to him, and to the Minister:

``The Secretary of State . . . may by order amend either or both of sections 145 and 146 for or in connection with securing that section 145(1)''.

Section 147(c) contains the real gobbledygook so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight to concentrate hard. It

``applies to a journey between a place in a travel concession authority's area and a place outside but in the vicinity of that area or to a journey between places outside but in the vicinity of that area (as well as to a journey between places in that area),''

If he understands that, he has done better than me. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain it so that we know how the travel concession scheme works.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I would very much like the Minister to explain that but, as I understand the procedures of this place, I must try first.

It is clear to me that a scheme can operate between, say, a travel concession area, such as Southampton city council, and a place just over the boundary—I take it that that is what is meant by ``in the vicinity of''—or between two places outside the boundary with or without a detour into the travel concession area. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong. That demonstrates that the particular border of the travel concession area is, to some extent, irrelevant as far as travel concessions are concerned.

When I was a member of Oxford city council, if I remember correctly, the scheme provided for people who lived on council estates that were outwith the city boundary. Oxford city council provided for them to be eligible for membership as if they were within the city boundaries. I am still a little unclear as to why certain boundaries cannot be considered under the Bill and others fall under it. I would like the Minister to explain that.

I will now return to questions that I asked this morning and to which, I regret, I received no answers. The Minister may recall them, so I will not state them in detail, but the first referred to the imbalance of concession between, say, the London area and a rural area. If an area already has a more expensive scheme, the Government will effectively spend more on supporting it than on one that is less expensive. I described it as giving money to the rich areas. In fact, it is to them that hath shall be given, and to them that hath not shall be given absolutely nothing—at least, not very much. That seems an unfair aspect of the Bill.

I understand the concern that the Minister would face in London if he supported the extension of the scheme by only 50 per cent. On the other hand, equal concern exists in rural areas that money, which the Minister is putting aside, is being diverted to favour metropolitan areas even though rural areas have more difficulty with transport and schemes in those places may be less expensive per head—I nearly said per man—because of the dearth of transport there. That runs contrary to the Government's objective of enabling more public transport to be provided in rural rather than urban areas.

My other point concerns the types of transport that are eligible for support. I mentioned earlier that there is no reference, so far as I am aware, to water taxis or water buses in any of the legislation. I asked whether the Bill covers travel concessions on those means of transport, but the Minister could not answer this morning. Can he do so now?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

In section 240(6) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, another of the sections that we are amending,

```independent transport service operator' means any person, other than a person to whom subsection (7) below applies''.

It goes on to list those who may become an independent transport service operator, and refers to

``(f) an undertaking providing public passenger transport services on the river Thames or a tributary of the river Thames between places in Greater London or between places in Greater London and places outside Greater London.''

My hon. Friend may have been taken as being wide of the mark this morning, but talking about water taxis gives him a precedent. If people in London can get concessionary fares on transport on the Thames, I see no reason why the Government should not extend the concession to his constituents travelling from the Isle of Wight.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that example. Clearly, by that definition, the river Thames is both above and below the high tide mark. I believe that the tide runs to Teddington, so the provision does not apply simply to non-tidal waters. I therefore expect it to be possible in the future, if not in this Bill, to provide the concession to travel on water taxis, water buses and other passenger ferries plying between places on the Isle of Wight and the mainland.

The Minister does not seem to have provided clearly for that extension and I can understand why: he hopes that it will not take place. We will consider that later. Nor has the Minister provided for traffic generation. Several of my hon. Friends and I asked about the consequences of traffic generation in providing resources to meet the costs of the Bill. As I recall, the only promise that the Minister has made is to reimburse the costs of extending the concession. Does that promise apply only to the first year, which would upset local authorities, does it extend infinitely, which might upset the Chancellor—although I am happy with that—or does it extend to some time in the future, yet taking account of traffic generation? Clearly, traffic generation, as I mentioned earlier, will result from the legislation. The Government have made, or declared, no provision to take account of that and reimburse local authorities for the cost of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's answers.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I retain two areas of anxiety about the impact of the clause. First, although the Minister was pressed quite hard earlier on the likelihood that local authorities will be completely reimbursed for the extra costs incurred, some of his comments—he used the word ``broadly''—left me unconvinced that when the small print is examined in detail by every local authority, they will find every last penny met. The implication is serious, not simply because of the impact of this legislation but because in recent years central Government have developed an unerring habit of introducing new rules, regulations and stipulations, which they require and expect local authorities to implement, but examination of the detail reveals that local authorities end up having to pick up part of the bill. Consequently, year on year, local authorities pile up extra financial burdens, which, however small, leave them with less disposable income to spend on local services.

I hope that the small print of the Bill will not lead to local authorities ultimately incurring extra costs. I take the Minister back to his use of the word ``broadly''. Can he give us an unequivocal statement that if any unforeseen circumstances emerge that affect individual authorities, it will not be a matter for debate because the Government will be committed to picking up the tab?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend raises an important point, to which the Minister did not give a clear response this morning. In practice, when a local authority discusses its standard spending assessment with the Government, a range of issues are bundled up into one. I suspect that this would be just one of those issues and unless the situation became extremely serious it would probably be forgotten. Nevertheless, it has an impact on the council tax and we all know about the recent large rises in council tax in shire counties.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is often easy for those in central Government to forget the disproportionate impact that small amounts of money can have on the council tax. Such a high proportion of local government finance comes from the centre and only a relatively small proportion is raised through the council tax, that even the smallest adjustment or shortfall in a local authority's available funding can have a significant effect on that tax. The cumulative effect of that happening in several different areas can have a significant effect on the ordinary taxpayer.

Secondly, many authorities, such as mine in Surrey, have not yet been able to develop the breadth of concessionary fare schemes that they would wish. That is the result of various factors. The case that I described to the Minister this morning arose because Surrey has had to divert its resources for public transport into supporting a number of socially necessary bus services. The council retains the aspiration to introduce, as soon as possible, a flat rate 50p fare for buses across the county. The Bill will make it more expensive for it to do so and it will not be entitled to receive any compensation. Will the Minister consider introducing a period—not open ended, but time limited—in which new schemes can be introduced that will still benefit from the compensatory package that is available?

At its most basic level, the content of the Bill presents little reason for debate or question, but when one examines the practical consequences of even the most simple legislation, potentially adverse effects on local communities can become evident. I hope that the Minister will accept the comments of Conservative Members in the spirit in which they are intended.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on another matter that he mentioned this morning—that is, how local authorities will introduce new schemes? We need to know what sort of discussions with the Department will be required in order for them to get clearance to do so. This morning, the Minister made the important concession that the Government will pay for any existing schemes that rely on unequal ages. That seems to give a green light to all local authorities to hurry to introduce schemes before the Bill is implemented, after which there will be a two-tier system.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My hon. Friend makes a valuable and important point to which the Minister will be well able to respond. That is another example of the fact that what is at first glance simple proposed legislation can throw up some significant complications. I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments and take them into account in the structure of the legislation. If, however, we cannot convince him to make the small number of modifications suggested by Opposition Members, then at the very least I hope that he will accept the spirit in which the proposals are being made. When he deals with authorities and sets future funding parameters, I hope that he will remember hon. Members' contributions and take them into account in reaching future decisions.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

May I start by welcoming you to the Committee, Miss Widdecombe? It is always a pleasure to work with you.

I want to touch on one or two of my earlier arguments that the Minister did not fully address when he wound up the debates on the amendments. I should also like to pick up some points that have already been made.

This morning, I said that the Bill addresses a real concern because transport is important. In my constituency, which is not as large as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) but is nevertheless very big and contains several towns and many villages, transport is a problem. We have bus services but they are inadequate. Whether children are travelling to school or pensioners and older people are travelling to do their shopping or go to hospital, the situation is unsatisfactory. The Bill goes some way towards addressing that problem but, as my hon. Friend said, there are still gaps that we should like further to explore.

Two particular areas concern me. The point about the cost to the local authority has been pressed with great determination by my hon. Friend, but he has not got the answers that Opposition Members were seeking. We are all in constant touch with our local authorities: it is not only the Tewkesbury local authority that says it is being given more to do without being compensated and it is not only Tewkesbury that is complaining about the support that it gets from the Government. When it sees another scheme being proposed, it is naturally concerned about the financial impact. We have heard that there will be general compensation—that was not quite the word that the Minister used, and if he would like to remind me of exactly what he said I should be grateful.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Broad.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Yes. Local authorities broadly will be covered. Tewkesbury local authority could argue that local authorities broadly get increases in the revenue support grant, which Tewkesbury has not received. The broad concept is unsatisfactory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has also pressed the question why we do not compensate local authorities for the exact costs that they have incurred, which seems sensible. I accept the Minister's point that that does not always happen in every aspect of local government, but there are aspects in which it does. Several transport schemes are promoted and managed by the county council and the Government give it grants to promote those schemes. However, the borough council will be responsible for administering this particular scheme. There is an obvious gap: an agreement could be made on how much Tewkesbury would receive, but during the financial year Tewkesbury's requirements could change considerably. How broad is the Government's guarantee? It strikes me that this could create a big problem for Tewkesbury.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend has hit upon an important point. The county council is the precepting authority, but the district or borough council is the collecting authority. The county council sets the scheme and raises the money, but the district council has to collect the money and operate the scheme. This is an anomaly that has not been properly addressed in the Bill.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The county council largely determines the council tax that will be raised because it has the bigger budget. However, Tewkesbury borough council would be blamed for the increase because it sends out the letters. Anything that the county council does directly impacts on what Tewkesbury has to collect. If the Government increased the money for Gloucestershire to introduce new bus routes, Tewkesbury would then have to administer the scheme. I accept that the Government might one day finance that, but there is a big gap in between.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It appears that there are different arrangements in some shire counties from those pertaining in others. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said on 4 July that pensioners in his constituency would benefit from the new arrangements in the Government's scheme for half fares. The pass is valid in the area covered by the local authority--in his case, that is Suffolk. That implies that the power is common to both shire and shire districts. In some parts of the country, it is operated by the district and in others by the county. That is anomalous and deeply unfair because some people will be able to travel the breadth of Suffolk, but others will be prevented from travelling the length of Gloucestershire. The Government overlook that unfairness at their peril because boundaries in rural areas are often wholly arbitrary.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for throwing more confusion and complication on what is already a difficult situation. He demonstrates how difficult it is. No doubt the Minister will explain how Tewkesbury can be satisfied that it will be fully compensated for what is, on the face of it, a sensible measure.

My other point concerns costs for places such as Tewkesbury and it will certainly apply also in Cotswold. Under current legislation, the borough council can make discretionary concessions. In areas where there are few buses or in very large areas, there will be more concessions and the requirement on those authorities will be greater. For example, Cheltenham and Gloucester are self-contained and people can live there without leaving them unless they want to, but it is different in country areas where the concessions will have to be greater. Equalisation of the age will increase the cost of the extra concessions. It could be said that Tewkesbury does not have to give them, but I know from my mailbag that there is a great requirement on Tewkesbury to give them. The extra cost arises not only from the mandatory concessions, but from the additional concessions, which the Government will not finance. I want them to be clear about the knock-on effect for Tewkesbury.

We have heard about crossing borders and that it important in my constituency. It is ridiculous that some villagers with Worcestershire postcodes will be unable to travel to Worcestershire because they live not in Worcestershire but in Gloucestershire, although they have Worcestershire postcodes. They will be unable to travel to Evesham, for example. People who live in places outside Gloucestershire with Tewkesbury postcodes will be unable to use the scheme to travel to Tewkesbury. What is even more worrying is that none of the 12,000 people living in Churchdown in my constituency--it is one of the largest villages in the country and only a few miles from Gloucester and Cheltenham--will be able to travel to Cheltenham hospital because they will not qualify for the concession as they will have to cross a borough border. We have only one or two cottage hospitals in my constituency, so if they need even semi-major treatment, the Bill will not cover them when they go to those hospitals. It is difficult to design a scheme to suit everyone, but the Government must deal with the problems that I have outlined.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The Bill equalises the availability of concessionary fare passes to men and women. The financial side of the Bill seeks broadly to compensate local authorities for the additional costs that they incur in the course of that equalisation. According to my hon. Friend the Whip, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who was on the Committee that considered the Transport Bill in 2000, some of the measures that cover borders were supported and encouraged by the Opposition, especially because the areas where borders were crossed often related to the activities of specific operators.

Many of the relevant matters are for the discretion of the local authorities. Under the Bill, and subject to discretionary decisions that they take, the Government will compensate authorities for the additional expenditure that they bear as a result of the legislation. Borders, water transport and other such matters have been covered by previous legislation and are for the discretion of local authorities. If we allowed discretion for local authorities on the scheme, we would end up with differential conditions. That is the nature of discretion and of local autonomy.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to return to my argument. It is tremendously important, although less so in places like London, which has huge sums of money available to support bus services, than in shire counties where the sums are relatively small for the great demands on them. Will the Minister assure us that those councils will not lose out and will not have to divert resources from other programmes to support the scheme because the Government have not fully funded them? The answer should be a simple yes or no.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I have described the re-funding provision at considerable length on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members seem to hold the view that the streets of London and other metropolitan authorities are paved with gold. Any examination of the poverty indicators, ward by ward and borough by borough, would dispel that impression. I accept the fact that extremes of poverty and wealth live alongside each other in London and to an extent in other metropolitan areas as well. It should not be assumed that wealth is universally spread across the city.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I would like to dispel the Minister's impression: there is as much poverty in rural areas as there is in London. As I suggested on Second Reading, there should not be a postcode lottery on fairness. The people of London can cross one borough and still receive a discretionary fare, so why should people living in rural areas not cross from one borough to another and still get a concession?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Local authorities can come to local agreements to that effect, as they have in London and the metropolitan authorities. That is the nature of local discretion. If the predominant political tendencies in those areas have declined to provide such services, that is a matter for history. It cannot be tackled in the Bill, which has the narrow purpose of dealing with age equalisation and the consequential financial reimbursement to local authorities.

The hon. Member for Cotswold talked about pensionable age and asked whether, when the changeover starts in 2010, a future Parliament will implement the regulation to begin the process towards harmonisation at 65 in 2020. Parliament has already taken the step of moving towards equalisation of pension age, which is a substantial change. He pointed out that a considerable number of people aged between 60 and 65 would still work under the system and would not be in receipt of pension while harmonisation was being attained. The position is logical and will commend itself to a future House, but in no way could we bind that House. I am sure that the Committee and the House will agree that we are providing the mechanism by which a future House can harmonise both the age of attaining pension and that of eligibility for a concessionary fare pass, for the reason why such passes were introduced in the first place.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I draw the Minister back to the first part of his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. He spoke of discretion. The point that he has failed to mention—I am sure that he has not failed to grasp it—is that in London there is no discretion. There is a requirement—imposed by a previous Government and reiterated by his Government through legislation—that cross-border travel be provided for. It is unfair that Londoners should be reimbursed at a higher level because there is an obligation affecting London but not other areas.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

My recollection—I am prepared to check the record—is that the obligation arose out of the abolition of the Greater London council, which had already provided such a facility. Had that abolition been accompanied by the removal of the concessionary fares scheme, I suspect that that move by a Conservative Government would have been even more unpopular than it was.

That scheme was introduced again by the democratic decision of publicly elected authorities in London. Opposition Members cannot keep raising matters that have been decided for good local reasons by the elected local authorities in certain parts of the country. Some have decided not to adopt such a scheme. We are saying to those who have adopted such schemes that the legislation will impose additional costs. We are therefore seeking to provide money to recompense them for that. I commend the clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has got half way there. I accept that details of schemes already in existence were decided by previous Acts, and that this Bill merely seeks to alter the age. Nevertheless, I do not think that the Minister deviated enough from his definition of ``broadly'' to ensure that every single local authority will be fully reimbursed by this measure. Under those circumstances, we cannot do anything other than vote against the clause.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 6.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. It is unprecedented in my nine years in the House for a Government to draw on the Chairman's casting vote in a Division on clause stand part, particularly when the Government has a majority of the size of this Government's. It is incompetent management on the part of the Government not to get enough of their people into the Committee to ensure that they can win such votes.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

It is not for me to comment on the competence or otherwise of any Whips who might be members of the Committee. I can only reiterate my decision that the Bill must be preserved in its original form and that therefore clause 1 stands part. However, before I come to clause 2, I make the gentle observation that interventions should be interventions and not speeches masquerading as interventions. Clause 2 Commencement and transitional provision

Clause 2 - Commencement and transitional provision

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The clause contains the commencement provisions. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State in England, or the National Assembly of Wales, to bring the provisions of the Act into force by order. Subsection (2) is necessary due to the different legislative situation in Greater London. The concessionary travel scheme operated jointly by the London boroughs granting free travel under the freedom pass is linked to the boroughs' financial year, commencing on 1 April. Clause 1(2)—the amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999—will be brought into force to take effect from the beginning of any financial year.

Subsection (3) is also necessary because of the legislative position in Greater London. The terms of the borough scheme must be agreed between the boroughs and Transport for London by 1 January in any given year if it is to become operative at the beginning of the following financial year. That allows the London boroughs to make advance arrangements for Transport for London under 240(1) and (2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 on the assumption that there is in force a requirement to grant travel concessions to men aged 60 and over, even before clause 1(2) comes into force.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am not sure what the Government's intentions are. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, because he has touched on the point that I raised on Second Reading and in the Committee this morning about whether the Government expect to have the Bill on the statute book by 31 December 2001 so that Transport for London can start to operate a revised scheme at the beginning of the next financial year in April 2002. I would be grateful if the Minister were to clarify that matter because it is important for Londoners and for Transport for London, which has the unenviable task of trying to make the scheme work.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have a simple question, which hardly needs to be dignified with the title of a speech. The commencement of transitional provision will take effect from a date or dates to be nominated by the Government. What is the date on which the Government will determine whether additional resources have to be provided for the implementation of the Bill? Has the date already passed, or is it the date immediately preceding that on which the different elements of the Bill are to be implemented? A local authority or group of local authorities might implement a scheme that did not fulfil the requirements of the Bill, but was otherwise legal and in accordance with the authorities' discretionary powers, between now and the date given by the Minister for the commencement of the Bill's provisions. If certain authorities did so, would the Government accept the obligation—as stated earlier by the Minister—to compensate them for the cost of implementing the Bill on top of their scheme?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

On the question of implementation, the arrangements for London are different because of the different provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 compared with other local authority legislation. We would obviously aim for a common date for the implementation of the scheme. As we said, that would be in 2003 at the latest.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That was precisely the point that I was trying to make. If it does not come into operation in 2002, Transport for London will have the unenviable task of having to decide whether to delay implementation until 2004 or to carry the burden itself between 2002 and 2003. Will the Minister clarify that point?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

First, we shall be seeking a common date for implementation. Secondly, as we exhaustively set out in the debate on the previous clause, we shall ensure that compensatory arrangements are in place and that local authorities will be broadly compensated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is assured.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked about the level of scheme. Negotiations will be taking place in 2002-03 for funding in 2002-03 and 2003-04. Inevitably, there will be discussions between the local authorities associations and the Department on the precise date for which schemes should be considered for incorporation, of which discussions with the Association of London Government are but one.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Short title, interpretation and extent

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (4).

The amendment removes the standard provision inserted by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Subsection (1) gives the Bill its short title. Subsection (2) defines the appropriate Minister—that is the Secretary of State in England, and the National Assembly in Wales. Subsection (3) provides for the Bill's provisions to apply to England and Wales only.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

What parallel discussions are to be held between the Department and the National Assembly for Wales on bringing the Bill into force on a common date? What arrangements are in place for cross-border issues in Wales? Will the Welsh Assembly treat the whole of Wales as one authority? If so, it gives even more force to the argument that I and my hon. Friend have put, that cross-border issues should be addressed by the Government, even if not in the Bill.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My question is more a matter of information than anything else. The Bill clearly relates to England and Wales. Will the Minister assure me that any extra costs incurred as a result of similar steps being taken in Northern Ireland and Scotland will not result in extra costs to the United Kingdom public purse but will be met from existing budgets controlled by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? There would otherwise be a question over financial implications beyond purely devolved matters.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

My understanding is that they will be met from existing budgets. Indeed, I understand that Scotland is debating the balance of funding between different items on several such issues. As for Wales, we expect equalisation for eligibility for travel concessions to start at the same time as in England—that is in April 2003. Our officials are also talking with representatives from the National Assembly for Wales and are keeping in touch on a regular basis to ensure that there is a degree of common practice.

As to the extent of the concession in Wales, I am not entirely sure what stage the Assembly has reached, but I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Scheduled train and ferry services etc. (no. 2)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—Scheduled coach services (No.2)—

`.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this Act taking effect, bring forward regulations to provide that elderly persons who travel as foot passengers on scheduled coach services shall enjoy travel concessions no less favourable than those provided under section 1 of this Act; provided that, before bringing forward regulations under this section, he shall consult such service providers as he deems appropriate.

(2) In this section ``elderly person'' means a person who has attained the age of 60 years.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The new clauses principally arose from the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and cover ground previously covered in the Committee. We believe that other forms of transport should be considered in the concessionary scheme, especially for men aged between 60 and 65. My hon. Friend will speak for himself, but I can imagine that some of his constituents will want to make the journey regularly across the Solent, especially men aged between 60 and 65 who live on the island but work on the mainland. People who live on the mainland may travel to the island for work and use the service regularly. For all those men of that age who use that service, I would be grateful for an explanation from the Government.

I have already quoted the passage in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, in section 240 (6)(f), whereby Transport for London provides a concessionary scheme for

``passenger transport services on the river Thames or a tributary of the river Thames between places in Greater London or between places in Greater London and places outside Greater London.''

The principle is therefore already well established in London that concessionary schemes can be operated under those circumstances, and the Government may want to consider it in the exceptional circumstances of people crossing the Solent.

We have not discussed train services at all during our proceedings. How would local authorities operate the scheme for those services, given that most people using them would cross from one local authority area to another?

I will finish with those brief remarks, as time is of the essence, and we should quickly conclude our discussion of the new clauses.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have little to add to what my hon. Friend said.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I, albeit rather belatedly, also welcome you to the Committee, Miss Widdecombe.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold for explaining the purpose of the proposed new clauses, but I must ask the Committee to disappoint him. Both new clauses would extend the provision of statutory concessionary fare schemes to other modes of transport, including trains, ferries, metros and long distance coaches. Local authorities have discretionary powers under the Transport Act 1985 to extend their schemes to other public transport services if they consider that to be in the best interests of local needs. Extending the provision of concessionary fares to other modes of transport—rail and ferry services have been mentioned—is an attractive proposition. Some local authorities already offer wider schemes; London is probably the best example, but there are others in which concessionary travel extends to metros and local train services.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. If I may, I move that the question be put.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am afraid that I am going to allow adequate time for debate on this question.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Some of the points to which I was going to respond seemed to be of particular concern to Conservative Members. I should have thought that they would have wanted to wait for some response.

There is nothing to prevent local authorities from offering concessions if they think that that will benefit their elderly and disabled citizens. The provisions of the Bill will extend the same benefits to many aged 60 or over. So far as making statutory provision for cheaper fares on other modes of transport is concerned, we have to return to the issue of cost. In England alone, local authorities spend £490 million per year on their schemes. The provisions of the Bill could cost them an additional £50 million a year.

I notice that there is mention in the clauses of sub-surface and ferry services, without any further definition. I assume that that applies to mainland services and does not include, for example, cross-channel services, which would extend the scope of the Bill very widely and add greatly to the cost.

New clause 4 refers to concessionary fares on long-distance scheduled coach services. Hon. Members will recall that I announced to the House on Second Reading that we had agreed in principle to a proposal under which coach operators would offer a half-price fare to older and disabled passengers on long-distance scheduled coaches in England. In return for those concessions, operators would, for the first time, receive a fuel duty rebate, as recommended by the Commission for Integrated Transport. Many older and disabled people rely on coaches to travel long distances, and will welcome half-price fares. The announcement, which is a further demonstration of our commitment to combating social exclusion, has been widely welcomed, not least by the coach industry. We shall now consult the industry to work out the precise details of the scheme.

The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are consulting in parallel with a view to agreeing how best to co-ordinate the arrangements throughout Britain. I am sure that the best way of achieving our objectives is to accept the Commission's proposal linking concessionary fares with fuel duty rebates. There is no need to include that proposal in primary legislation, nor would it be appropriate, given that we are talking about long-distance journeys, to bring the arrangements within local concessionary schemes. In the light of the outcome of the discussions with the industry, I shall bring forward regulations during the course of the year that will make the necessary arrangements for the payment of fuel duty rebate.

Conservative Members also raised the matter of a statement by the Prime Minister on 4 July. That stated that concessionary fares were to be extended to long coach journeys through the means that I have described. There is no issue about linking that statement with this Bill. I do not know which statement is being considered, but these arrangements are certainly reflected in the answer that was given by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has repeated his point about the ability to cross the Solent.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I apologise to you, Miss Widdecombe, for being late?

The Government have many transport issues under consideration and, although the Liberal Democrats did well in the last general election and our numbers have swelled, there are not enough of us. In view of the Minister's remarks about the progress that is being made, could she give some clearer indication of the likely date for the implementation of the half-fare scheme on coaches?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

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.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has repeatedly talked about people crossing the Solent to look for work and attend hospital appointments. As has been said, local authorities have the discretion to extend the scheme, and I understand that some health authorities are talking to local authorities about making such a provision.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The point is not so much that the local authority has no power to make the payment, but that it is unfair that part of a long-distance journey undertaken by someone from my constituency that begins with a ferry service and connects with a long-distance coach service is not paid for nationally, despite the fact that it cannot be undertaken by coach because there are no long-distance coach services from my constituency. Instead, Ministers expect the local authority to pay the subsidy.

The Prime Minister boasted that he was providing travel concessions at a national level for coach services, but people cannot access those services from the Isle of Wight unless they first access a ferry. It seems only fair that the provision should be funded nationally.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Local authorities throughout the country considered the needs of their communities and provided concessionary fare schemes before the Bill was introduced. Some had extended them to take the needs of their communities into account. They saw doing so as part of their responsibility and service to the public. We have extended the provision dramatically for old people and continue to improve it. However, local authorities, health services and others should play their part as well. The local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's area can use their discretion to provide services for local people. The issue has been dealt with repeatedly on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and we have probably exhausted it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Under-Secretary say something about train journeys? In line with the Prime Minister's statement in column 259 of Hansard for 4 July 2001 that pensioners should be able to get concessions on long journeys, will her announcement on long-distance coach journeys cover pensioners' long-distance train journeys as well?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

No. We have prioritised buses because of their role in local transport services, and have not included trains. We are providing for concessionary fares on coaches, albeit through a slightly different mechanism.

On the basis of what I have said, and given that Opposition Members hope to get through the remaining clauses reasonably quickly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would deal more sympathetically with the points made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. She has not appreciated the fact that not only residents of my constituency travel back and forth from it to the mainland. One reason for the new clauses was the Prime Minister's boast on 4 July. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said to him:

``Pensioners are . . . asking for a concessionary scheme for longer distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?''

The right hon. Gentleman replied:

``We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys.''—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.]

A pensioner from Suffolk can take advantage of the scheme that the Government are proposing, which will get them as far as Southampton, but they cannot then get to the island by taking advantage of a similar concessionary scheme—terrific. The concessionary scheme is funded nationally by the fuel duty rebate and it should enable people to reach all corners of England and Wales, not just those corners that happen to be on the mainland.

New clause 4 is designed to put the concessionary coach fares scheme on a statutory footing because what the Government give today they can take away tomorrow—if not this Government, another one. I would like to make it clear that neither side intends that the scheme should be taken away tomorrow.

New clause 3 is designed to enable a pensioner from any part of the country to benefit from a concession on journeys to the Isle of Wight as they can on journeys to Bournemouth, Brighton, Blackpool or Barnstaple. That is an equitable way of treating pensioners and the only means of achieving it is to extend similar concessions to coach and ferry travel. That is what we are asking for. Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, said:

``Our intention is to extend fuel duty rebates to operators of long distance scheduled coach services in return for their offering half price fares to pensioners and disabled people. We are trying to make progress in relation to that.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1901.]

Pensioners from all over the country, not just those from the Isle of Wight, would benefit from the new clause.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise to the Committee for intervening at this stage. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on his valiant efforts on behalf of his constituents. However, he is making rather heavy weather of his case because the issue is simple. We need a clear answer from the Minister so that we can move on.

Under the Government's scheme, as I understand it, and I would be grateful for clarification, any pensioner in Britain who embarks on a scheduled coach journey will be able to pay a half fare for that journey—funded through the fuel duty rebate. In this scheme it should not matter, as it does in other parts of the Bill, where the pensioner is from or where he gets on or off the coach. That would mean that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as soon as they disembarked from the ferry, would be able to get on a long distance coach and benefit from a half-fare scheme. If that is the case, half the hon. Gentleman's problem is solved. The other half relates to the ferry, with respect to which the Minister will have to suffer the ire and indignation of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The hon. Gentleman used the relevant phrase, ``scheduled services''. The Bill is concerned only with scheduled services, so discussion of taxis and other forms of transport is extraneous. We must consider whether people can travel to places where there are scheduled services. That touches on some of the issues that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was talking about. If places do not have scheduled bus or coach services, that will obviously affect whether pensioners can travel to them, which is an unfortunate limitation.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that pensioners should be able to go to a long list of places; he presumably intends them to travel by coach. We are talking about scheduled services, so people who travel by scheduled services as defined in the Bill will receive the rebate. It is hard to say exactly how the coach scheme will work because we are still consulting and we need to know the details of the operation. However, it would not solve the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised so consistently. I congratulate him on that. In virtually every debate in which I have heard him speak—not only in Committee but in the House—he has consistently spoken about the difficulties that people have in crossing the Solent. That strip of water seems to be a problem for the hon. Gentleman. The fact that people can get a free coach when they reach the other side seems completely irrelevant to him. He must accept that if pensioners want to cross that strip of water, the concession will have to be paid by the local authority. Indeed, discussions are already taking place for hospital services. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, but that is as far as we can go. We must be absolutely sure to tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) exactly when the coach journeys come into effect, because I am sure that he has a particular constituency interest.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I hope that I am not pressing my luck. I absolutely understand that the Under-Secretary still has to consult on particular schemes and that she cannot give us the full details today. Will she give the Committee an indication of the scheme that she will be consulting upon? Does she envisage that it will follow the lines that I described a few minutes ago? I suggested that someone living on the Isle of Wight might travel to Southampton by the expensive ferry—it will not be subsidised by the Government in any way, shape of form—but that once in Southampton they could pick up a scheduled coach service and benefit from a half-fare scheme to wherever that person wished to go, perhaps even to Bath, where that person might spend lots of money, because we need it.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The hon. Gentleman always pushes his luck. The answer is yes.

Finally, what the Prime Minister said is happening. We shall extend the scheme, allowing for the possibility of long-distance travel, but the question did not specify whether it was travel by train or by coach. It is all part of trying to provide pensioners with a better deal—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

No, I shall not. We have reached the end of our discussion. There has been consistency in what has been said. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I was thinking of withdrawing the new clause, but as the Under-Secretary would not give way I am not so sure. Perhaps that will teach her a lesson. We shall now be here for another five minutes. At least she had the grace to smile at that and I do not wish to carp.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. He is doing his constituents a huge service by pursuing the matter so doggedly. I hope that they recognise the tremendous work that he does on their behalf. It seems to me that what he has wrung out of the Government is a bit of an anomaly. If, as she promised, the Under-Secretary produces that long-distance bus travel scheme, whereby pensioners can get travel at half fare on all long-distance scheduled bus services, if the bus goes on the ferry from or to the island, the pensioner will get the concession, but if the pensioner goes by foot on to the ferry, he will not. That is daft. The hon. Lady tried to brush the matter aside by saying that the scheme applies only to scheduled services, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight that he is talking about scheduled ferry services. Transport for London provides the concessions for the scheduled services on the Thames, as I have demonstrated.

My reason for intervening on the Under-Secretary at the time when she would not give way—which was a pity as it would have been nice to have the matter clarified—was that she said that the question put to the Prime Minister on long-distance journeys did not specify coaches. I take it that the scheme will also include trains.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I am sorry that I did not give way. The question said:

``Pensioners in my constituency are very pleased that they have no longer to pay the £6 per year for their concessionary half-fare bus . . . Pensioners are therefore asking for a concessionary scheme for longer distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?''

The answer:

``We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys.''—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.]

It is very specific. It does not mention the train.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It does not mention trains, so we have that matter clarified. That leads to what I was about to say. I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the paucity of bus services in rural areas. Sitting in Northampton or London, it is hard to do so. Even scheduled long-distance bus services are fairly few and far between. I invite her—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury will join me—to come to Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend and I will organise it and we will show her the paucity of bus services. It might be instructive for her to find out the difficulty that some of our remote villagers have in travelling about our constituencies.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am delighted to extend an invitation to the Under-Secretary to visit, so that we can show her our constituencies—not only to illustrate the lack of bus services but to dispel the myth that we are a prosperous area. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold travels down here every week, so he knows that although the train services from Cheltenham and Gloucester to London might be expected to be very good, they are not.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend makes the case for transport. Public services—full stop—in Gloucestershire are poor. I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to consider whether train services can be included in the long-distance travel scheme. A number of train services within Gloucestershire would offer some choice, albeit limited. I ask her to consider the matter seriously.

It is disappointing that the Government have not chosen to accede at least to the principles of the new clauses and to acknowledge the particular problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight faces in his constituency. Bearing him in mind, I recommend that he join me in voting for the new clauses and I give notice that I wish to press them to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

New Clause 6 - Extension of concessionary fares to persons18 or younger (greater london)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this we may discuss new clause 9—Extension of concessionary fares to persons 18 or younger—

`. The appropriate Minister shall consult local authorities over the possibilities of extending the concessionary schemes to people aged 18 years or younger in full-time education.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful, Miss Widdecombe, for your very clear chairmanship. Perhaps I need to develop a louder voice, as on several occasions you have not heard me shout for the ayes or for the noes. Next time, I shall make sure that you are deafened and that our voice is well and truly heard.

Government Back Benchers have voted against granting their own pensioners concessions on ferries and other forms of transport. Let us see if we can do better with these new clauses by encouraging them to support us in extending concessionary travel schemes. New clause 6 would extend such schemes to those aged 18 or under who are in full-time education in London, and new clause 9 would require the appropriate Minister to

``consult local authorities over the possibilities of extending the concessionary schemes to people aged 18 years or younger in full-time education.''

The new clauses are important. We want to encourage our youngsters to travel by public transport where possible, rather than adding to the ever-growing number of cars in this country. If we can delay the urge to own a car the moment that they reach 17 and pass the test, we would be doing everybody a service. We would also be doing a service to the youngsters themselves. After all, having chosen to stay on in full-time education, many are by definition on very low incomes. The new clauses bear some scrutiny, and if the Government will not accept them I hope that they will at least consider them seriously.

We know that, whatever the system, students in full-time education are in considerable difficulty. Systems such as student loans and a graduate tax have been discussed, as has the question of whether students should contribute to fees. In a small way, the new clauses would help those who want to stay on in further and higher education, and it is in the nation's interest to encourage them to do so. The new clauses would be of particular benefit in our bigger inner cities. An attempt to stem the number of cars owned by students would greatly help the travelling public. Students' cars are often ill maintained and therefore cause some of the bigger problems. If an appropriate concessionary scheme were in place for those in full-time education, we would all benefit.

The Local Government Association has suggested that the Bill provides an opportunity for school children to receive mandatory concession fees, and the new clauses encourage the Government to consult on the pros and cons of such an extension. In the light of that, I strongly urge the Minister think about the new clauses. It may or may not be appropriate to extend the scheme; for example, it may be appropriate only in London, where there is the biggest problem. The mayor is proposing congestion charges and other plans in an effort to reduce extreme congestion in central London. Anyone who uses any form of transport in London knows how severe that congestion is at certain times of the day, at any rate.

People who have to live in cheaper accommodation on the edge of London and in the suburbs often need to own a car. It is difficult for them to get to remote university campuses late at night or early in the morning when they are doing their studies, so they resort to their cars. If we could encourage them just a little to think twice about whether they need to own a car, or could travel on public transport instead, it would do everyone a service. Will the Minister seriously consider the new clauses?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I commend the hon. Member for Cotswold for raising this matter. I have some concern with the wording of new clauses 6 and 9, which leaves in some doubt whether the Conservative party favours extending the concessionary scheme to people aged 18 or under who are in full-time education. The new clauses raise the possibility of a discussion, rather than including in the Bill the requirement for the Government to extend the scheme to those groups.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's intention was to have a discussion of the issue. He has rightly drawn our attention to the importance of developing opportunities for the provision of public transport for such people. I suggest an additional reason why such an extension would be valuable in helping the Government to achieve their intentions. All the evidence suggests that about 50 per cent. of young people at the age of 16 give up the opportunity to enter further or higher education. When surveyed on why they made that choice, a large percentage cite travel problems as a major factor. Alongside the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, I believe it important to consider the educational aspect.

I have no doubt that the Minister who replies will draw attention to the cost of carrying out the endeavour. There are considerable differences over what the figure would be. My hon. Friend in another place, Baroness Scott, estimated a figure in the region of £50 million. Lord Falconer, responding to the debate, suggested that the much higher figure of £180 million was more realistic. I am not in a position to judge between those competing claims about the expense.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The whole matter might be more palatable were it restricted to London, at least for a start. There are particular merits to operating the scheme in London, where the cost of living is higher and traffic congestion is greater.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that view. I would be interested to hear the reaction from young people in his constituency if he promoted something for Londoners that they were denied, but that is a matter for him and his relationship with his constituents. Were it possible to find the money for such a scheme, and were it deemed an appropriate use of it, it would be better and more sensible for us to look at a nationwide scheme.

I understand that there will be arguments about the amount of money involved. I place it on record that the Liberal Democrat party raised the issue in our manifesto at the last general election, but made it clear that it was an aspiration, not something within our fully costed manifesto. People have often accused the Liberal Democrats of saying that we will do anything and everything and pay for it out of our extra 1p on income tax, but this is a good rebuttal. We made it very clear that it would not cover this. We said that the money could not be found immediately, but that it was a longer-term aspiration.

Although the Government are likely to say no, for the reasons that I have given—and not least the cost—they might also say no because they do see the point in consulting on something that will not lead to anything. That would be the result if we accepted the new clauses. The Government would probably then say that they were improving young people's opportunities through access to various discount travel schemes. That was their response in July, when Lord Falconer in another place talked about the way in which his Department was

``working closely with the Department for Education and Skills in developing a Connexions Card which offers a range of commercial discounts for young people in full-time education and is capable of carrying existing travel concessions.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1900.]

It is now long after the third week in July so the Minister should be able to tell us that significant progress has at last been made and that she has an exciting announcement for young people not only in London, but in the rest of the country. I look forward to hearing it shortly.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In supporting the new clauses, I want to draw attention to the successful operation of a similar scheme on the Isle of Wight. The council came in for a bit of inferential flak from the Minister over its failure to provide concessionary fares on ferries, but I am pleased to say that it has an extraordinarily good record in providing a so-called youth mover ticket for young people under 18. It is a concessionary scheme that is available to all young people on the island regardless of whether they are in education, enabling them to travel on public transport at, I believe, half price—not being eligible I have never got to the bottom of the exact cost. It has the great benefit in rural areas—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold would not restrict the scheme to London—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Member for Bath deliberately twisted my words. If he looks carefully at the record, he will see that I said ``initially'' and then expressed the hope that it could be rolled out elsewhere.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased to accept that in the hope that the rolling out would take place rapidly.

On the island, the scheme provides several benefits. First, it encourages people to travel by public transport. Secondly, it means that they are less likely to hitchhike at night. I realise that that is not a common practice in rural areas on the mainland, but it has been on the island, which is, I am pleased to say, considerably safer—but still not very safe—as a place in which to hitchhike. Thirdly, it means that people are not travelling in cars with friends who may have drunk rather more than is good for them. Fourthly, it enables parents to get to bed early instead of operating as taxi services.

The scheme offers a combination of benefits that would be felt in rural areas, apart from the benefits for metropolitan areas that my hon. Friend advertised so effectively.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I very much welcome the objective of the new clauses. The principle of expanding concessionary fares to support young people is extremely important. Indeed, if I have one criticism it is that we have not gone far enough. There is a case for considering whether such schemes should apply to all those in higher education, given that they already incur substantial costs when living through their university or college years. There is certainly a case for extending the scheme to those over 18. However, I recognise the limitations that we face in tabling new clauses, in that the Government have not been entirely receptive to such proposed extensions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Not at all receptive.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Indeed. Perhaps we are already pushing our luck in respect of 18-year-olds. However, it is worth doing because it is an important principle to provide such support, especially to those between 16 and 18. In much of today's public transport world, when teenagers reach the age of 16 they lose the half-fare status that they enjoyed as a child, yet few of them find that their financial situation has changed between the ages of 15 years and 364 days and 16 years. The majority continue with some form of education and do not immediately gain the benefits of an income, so to have a mandatory cut-off point at the age of 16 is unhelpful and unfair.

If we can encourage the Government, through the two new clauses, to take a long hard look at the potential to develop schemes that address that financial situation and that deliver a valuable social resource for younger people, it would be welcome. I commend the new clauses and, even if the Government are not willing to accept them in their entirety and fall back on the votes of the silent majority behind them, I hope that they will accept the principles of our objectives behind tabling them and will consider what support they can offer a scheme of this kind in future.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I have just a couple of points to make, one of which concerns school transport. I make no apology for telling the Committee about my constituency because we are here to represent our constituents.

I am aware that there is some subsidised travel for children travelling to school but for certain mileages there is not. We know, from driving anywhere, how much heavier the traffic is during the school term compared with the holidays—there is a tremendous difference. If there are few buses, as in my constituency, transport becomes a problem with regard to getting to school and the congestion caused around schools from people travelling in cars. New clause 9 is particularly relevant to my area and would address such problems.

I will draw on an example concerning the national lottery, which I assure you, Miss Widdecombe, is relevant, but I must crave your indulgence for a moment. Earlier, I referred to a large village in my constituency—Churchdown—which has about 12,000 inhabitants. They applied for a lottery grant to build swimming baths in the village. The reply from the National Lotteries Board turned down the application. One of the main reasons for that was the fact that the village is within a 20-minute drive of similar facilities. The then Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), said that that reply was absolute rubbish—she understood its implications. It meant that if children wanted to go to the nearest swimming baths, their parents would have to take them, and come back, then collect them and come back—four car journeys would be necessary because children under 17 are not allowed to drive. The alternative would be not to go swimming, or to pay full fares on the bus. I was stunned by the reason for the rejection, however it is an illustration of how new clause 9 would help children in that area. It is a village of 12,000 so this is not a small problem.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I have listened carefully to the points made by Opposition Members and have considerable sympathy for their strength of feeling and for some of the sentiments expressed.

It is part of the Government's agenda to provide public transport to combat social exclusion and to deal with safety issues. It is an attractive proposition to require local authorities to offer concessionary fares to other groups of people including young adults but, under the Bill, we must be realistic. Although I fully accept that the new clauses would simply require the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, to consult local authorities on the possibility of extending schemes to young adults, I am not sure what purpose such a consultation would serve.

We have heard much about local authorities' discretionary powers in relation to extending concessionary fare schemes. Local authorities can choose to extend their schemes to young adults and I congratulate the local authority of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on its innovative scheme. Local authorities already have a statutory duty, with which most hon. Members will be familiar, to provide free travel for school pupils within certain ages and for certain distances.

In relation to the pertinent points raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about safety around schools, the Government have provided funding to establish school travel plans to deal with the issues that he identified such as encouraging children to walk or cycle to school and dealing with parking and safety around schools. That is recognition of the problems that he identified.

Local authorities have the power to provide concessionary travel for young people up to 18 years of age who are in full-time education. That applies not only to travel to and from college, but to other journeys. Given the number of journeys expected to be undertaken by young adults, and bearing in mind the social activities that were mentioned—it is important to encourage young people not to drink and drive—the revenue foregone by transport operators would be substantial. I can confirm the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Bath of approximately £180 million. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that work is being undertaken to ensure that young people's needs are not overlooked. My Department is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills in developing a Connexions card. It will offer a range of commercial discounts for young people in full-time education, and it will be capable of carrying existing travel concessions. There is no exciting announcement to make—I have not known many exciting announcements in Standing Committee—but we shall examine the options that exist for travel, which I hope will generate yet another postcard for the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I do not know whether it warrants a postcard just yet. We are discussing an announcement that was made on 24 July by the Minister's noble Friend in another place. That was a long time ago, and what we have just heard from the Minister is almost identical to the wording of the announcement that was given to another place on 24 July. If we are not going to get an announcement, I hope that we can have an indication that progress has been rapid and that a clear announcement is imminent. Even if an announcement cannot be made in Committee because big announcements are not made in Standing Committee, I hope that it is coming soon. Can the Minister at least give us a little bit of comfort by telling us that something has happened?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

We are making progress and we shall examine these proposals. In particular, we shall examine the options for travel so that we can deal with some of the issues that hon. Members have raised today. I assure hon. Members that we take seriously the points that they have raised about the importance of ensuring that transport is used as a means of combating social exclusion, providing greater safety and ensuring that young people are not excluded from schools.

Incidentally, another issue is making sure that young people are not excluded from work. There are some interesting initiatives going on around that matter through, for example, the urban bus challenge.

I ask hon. Members to withdraw the two new clauses. The Bill will extend better travel benefits to pensioners, which picks up a group that has previously been missed out. The Bill will mean progress for pensioners up and down the country, and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the two new clauses in the interests of making progress and of completing the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is the last group of new clauses and amendments. We have made reasonable progress today. In response to the Minister's closing remark, it is not a matter of extending concessions either to pensioners or to young people; we are asking for both. The Bill, which I hope is about to be ratified in Committee, provides concessions for men aged between 60 and 64. We are asking the Government to consider our new clauses 6 and 9, which would require consultation on whether the Government should introduce a concessionary scheme for students aged 18 or under in full-time education.

The hon. Member for Bath is a friend and a reasonable Member of Parliament, but he has been in a nit-picking mood today. If he did not like our amendments on the subject, he should have tabled his own amendments. I notice that only one of his amendments to this narrow Bill has been selected. We have had great difficulty in getting our amendments selected, but we managed 10. If the hon. Gentleman will settle for one tenth of the number of Members of Parliament in our party, I shall give way to him.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

In that case, I shall not intervene. I am not prepared to accept the deal.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Order. If hon. Members wish to say anything, they must do so standing up, otherwise they must keep quiet.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am glad that I have managed to close down the hon. Gentleman. That is one of my biggest achievements in the Committee. He is looking very sheepish, but I do not know what is the matter with him. He has only one postcard for his wife this Session, so she will be feeling a little lonely. He will have to work harder in the next Standing Committee to ensure that he sends a few more, or she will feel unloved.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's comments about the hon. Member for Bath, does he agree that the hon. Gentleman deserves credit for being the first member of his party whom I have heard admitting the limits of his mystical 1p on income tax.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Member for Bath is a decent person and I am sure that he always tries to portray his party's policies with the utmost clarity. I shall return to the new clause before you call me to order, Miss Widdecombe.

We must consider an agenda for young people. I say that with utmost seriousness. We saw at the last election one of the lowest turnouts since the war. We know from the figures that part of the reason for that low turnout was that young people of all political persuasions are simply turned off politics. If we could demonstrate in the House one or two measures such as the new clause to show that we are thinking carefully and hard about their needs and to improve the quality of their lives, we would be doing them and ourselves a great service. We must be very careful in a democracy when a whole section of our society is not participating in our democratic processes.

The Minister gave a costing of £180 million and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight castigated me for wanting to start the scheme in London. It would be as well to get it up and running in London, but, as he said, then very quickly to see where else in the United Kingdom it would be appropriate to roll it out.

I am sorry that the Minister has not felt it wise to accept our new clauses. I hope that she will not forget about the matter. My hon. Friends and I will not forget about it and if we do not hear of some Government progress with those ideas, we shall find opportunities to keep prompting them.

The hour is fairly late and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It would be remiss of me, on behalf of my hon. Friends in the official Opposition, if I did not thank you, Miss Widdecombe, for chairing this Committee firmly, but fairly and clearly. I also thank your co-Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, who was helpful with his rulings this morning on our points of order. I would also like to thank the Hansard writers, those in the Serjeant at Arms' Department and the police, who are often forgotten, for their hard work and the long hours that they spend in this place. I also thank the Ministers for the courteous—although it was not sympathetic—way in which they dealt with our requests, and their officials.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Further to that point of order, Miss Widdecombe. In the time available, I associate myself with the comments of the Opposition spokesman.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Further to the point of order, Miss Widdecombe. Being, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, a decent Member of Parliament, I too would like to be associated with his comments.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am grateful to the Committee for their kind comments. I echo their thanks to the police, the Hansard writers and others.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at Seven o'clock.