Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 6: 6: Clause 1 , page 2, line 11, at end insert— ““(4A) If a disabled person is unable to access mainstream public transport as a result of their impairment, the travel concession authority in England shall mark that clearly on the permit. (4B) Where a person whose current statutory travel concession permit is marked in accordance with subsection (4A), he shall be entitled to a waiver of the fare for a journey when using a community transport service. (4C) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to travel concession authorities in England to which they shall have regard in determining for subsection (4B) whether a disabled person needs the use of community transport. (4D) Before issuing guidance under subsection (4C), the Secretary of State shall consult— (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; (b) associations representative of travel concession authorities; and (c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment and in speaking to Amendment No. 7, I acknowledge immediately that there are financial implications to them—as there seems to be in everything that we have discussed today. However, in this amendment a wider point is to be made—and I would like to hear the Government’s views on it—about the acceptance of the principle that efforts should be made to assist people who are not able to use public transport and are, therefore, denied access to a reasonable life and a reasonable existence. That is particularly the case for people living in rural areas. It is currently estimated that 27 per cent of people over 65 who live in rural areas have no access to a car. We also know that the proportion ofolder people is growing fastest in rural areas. The Minister, in reply to that point in Committee, effectively stated that his hands were bound, due to costs of implementing such a scheme. That is why we have looked at this matter again. I have droppedfrom the amendment any mention of taxis or door-to-door services. The benefit of that is that local authorities and other providers could tailor existing services to meet the needs of those that need them most and, in turn, benefit from inclusion in the national scheme. To give noble Lords some idea, the existing community transport sector is vast and growing. Over 100,000 minibuses, serving over 10 million passengers every year, are operated for use by voluntary and community groups, schools, colleges and local authorities, or to provide door-to-door transport for people who are unable to use other public transport. Door-to-door transport is not limited to minibuses; there are many voluntary car schemes throughout the UK in which volunteers use their own cars to provide transport for individuals. Therefore, a ready-made network is already in place that would benefit countless millions. In a helpful letter, the Minister stated that extending the concession to community transport would equate to some £25 million a year. However, we have seriously to ask whether we should not look as such a scheme as a price to pay for bringing huge benefits to some of the most vulnerable in our society. I declare an interest as leader of Essex County Council, because community transport is an area of major growth there—sometimes replacing existing bus services because that might be a more worthwhile and cheaper form of transport. That philosophy will grow considerably over the next few years. I suspect that the Minister will again be unable to support the amendment, but I hope that he might give an undertaking that the Government will look again at the whole issue of people without bus services in their areas or who, for various reasons, are unable to use buses. I beg to move.