My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on AmendmentNo. 1. I will speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 7and 8, which are grouped with Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 deals with the extension of the transport concession to a companion whose assistance a disabled person may need to travel on public transport, and Amendment No. 3 deals with the definition of mental disability.
Amendment No. 2 would entitle a companion to travel free of charge where a disabled person needs their assistance to be able to travel on public transport. Amendment No. 3 seeks to introduce a more straightforward definition of mental disability by reference to the Mental Health Act 1983. On Report, I said that I thought more streamlined amendments might be brought forward to deal with the definition of mental disability in a neater way,and Amendment No. 3 is one of those. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 parallel Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 with respect to the London scheme.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships overlong with these amendments. They stand together in a group that seeks to extend the scope of the Bill in a number of ways. We say that they are marginal extensions, but the Minister has made it clear that he does not agree. He may concede that the extensions are marginal when set against the total extension of concessionary travel introduced by this Bill, but at all events he has made it very clear that the Bill already does a considerable amount and it simply is not possible to push the envelope any further at this stage. I respect that view. He has been very fair. We have had a full debate, and he has explained his position fully and carefully. I thank him for his very open and accessible approach and his willingness to engage in dialogue on the amendments.
The Bill already achieves quite a lot; I believe the Minister said it was going to cost an extra £1 billion. I know that he is not unsympathetic to the points of principle that we are raising, and that it is simply a question of resources at this time. I know that he will continue to reflect on the matters that we have raised and will undertake a review to see whether it might be possible to do more at a later stage. In particular, Age Concern would like to see the Government producing a report within one year on a concessionary solution for people who do not have bus services in their area or who, for one reason or another, are unable to use bus services. Help the Aged has also recently published a study on local bus services and travel concessions, which I commend to the Minister. If he could tell us that he would be prepared to look at those reports, reflect on them, and see how the matter might be taken further at some later stage, that would be a very helpful conclusion to this debate.
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Low of Dalston
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 5 February 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c481-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:05:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_375945
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_375945
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_375945