Local Transport Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for moving the amendment. I do have a modicum of sympathy for it for the very reasons that he and other noble Lords have adumbrated. One sympathises greatly with anyone who is homeless, and the ability to move around, to make connections and to try to resolve one’s problems is clearly very important in those circumstances, so I certainly accept that the intention behind the amendment is good. The Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 was all about expanding the geographical scope of concessionary bus travel; it was not about extending the concession to other groups of people, as the amendment envisages. It is premature to consider extensions when the Government are still in the process of introducing the national bus travel concession scheme. The Transport Act 1985 provides local authorities with considerable flexibility to offer more than the statutory concession to their residents. There are numerous examples of local authorities that offer concessions to additional groups of people. My local authority of Brighton in the early 1990s extended its concessionary scheme to assist travellers who had contracted HIV/AIDS. That happened to be a large group of people at that time in that conurbation. That concession was considered to be of some value. The new national concessionary bus travel scheme does not affect those powers, and local authorities retain the discretion to provide enhancements to the proposed national minimum, taking account of their local circumstances. Although homeless people are not currently listed in the 1985 Act as being eligible for travel concessions, the power already exists for the Secretary of State, in secondary legislation, to add further classes of persons to that list. As noble Lords will know, the Government have sought to provide local authorities with more freedom and flexibility in choosing how they use their resources so as best to reflect their local priorities. That approach has been generally supported by local government. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Government have already done a great to deal to improve the well-being of older and disabled people, who are among the most vulnerable in our society. From April 2008, the Government will be providing around £1 billion of funding each year for concessionary travel in England, which is a major public spending commitment of which we are rightly proud. The extension from the local to the national entitlement alone involves substantial new money of £212 million for local authorities in England. We are not ruling out extensions to other groups of people in the future, but extending eligibility to give free travel to homeless people, for example, would need a robust and fair system for assessing eligibility. With a national concession, there is greater potential for fraud. Who would qualify—the family or the individual? I recognise that the amendment is born of good intentions, but I hope that the noble Earl will now feel able to agree that in general terms the approach the Government is taking is the right one. The key objective for us at the moment is to successfully introduce the national bus concession next April, so now is probably not the right time to make further legislative changes without proper planning, some considerable thought and some fairly in-depth consultation to make sure that we would have the best approach. I offer encouragement and sympathy, but now is not the right time to move on this issue.