Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 147
are to be able to go on providing more than the statutory minimum the Government must make sure that
they are fully funded for the increases in the statutory minimum concessionary fare schemes that are
proposed in the Bill.
The Government said in Gr<strong>and</strong> Committee that they were unable to support amendments to this eVect
because it would cost £100 million. We appreciate the resources that the Government is already committing
to implementing the Bill. However, we also note that when the ALG (now London Councils) first began to
consider the cost of allowing travel in the morning peak for disabled people they also said that “It was so
expensive as to not be worth quantifying”. However, after further investigation <strong>and</strong> discussion with TfL the
cost turned out to be a lot less than originally thought <strong>and</strong> free travel has been available in London 24 hours
a day since April 2003. The Government might also find that the cost of this particular extension to the
scheme would be less than they originally thought.
Extending the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme to provide for free travel 24 hours a day would help disabled
people find <strong>and</strong> retain work <strong>and</strong> turn them from benefit claimants into taxpayers. This would go some way
to raising the £100 million which the Government suggest that this measure would cost.
Applying the Concessions to Other Modes of Transport
In some areas concessionary fare passes can be used in taxis, on community transport <strong>and</strong> other door-todoor
transport. This is particularly important in rural areas where bus services may be infrequent or absent.
Disabled people will not benefit from having the concession if they have few or no bus services on which to
use it. In Scotl<strong>and</strong> many ferry journeys are also covered by the concessionary fares scheme in recognition
of the local transport services that ferries provide between the Scottish Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the mainl<strong>and</strong>. We would
encourage the same approach to be adopted for other services throughout the UK.
In urban areas concessions are also often available to be used on local rail <strong>and</strong> light rail services. This is
particularly important where train <strong>and</strong> tram services are used as an alternative to the bus for local journeys.
Certain groups of disabled people would also benefit greatly from the application of the concessions to
a wider range of transport modes. People with autism, for example, prefer to use door-to-door services
because they often have diYculty in judging road safety <strong>and</strong> can experience anxiety on scheduled public
transport services, especially where routes <strong>and</strong> timetables frequently change. The restrictions on the
eligibility for the higher mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance means that for some disabled people
door to door transport is currently not an option for them because of the additional costs associated with
its use.
Our organisations would encourage the extension of the statutory minimum concessionary fare scheme
to provide for its application to a wider range of transport services.
Our organisations appreciate that the Government are sympathetic to the sentiment of our proposed
amendment in this area but are unable to accept it because they believe that it would cost £300 million. We
are, however, encouraging the Government to consider the cost-benefits of these changes in terms of giving
disabled people greater independence <strong>and</strong> allowing more disabled people to work. Once these benefits are
taken into account to we believe that the economic case is much stronger.
Use on Door-to-Door Transport for Those Unable to Access Mainstream Public Transport
An increasing number of services are operated by accessible buses but it will be some time before all buses
are fully accessible. Having a concession for a service that you cannot use is of no benefit to disabled people
in areas where fully accessible services are not yet available. Even where more accessible vehicles are in use,
they will never be a viable option for some disabled people, even with assistance. Others may need door-todoor
transport to get to the nearest bus stop because of the distances involved or the inaccessibility of the
pedestrian environment. For these reasons we believe that concessionary fares should be made available on
community transport <strong>and</strong> door-to-door services.
Local authorities have discretion as to whether to reimburse those providing community transport for
accepting concessions but a survey by the Community Transport Association found that only a minority
did so <strong>and</strong> of those most only reimbursed half, rather than the full fare. We believe that this discriminates
against disabled people who rely on such services <strong>and</strong> is potentially challengeable under the Disability
Discrimination Act or the Human Rights Act.
As with the more generous schemes, reimbursement for community transport schemes is a postcode
lottery. In Wiltshire, for example, the County Council, West Wiltshire District Council <strong>and</strong> Kennet District
Council reimburse community minibus groups for taking free passes on the eligible services they operate
but North Wiltshire District Council <strong>and</strong> Salisbury District Council do not. Swindon Borough Council only
provide disabled people with £60 of free journeys per annum on community minibuses before they have to
pay for using the services.
Salisbury District Council have informed the Community Transport Association that their concessionary
fares settlement from central government was insuYcient to meet the costs of reimbursing registered bus
operators let alone community transport operators. This aVects two Salisbury-based community minibus