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

Ev 148 Transport Committee: Evidence
groups in particular -groups currently run services for isolated people in Salisbury mainly to help them
access local shops, <strong>and</strong> both have to charge their concessionary pass holding passengers for journeys which
they would otherwise get free if there was a registered bus route which served them.
At Gr<strong>and</strong> Committee Stage cost was also cited by the Government as the reason for rejecting an
amendment to extend the scheme to community transport. The Government also pointed out that local
authorities would continue to have the discretion to provide concessionary fares on door to door transport
<strong>and</strong> that the legislation would allow for an extension in this area at a latter date by Regulations.
At Report a further argument was oVered that such an amendment would eVectively provide for buses to
be replaced by community transport in rural areas. We do not believe that would be the eVect. The purpose is
to ensure that those disabled people who because of their impairment could not access local bus services, or
who live in areas that are not served by bus services, would be able to enjoy free travel on community
transport services in their area. As a safeguard the Secretary of State could be required to issue guidance
which could also address the Government’s concerns about the definition of community transport for the
purposes of concessionary fares legislation
<strong>Travel</strong>ling With a Companion
Some disabled people need a companion to travel with them on public transport. We would argue that
concessions should be available to allow a companion to travel free of charge, where this is necessary to
enable the disabled people to access the service. This provision already applies under both the Welsh scheme
<strong>and</strong> the Dorset scheme.
Whilst we appreciate the Government’s estimate that this extension would cost £10 million we would
point out that as the proposed additional concession would only apply to those who cannot access public
transport without the support of a companion, the number of people that would be brought into the scheme
is likely to be relatively small. The Government has also pointed out that the term “companion” could be
open to abuse but we would be happy for an alternative term to be used such as “personal assistant.”
Adding People with Mental Health Difficulties to Those Eligible for <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares
The issue of the eligibility of people with mental health diYculties remains a problem. Currently, people
with mental health issues who qualify for concessionary fares do so by virtue of the fact that they would, if
they applied, be refused a driving licence under Part 3 of the Road TraYc Act 1988 pursuant to section 92
of the Act. Section 92 of the 1988 Act refers to five categories of people who would be refused a driving
licence. The second of these are people with a “severe mental disorder”.
Eligibility for concessionary fares is one of the major factors in determining an individual’s chance of
recovery <strong>and</strong> re-integration into society. Severe mental ill health often leads to social <strong>and</strong> physical isolation,
discrimination <strong>and</strong> an inability to play a full part in economic <strong>and</strong> community life. Access to community
centres, drop-in therapeutic communities, counselling or self-help groups can be essential to recovery. To
access those services many people rely on public transport. Research in the Report Focus on Mental Health,
An Uphill Struggle: Poverty <strong>and</strong> Mental Health (London, Mental Health Foundation 2001) suggests that
some people have not been able to get help from mental health services because of their inability to pay for
transport. Even where they still hold a driving licence, poverty <strong>and</strong> a fluctuating health condition may make
driving impossible. The ability to travel to education centres, to take up job opportunities <strong>and</strong> to access
community health <strong>and</strong> social care facilities is vital. The inability to access these can lead to serious
consequences for the individual.
These quotes from experiences reported to Mind show the diYculties:
A service user writes from the Midl<strong>and</strong>s: “Initially I came up against a lot of aggravation when I
applied for concessionary fares. Now I hold a bus pass <strong>and</strong> come up against hostility with a few bus
drivers questioning my right to hold a pass”.
One city Patient Council representative from the West of Engl<strong>and</strong> writes that “even where there is
no current problem in claiming in the city there are constant problem(s) on buses of drivers’ prejudice,
eg ‘Why have you got a pass, you don’t look ill?’”
The evidence suggests that the definition is causing a problem <strong>and</strong> for that reason we believe the
Government should act now to introduce a new definition to cover explicitly people with mental health
issues. Our suggested definition is based on the definition used for the Scottish <strong>Concessionary</strong> fares scheme.
In addition, a new definition could cover people with a social <strong>and</strong> communication disability—such as
those with Asperger syndrome. Since most people with Asperger syndrome do not have a learning disability,
they may be excluded by a strict interpretation of the definition in the Transport Act 2000. While people
with Asperger syndrome are not generally refused a driving licence, they must notify DVLA of their
condition <strong>and</strong> cases are assessed on an individual basis; this may make car insurance unaVordable, especially
for young people. The diYculties experienced by some people with Asperger syndrome in anticipating the
actions of other road users mean that some individuals choose not to drive.