I am pleased to bring the issue of concessionary bus fares before hon. Members today. I believe that the proposals for free bus fares for elderly and disabled people have almost universal support. The Government are to be commended for introducing local free fares in 2006 and for extending the scheme nationwide from 2008. Someone given a pass in Newcastle will be able to use it on holiday in St. Ives. A pass that is given out anywhere in England will be valid anywhere in England, and I hope that at some future time the scheme will be extended to anywhere in the United Kingdom.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at this early point. Is there any good reason why other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly border areas, should have to wait until after 2008 for this valuable scheme?

I can think of no good reason in principle. I suspect that as I go through the details of my speech, practical problems that any Government would face in introducing such a scheme will be raised. What I really wanted to say is that the scheme is a good idea that everybody supports.

I want to use the debate to ask the Government some questions and to air some issues, so that we do not have another example of the law of unintended consequences whereby good ideas result in bad and poorly thought through outcomes. I shall not go through all the examples, but I think of the money that has gone into GP services, which has resulted in a huge increase in the number of people attending accident and emergency units at weekends. The Government did not intend that, but the initiative has resulted in extra costs at both ends and a poorer service for many of my constituents. We want to avoid another situation like that.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide answers to some of my questions, either in her summation at the end of the debate or in writing. Her responses will help when we consider the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill on Second Reading on 14 May.

I have three areas of concern. The first is about how the Government intend to disburse the money to the 291 local authorities that will administer the scheme, because that will be difficult to do fairly under the current rules. Secondly, I have concerns about the appeals system and some of the perverse incentives in the scheme for bus companies to put up fares and increase the public subsidy. Thirdly, I have concerns about the implementation of the scheme and how it will work in detail, and I would like to ask some practical questions about whether pensioners will have the passes in their hands by 1 April 2008.

Under the 2006 scheme, which is now in operation, the Government used the normal local authority grant system to hand out support. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will refer to the consequences in his constituency of using that formula—there were £3.5 million of cuts because the Government underestimated the number of people in the north-east who had concessionary passes. It is not very important, but there are also anomalies such as the Scilly Isles getting part of the grant even though they do not have a bus service. Furthermore, of very pound spent on the scheme a percentage goes to Scotland and Wales, so that when the Government properly say that £250 million will go into the scheme in 2008, in fact England will probably get some £212 million after the disbursements to Scotland and Wales. However, that is part of the wider debate on the Barnett formula.

What does all that mean? As I said, when the national scheme comes into effect in 2008, someone from Newcastle will be able to use their pass in St. Ives. If at that time the money is paid out under the grant scheme, things may work very well in areas where few tourists go. However, there will be much larger consequences for councils such as Blackpool, which has millions of visitors every year, as visitors from England will be able to use their passes on the local buses. The problem will affect virtually all passenger transport authority areas that have cities with shopping and tourist centres. Quite simply, the way in which the local government grant is disbursed is not subtle enough to cope with such variations. There will be winners and losers.

I have three questions on this aspect for my hon. Friend the Minister. Can she give an assurance that the subsidy for the scheme will follow the passengers and that no local authority or passenger transport executive will be underfunded? A much better principle is for the money to follow the passengers rather than be distributed to local authorities on an historical basis. Secondly, can she provide an assurance that concessionary fare schemes for children and young people will not have to be cut because of Government underfunding to local authorities or passenger transport executives for the national concessionary fares scheme for pensioners? Thirdly, can she give assurances that the introduction of the new national free scheme will not lead to withdrawal of local authority-supported bus services, thereby undermining the value of the scheme to its users? People want reassurance on those three important questions.

The second area of difficulty is appeals by operators. I know more about PTA areas than I do about other areas. When the 2006 scheme came in, there was a huge number of appeals by bus companies saying, in effect, that they were not getting the right level of subsidy, even though local concessionary fare schemes had been accepted by both sides for many years. If I understand it properly, the point of difference was that the bus companies wanted 100 per cent. repayment for every fare, whereas the PTAs and local authorities quite reasonably said that some elderly people would pay anyway, so that the bus companies’ claims did not represent their real loss or the real subsidy that was required. The adjudicators seem to have taken a purist view of the matter. They awarded the bus companies in Greater Manchester £3.4 million more than was expected, and the consequence was a 70p increase in the fare for schoolchildren. I am sure that that is not what the Government wanted, but it was inevitable once the scheme had started.

That brings me to perverse incentives. If the Government are giving 100 per cent. subsidy in respect of pensioners and disabled people, there is an incentive for a bus company to put up fares and to attract more and more pensioners on to the buses at the expense of the fare-paying public, who would be much more likely to find another way to get to their leisure activity or work if the fares went up. They might buy a car or go with a friend; however, they could also lose their job if they could not afford the fare

The easiest way in which I can illustrate that point is to ask hon. Members to imagine a virtual bus that is travelling down a radial route with 100 passengers on it—buses do not normally have that many passengers on them, but this is only an illustration. Let us imagine that half of those passengers receive concessionary fares paid by the local authority and half pay a £2 fare. If the bus company doubles the fare, it is likely to have more pensioners and fewer fare-paying passengers on the bus, which makes it easier for the bus company to make a profit.

We have monitored the decline in bus patronage since the second world war. Patronage increased when buses were deregulated, but since then it has declined. There has been an improvement in patronage in London, and in other parts of the country there has recently been improvement, but that has been caused mainly by elderly passengers and other concessionary fare users. In future, to compare like with like, how will the Government compare statistics on fare-paying passengers with the statistics that we have from the second world war? It would indeed be perverse of the Government to claim an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. a year in passengers if that was masking a real decline in fare-paying passengers and it was only pensioners and disabled people who were using public transport. We all want them to use public transport, but not at the expense of people going to work or to the shops.

The real solution is quality contracts, which I will not discuss in detail because we have had a number of debates on the subject and the Government are to introduce another Bill on it later in the year. If we had quality contracts, we could specify the concessionary fare and all fares at a particular time. That would remove the problem of perverse incentives and of appeals being decided outside the system.

I will start the next part of my speech with a series of questions because they illustrate how difficult it will be in practice to make the system work. Will the Minister guarantee that the national scheme will be secure? What measures will the Department for Transport take to minimise the dangers of fraudulent passes and applications? Will the Minister provide an assurance that pensioners will have a new nationally valid pass in their hands by 1 April 2008? That will involve the administration of more than 9 million passes by 291 authorities—a tall task. Will the Minister provide an assurance that the scheme will continue to be locally administered, so that local authorities and passenger transport executives can offer a more generous scheme if they wish? For example, they might wish to extend the hours to before half-past 9 or to extend the scheme to other categories of people.

I would like assurances on those questions because the Government have been late in providing guidance on the scheme to passenger transport authorities and local authorities. I understand that it has been issued only in the last week. I also understand that it is too late to move straight to a smartcard scheme. However, it is important that we have a consistent and coherent scheme that can be administered locally, and that local authorities understand the scheme so that they can distribute the passes to those who have been awarded one.

I will conclude with a number of questions and points. Some £250 million—less the amount that will go to Scotland—is being put aside for the scheme in 2008. I shall be grateful if the Minister explains where that figure has come from and assures us that the amount will be adequate. Judging by what I have seen in Manchester and heard from colleagues, there has been a terrific take-up of passes and a real increase in bus usage following the start of the local free pass scheme. I can only see take-up increasing by large amounts.

I know that the Minister has heard me say this on a number of occasions, but the scheme is open to abuse by bus companies. I have made the case that there are perverse incentives in the scheme, but what action can she take to stop bus companies exploiting the scheme? Their business plans relate not to obtaining extra passengers and improving public transport, but to maximising the public grant. I have previously given examples of that to the House. First Group is the main operator in my constituency—it runs a virtual monopoly. When First Group drives a bus out of the depot, half the basic costs of that bus have already been paid for by the taxpayer, which is extraordinary. First Group is withdrawing from less profitable routes and putting more pressure on the public purse for subsidised routes. Now, it is putting more pressure on fares and on the public purse. The result is higher fares and fewer passengers. Evidence to support that scenario can be found in Wales, where a national scheme is in operation. In Wales bus companies’ profits and fares have gone up by more than in England, where there is not a national scheme. They have increased by 12 per cent.

How will my hon. Friend stop avaricious multinational bus companies from effectively ripping off the public sector? The profits of bus companies are increasing and so are subsidies from the public sector. In addition, deep in the statistics there is a decline in the networks of bus routes and in the number of fare-paying passengers.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about perverse incentives. Does he share my concern that one consequence of perverse incentives is that the bus companies are no longer doing enough to promote their services, timetables and concessionary fares and to provide the other aspects of a good service? In the conurbation that he and I share as Members of Parliament, there certainly seems to be a marked lack of such promotional activities.

The hon. Gentleman raises the point that I am making in a different way. The main target for bus companies in their business plans is how to increase their grant. That is the most effective way for them to get money to their bottom line. They are not looking to provide a good public service and that worries me. I am concerned that we will end up in the same situation as we had with the railway companies six or seven years ago, when public expenditure on the railways was completely out of control. To deal with that situation, the Government introduced the Railways Act 2005, which got rid of the Strategic Rail Authority and provided some control over public expenditure.

I am asking for a fair grant distribution system that allows the money to go where it will be used. That is best done by having a safety net and money held back that can be paid to Blackpool, Manchester, York or wherever there are extra traveller journeys. We also need to guard public sector interests. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s response to the points that I have made, whether it is given in this debate, in writing or on Second Reading of the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill. The drive behind the Bill is good and it has good ideas, so I do not want to see it ruined by a bus industry that wants to make huge profits at the expense of the public purse.

rose—

Order. There are 41 minutes left—40 by the time I have finished this announcement—before I call the first of the three Front Benchers. Will hon. Members please bear that in mind when making their contribution and when accepting and responding to interventions?

I am glad that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) has raised this subject today. He is right in commending the Government for what will be a much appreciated scheme. He is also right, however, to mention that there are some important questions about it. He has raised some of them previously and they are significant, so I hope that the Minister will give attention to them.

I want to concentrate on a particular aspect of the scheme. Virtually all my constituents have to travel out of the local authority area to get to a major shopping centre or a district hospital. Many of them also have to travel out of their area to visit their nearest local shopping centre or supermarket. Some of them even have to travel out of the local authority area to visit their GP. They will benefit greatly from the introduction of the scheme.

Many of my constituents have to change buses, which means that they immediately forfeit even discretionary help on the rest of their journey, because they have completed the journey that started in their local authority area of origin, and they board a bus in a different such area. It is a nightmare for pensioners to get help under the current system, which relies heavily on discretionary arrangements whereby one local authority agrees to provide free travel for pensioners who travel in another local authority’s area. Such arrangements are limited and complicated.

For many of my pensioners, therefore, 2008 will be a delight, because all that will be swept away and they will have a national bus pass. However, that applies to only half of them. Unless the Minister acts, the other half will find April or May of next year an extremely disappointing time, because they will not benefit at all. The reason is that, when they visit their nearest city, district hospital, supermarket or in some cases their GP, they have to travel into Scotland. They will not get help unless there is interchangeability between the Scottish and English schemes. To the limited extent that they receive help at the moment it is because Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council gives some discretionary assistance for a limited number of journeys to Scotland, but not those on which one has to change buses.

If some of the financial problems described by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley come to pass, local authorities might find that they are unable in any way to supplement the provision of the national bus pass with discretionary arrangements. The financing of the scheme does not assume that local authorities will have to make further discretionary arrangements, but those in border areas would have to do so merely to keep the support that people have now, and they might not have the money to do that. What is needed is interchangeability between the English and Scottish bus passes—that stands out a mile.

The comments that I have made about my own constituents apply also in reverse: all those in Scotland whose nearest GP, supermarket or indeed shop is in Berwick need to be able to travel the opposite way and need to be able to benefit from the scheme. If their national card runs out, they will not be able to do so.

Tourism is a relevant issue as well. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley mentioned that, although in a negative sense, saying that the bus pass situation could be a problem for tourist areas. My own area is a tourist area, although not on the scale of Blackpool, where there are all those people wanting to use the trams for free. Nevertheless, there will be a problem. If tourists can travel around on the bus, in particular those who want to use the bus to go on walks, it is an attraction to our area. Many pensioners walk—let us not assume that they are all restricted in their movements. Many are keen walkers and ramblers, and would be delighted to use the scheme to arrive at one place and walk to another—down the coast, for example. A similar situation must exist in the Welsh borders as well.

Unusually among Ministers, but commendably, those dealing with the scheme have foreseen the problem—they have included powers in the legislation to enable interchangeability. However, all the replies that I have received from them have lacked any sense of urgency on the negotiation of interchangeability, and no commitment to achieve it by the time of the introduction of the national bus pass. It is vital that the national bus pass is interchangeable from the day on which it is introduced—otherwise half my constituents will say, “What use is this to us? It is not getting us to the GP, the hospital, the shopping centre, or the city.” They will be extremely angry and there will be a pensioners’ backlash in border areas—not just in my constituency but in the Carlisle area and in all the areas along the Welsh border. The local authorities in those areas, which provide for a certain amount of cross-border travel, will not have spare money to continue provision if the scheme financing presents the sort of difficulties that have been referred to in the debate.

I have one simple request of the Minister, therefore, which is that I hope that she will respond today by saying, “Yes, as soon as the Bill is on the statute book and the Scottish elections are over I shall be negotiating with my Scottish and Welsh colleagues to ensure that there are interchangeable national bus passes from the date of introduction of the national bus pass scheme.”

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate. It is timely that we recognise a successful and important Government policy initiative, although we should highlight certain potential and existing problems. I shall reinforce some of the comments made by hon. Friend, and perhaps elaborate on one or two.

I welcome the Government initiative of having local free fares for pensioners and the proposal to extend that to a national scheme next year—they are among the benefits of a Labour Government with a policy of tackling disadvantage and social exclusion. Furthermore, the scheme can be paid for because we have a Labour Government who have created a successful economy. That has produced the financial wherewithal to ensure resourcing of the scheme.

On the subject of the existing scheme, not only are there local arrangements of the type that the Government have funded in South Yorkshire, but a Labour-controlled passenger transport authority means that there is also an extended scheme operating over a greater time. Pensioners can use their free passes from 9 am—the same situation as that which applied under the old concessionary reduced fare scheme. The free fares apply to the trams as well as to the buses—that has also been agreed at local level. Furthermore, cross-border agreements with West Yorkshire mean that pensioners can travel between South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire on the free fare scheme, and on the same basis certain routes into Derbyshire can also be accessed, which is important for my constituents as my constituency abuts the border, so there is a certain amount of cross-travel.

Those are all welcome and important local extensions of the existing scheme, and I seek reassurance from the Minister that, on the move to the national scheme, the ability to have local scheme additions will remain available to local PTAs—particularly the earlier start and the extension to the tram. When the Government initially proposed the new scheme and indicated that it would apply only to buses, rather than to trams as well, I received enormous numbers of letters from constituents saying, “What are you going to do about us? We like the tram and we use it, and we want to make sure that we are not disadvantaged.” That has certainly been achievable at local level in Sheffield and South Yorkshire.

I have certain worries about the scheme funding, particularly the subsidy element, and I want to emphasise the points made on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. It cannot be a coincidence that, around the time that the Chancellor made his announcement of funded free fares for pensioners at local level a couple of years ago, First Group, the major bus company that provides services in my constituency and throughout Sheffield, managed to have three fare increases in a 12-month period.

The basis for funding and subsidising operators for the concessionary scheme is that they should be neither better nor worse off commercially as a result of the scheme. However, it just so happens that whether they are better or worse off depends on the comparison with off-peak fares, and who sets off-peak fares but the bus companies themselves? In certain circumstances, we have almost given operators the ability to write their own numbers on a cheque.

Again, it cannot be a surprise that when First comes to look at its fare increases this year, some of my constituents face double-digit increases—increases far in excess of inflation or any reasonable increases in costs that operators have. Some people have to pay those fares: they have no choice but to ride on a bus and will pay the fare anyway. Pensioners riding on the bus at times when free fares are available will not really be concerned about what the level of off-peak fare is and how much money that will cost the passenger transport executive to pay over to the operators. They will simply get on the bus because it is free, and the operators will get extra money for them, having put fares up that people do not have to pay anyway. There is something slightly wrong about that system.

Let me explain my real concern. The PTE’s budget was, understandably, £18.3 million in the last financial year to pay for concessionary fares for pensioners. There was a more than 100 per cent. increase on the previous year, and we understand why—because the fares were free, rather than 40p, as they previously were. This year, however, there is a further increase of 5.66 per cent., which, given that the overall PTE budget is not expanding by the same amount, means that to fund the increase in fares that the operators are putting on at off-peak periods, which gives them an increased subsidy for the concessions for pensioners, other aspects of the PTE budget are starting to be squeezed and the ability to deliver other concessions to other groups that are in need of concessions will be affected, or the ability to fund tendered services will be squeezed out. The price of tendered services is already rising because there really is not competition for those, either.

I have supported in the past, and my hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me again extol the benefits of, a move to quality contracts and to a franchise system for local bus services, because that is the right thing to do in order to be able to regulate the service and to deliver a real public service. It is not that I want to go back to where we were before the free-for-all was brought in by the Conservative Government. Rather, I would like to bring an element of real competition into the delivery of concessionary services.

At present, the bus operators, by being able to determine fare levels themselves, while recognising that many people who have to pay for them will have no choice but to use the buses and that no one will be put off getting on a bus if they have to pay nothing for that anyway, can almost name the increase in subsidy that they want each year, by putting off-peak fares up.

It is no surprise, either, that the price of single off-peak fares in my constituency has on average gone up more than that of weekly tickets, which are often bought by people who make a decision to pay for a local bus service and to get on it. That is because the local weekly ticket and the cost of it do not relate back to the subsidy for the concessions that the bus operators get. They put up those fares that will directly ensure that they have an increased subsidy at the end of the process, to compensate them for the concessionary passengers they carry.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley mentioned, if we moved on to a franchising basis and there were a competition for the franchises between different operators, that would cover the delivery of service not only to fare-paying passengers—people who hand money over weekly, monthly or on the bus as they undertake individual journeys. It would also be a tender and a competition to deliver the concessionary travel at the same time.

Under the arrangements in London, we do not have all this business of operators and PTEs having to sit down and argue with one another about what the real value of the concessionary travel is—what is the point at which the operator does not make a gain and does not make a loss from concessions? We do not have the issue of appeals going through and the decision being taken out of the hands of locally elected councillors or their appointed officials in the PTEs. The matter is determined by the tender that is put in for the franchise by the operators. They tender for a package of services.

I am arguing strongly that we must retain the concessionary scheme and bring in the national scheme and we must have the ability to retain, even when the national scheme is introduced, additions at local level such as we have in South Yorkshire, but we must also consider the business of how operators can be properly compensated, not overcompensated, as I believe many are at present.

When we move to transport authorities and transport executives being able at local level to decide what the best way is to run bus services in their locality, if they choose to go to quality contracts, that will mean that we have a proper element of competition in the entirety of local bus services—we do not have much now, because in most parts of Sheffield, one operator runs the services full stop. There will also be competition for the concessionary element of those services. It will stop the nonsense of operators simply putting up fares to get an increased subsidy for the concessions. It will stop all the nonsense of trying to arbitrate between the views of PTEs and of operators about what the actual and proper subsidy is. That will be a much better arrangement for the future.

I welcome what the Government have done so far. I welcome the extensions. Clearly, I would like to hear the Minister’s answer to some of the problems with the national scheme in relation to the introduction of smart cards and cross-border travel that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley has already put to her. I also hope that we move as quickly as possible to allowing a choice in favour of quality contracts and franchising at local level, because that will mean that there is a much fairer way of reimbursing operators for the cost of the subsidy, and ensure that we get proper value for public money, which I am not sure that we are totally getting under the current arrangements.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) in praising the Labour Government for introducing the free transport scheme for elderly and disabled people and for rolling it out nationally next year. That is not something new for many metropolitan areas and certainly not for Tyne and Wear, where we introduced a free travel scheme in the late 1970s for pensioners and disabled people. Charges had to be introduced in 1979, when the Tory Government came in, and I certainly objected to that at the time. I felt that the free scheme ought to have been protected at all costs, but unfortunately that was not done, and fares have increased ever since, so I welcome the new scheme; indeed, it has been widely welcomed in Tyne and Wear.

As has been pointed out, however, there have been unintended consequences because of the way in which the funding for the scheme has been distributed. There must be a rethink on the distribution of funds when the new national scheme comes in. It is crazy that the Isles of Scilly received a share of the money when they have no bus services at all, that Scotland and Wales received a share of the money through the Barnett formula when they have their own funded schemes anyway, and that some local authorities received more than they needed to run the scheme in their areas and others received less.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley pointed out, that cost Tyne and Wear dearly. I am referring not to the £3.5 million to which he referred, although we did have to make £3.4 million-worth of cuts. Some £2 million also had to be taken from balances, so the total cost to Tyne and Wear of introducing the scheme in the last financial year was £5.4 million. As I have said, £3.4 million of that related to cuts. There was a 25 per cent. rise in child concessionary fares to 40p, a 50 per cent. rise in the cost of teen travel tickets for 16 to 18-year-olds in further education, and the scrapping of 11 subsidised bus routes providing services where no other public transport could be provided. Those were the consequences of introducing the scheme under the formula that applied.

If the national concessionary travel scheme will be funded in the same way as it has been up to now—on the basis of population, not journeys—Nexus, which is the Tyne and Wear passenger transport executive, faces the certainty of further cuts in years ahead. It is also certain that urban Tyne and Wear will be a hotspot area in attracting greater numbers of journeys than the net journeys made by its own citizens. That is because the Metro shopping centre and the Newcastle and Gateshead cultural and other leisure attractions, which bring people into the area. In 2008, local authorities and PTEs will have to cover the costs of all concessionary journeys that start in their areas, including those of non-residents, so we will be severely disadvantaged. We would therefore like the Government to reserve funds from the national concessionary travel budget to compensate hotspot areas as they emerge.

If possible—this is a serious request to the Minister—we would also like Tyne and Wear to receive some compensation, if not 100 per cent. compensation, for the £5.4 million that it lost last year. If we do not get it, we will start next year not on a level playing field with other PTE areas, but with a severe disadvantage, as we try to get back, if we ever can, to where we started from.

Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that the subsidy for the scheme will follow the passengers and that no local authority or PTE will be left underfunded? Will she provide an assurance that concessionary fares schemes for children and young people will not have to be cut because local authorities or PTEs have received insufficient funds for the Government’s national concessionary fares scheme for pensioners? And will she reassure me that the introduction of the new national free scheme will not lead to the withdrawal of local authority-supported bus services, which would undermine the scheme’s value to its users?

There is also the question of appeals by operators. PTEs and local authorities currently reimburse operators for the cost of providing free travel by means of local formulas, which are broadly based on a proportion of the off-peak fare. Operators have appealed against such reimbursement arrangements, and appeals in PTE areas alone gained operators additional revenue of about £12 million in 2006. That resulted in some PTEs having to raise fares for other groups, and fares for children in Greater Manchester had to be increased from 50p to 70p to cover the cost of appeals. A further 40 appeals are already in the pipeline for 2007.

There is a further problem. As the number of fare-paying bus passengers continues to decline, while the number of state-subsidised non-fare payers increases, there is a perverse incentive for operators to raise off-peak fares. As my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Sheffield, Attercliffe have said, the answer is the introduction of quality contracts or a franchising system, under which local authorities can have some control over fares and bus services in their areas. That would simplify the arrangements for concessionary fares and eliminate the perverse incentive to increase off-peak fares. The provision of a concessionary fares scheme would be part of the quality contract, and operators would have to build that into their overall tender price. Fare levels could also be regulated as part of the contract.

Finally, there is the question of attempting to prevent fraud when the national scheme is introduced. The Department for Transport has been slow to produce a strategy setting out how the national scheme will work, and it is already too late to have a working national smart card scheme in place for April 2008. Will the Minister guarantee that the national scheme will be secure? What measures will the Department take to minimise the dangers of fraudulent passes and applications? Will she provide an assurance that pensioners will have a new nationally valid pass in their hands by April 2008? Finally, will she provide an assurance that the scheme will continue to be locally administered so that local authorities and PTEs can offer a more generous scheme if they wish to?

I shall be brief, Mr. Cook. I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate, and he contributed thoughtfully on a subject that has caused considerable concern on all sides. I speak as a former member of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and a keen supporter of public transport, whether bus, light rail or the railway system.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is all-party support for free travel for pensioners after 9.30 am, and it has been a considerable success. However, he will be aware, as will the Minister, that many of us remain gravely concerned about the unintended consequences of the proposed move. I refer, of course, to the decision by bus operators in Greater Manchester, which has been mentioned, to rack up concessionary fares for children by 40 per cent., from 50p to 70p. I shall not go as far as one member of the Greater Manchester PTA, who referred to the operators as “robber barons”, but I certainly understand where that comment came from. Whether or not the problem is down to the Government seriously underestimating the take-up of free fares among older people, we are certainly all aware that the situation is serious, and I look forward to the Minister perhaps giving us some idea of what the Government intend to do, or might be able to do, about it.

When the Minister responds, I encourage her to touch on the way in which the money is distributed to transport authorities. I am referring, of course, to the fact that it goes via local authorities, and we have heard of the problems that that has caused—it was certainly clear who the winners and losers were in Greater Manchester. I have no problem with Manchester, as the regional capital of the north-west, benefiting most from the proposals, but I certainly do have a problem with the fact that my borough of Stockport, as well as those of Trafford and Bolton, received nothing very much as a result of the funding formula. With those few comments, I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to the debate.

There are 44 minutes remaining, and I appeal to both Opposition Front-Bench speakers to take no more than a third of that time.

I assure you that I shall take up no more than my allocated time, Mr. Cook. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing a debate on this important subject. As he rightly said, the measures have almost universal support across political parties and the general public.

The hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) all mentioned the serious issue of the potential shortfall in funding, and I shall concentrate my remarks on that. However, I also urge the Minister to respond to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about cross-border arrangements, which are clearly important for Members with constituencies near the borders with Scotland and Wales.

In his 2006 Budget speech, the Chancellor announced that, from 1 April 2008, 11 million over-60s and disabled people in England would be entitled to free off-peak local bus travel in every area of the country, and the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill will legislate for those changes. Free bus travel will be available to those who are eligible from 9.30 in the morning until 11 at night on week days and all day at weekends and bank holidays across the whole of England. Local authorities will still be able to offer residents additional benefits, such as travel before 9.30 am, concessions on other modes of transport such as trams and tokens for use on taxis and community transport.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposed extension of the national fares concession, but we are concerned that the Bill as it stands simply contains enabling provisions, rather than details of how the funding mechanism will work. Questions remain over whether councils and passenger transport authorities will face any financial risk in administering the programme.

The issue is as much about how funding is distributed as it is about the total amount of funding. For example, under the earlier scheme for local free travel, which came into force on 1 April, a number of councils, including in Tyne and Wear, experienced severe financial impacts as a result of the administration of the funding distribution regime, and those problems have still not been fully resolved. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge noted that his local PTA is about £5 million down, and any PTA or local authority would have serious problems with the cuts to services to which that might lead. The worry is that problems remain unresolved from the first time round, and the more complicated national scheme may bring even more. Council tax payers should not have to pick up the tab for a poorly managed and administered national scheme.

The present scheme is funded through the local authority block grant system, which is very crude and bears no relation to the numbers of concessionary fare bus travellers. That is why the Liberal Democrats support the inclusion in the Bill of the opportunity to introduce a smart card system, along the lines of what has been introduced in Scotland. That system would provide not only a method of buying tickets, but, more importantly, a measure of bus use. It would therefore facilitate a much better method of distributing money to operators by ensuring an accurate link to the number of passengers carried. Some local authority areas are already introducing smart cards, so it is vital that all adhere to a national standard that will make integrated ticketing and funding possible.

Unfortunately, there are potential problems with the current proposals. In areas with large numbers of visitors aged over 60, there will be additional pressures, as current funding arrangements do not take into account journeys made by visitors—only those taken by residents. Where there are high numbers of visitors, the level of bus use by the over-60s will be higher than average. If the funding formula does not reflect that, local taxpayers may pay for holidaymakers aged over 60 to use buses free. The problem is that no one really knows how many additional journeys will be created, or where.

There is a notable lack of research or data held by the Government on visitor numbers and, consequently, on the likely impact on bus use in areas more likely to be visited by the elderly. Figures on the age of visitors and on the likelihood that elderly visitors will use local bus services are not readily available. However, the raw figures on visitor numbers are a useful pointer to the areas that might experience significant increases in bus travel. For instance, London is clearly at the top of the table, but interestingly Blackpool is second and my own authority, Manchester, is in third place. It is not only seaside resorts that will feel the impact. Research needs to be done to find out the number of visitors, by age, in each local authority, their current bus use and the likelihood that those people will use bus services once they are free.

There should also be provision in the Bill for an eligible journey to be extended on to another mode of transport, where that is considered appropriate. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House of Lords have raised the matter of Croydon Tramlink, which for part of its journey from New Addington to Croydon is a substitute for a bus service that was withdrawn. That substitution will prove to have been very unfair, if the journeys are not included in the free scheme. Similarly, on Merseyside a number of journeys from Birkenhead to Liverpool will include a ferry journey, but at the moment such journeys will not be included in the scheme.

The original 2006 scheme received £350 million of funding, but the distribution system to councils, through the revenue support grants, has not covered costs, and some councils have lost out. Those councils have had to cut subsidised bus services, increase children’s bus fares, use reserves or increase council tax to fill the funding gap between the Government grant and the actual cost of free bus travel. Serious annual shortfalls have affected, for example, Tyne and Wear, Devon county council and Bath and North East Somerset council. The extended scheme for 2008 will receive an additional £250 million in Government funding, but the Government again propose to distribute that by a revenue support grant formula.

Recently, in January, the Local Government Association regeneration and transport board discussed that serious issue of funding. It has argued for a more transparent system of distributing funds, preferably by way of a direct ring-fenced grant to local authorities that are transport authorities. It has also suggested a safety net of money top-sliced from the Government’s £250 million to prevent local authorities from incurring unintended deficits and extending the fares-free concession to tram and light rail, local heavy rail, local ferry services and community transport. Unfortunately, the Government rejected all those proposals in the House of Lords Grand Committee debate.

There is a danger that unless a system is devised to ensure that each journey is paid for, some local authorities and passenger transport authorities will be short-changed. No one really knows what impact the national extension of the concessionary scheme will have on the take-up of free journeys. We do not really know how many people will decide to go on a day trip from Manchester to Blackpool by bus, which is why it is vital that resources are directed to the areas where journeys are created. The sensible solution is a smart card system that will log every journey and allow direct payment to be made to the bus operators, ensuring that no local authority will be left out of pocket and have to make up a shortfall.

There are 34 minutes remaining.

I shall try to take well under half of that time, Mr. Cook, to give the Minister time to reply to some of the issues that have been raised today.

I confess to some surprise at this debate today, given that in less than three weeks, on 14 May, the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill will have its Second Reading. The Bill was introduced in the Lords last November and had its Third Reading there on 5 February. Everyone knows that it will guarantee concessionary off-peak travel for people aged 60 and over and disabled people on all local buses in England from 2008. It will also allow future mutual recognition of national concessionary bus passes. Like other hon. Members, I would like the Minister to tell us when that mutual recognition of passes across border areas is likely to happen. The Bill will also effectively give the Secretary of State reserve powers to alter the scheme.

All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have pointed out that the concept of concessionary travel is supported by all parties. The key intention of the Bill, the introduction of national concessionary bus travel, certainly enjoys our support. Clearly the clauses will require fairly detailed scrutiny. As I have said, Second Reading is on 14 May, so one might wonder why this debate should be happening today. I initially thought that it might be an appeal to humour: you wait for a while and then several come along at once.

I am sorry to ruin the hon. Gentleman’s joke—

So am I—it is the only one I have got.

Nevertheless, the debate is timely, because it may give the Minister the opportunity to change her mind.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but the Minister has been extremely generous in preparing for the Bill by inviting Opposition spokesmen to help to iron out several issues before it comes to the House. She has been able to answer several of the questions on which the Liberal Democrat spokesman and I sought reassurance—although that does not, as I am sure she can imagine, mean that we shall not give the Bill extensive scrutiny in Committee.

We have heard the usual comments today about bus companies. Some such comments are undoubtedly true, but there is no balance. One of the problems with the deregulated markets at the moment is that bus companies are becoming increasingly frustrated by what they see as local authorities’ failings, and local authorities are increasingly frustrated by what they see as bus companies’ failure to invest or to be responsive. The operators have freedom to decide where and when to run buses, but they are banned from co-ordinating with other operators. Local authorities can offer subsidised and non-commercial schemes, but there are restrictions on deals and on what they can negotiate on service levels. Of course, local authorities can invest in quality bus corridors and bus improvement schemes—I have been to see several of those. The private sector benefits from them, but several local authorities feel that they do not make a greater contribution to the public purse. However, those are not necessarily good arguments for the reintroduction of older schemes or for making the tests on quality contracts easier.

There is a lot of talk about the schemes that quality contracts might enact if the test were made easier. The schemes would be similar to those on the London bus network, but that is not the paragon of virtue that many people who live outside London’s precincts believe it to be. The Government believe that the current test for quality contracts is far too exacting and that the public interest clause should be redefined to state exact circumstances. Although it is clear that voluntary partnerships continue to work and can be made to work, it is not clear, even with the revision to the test that the Minister proposes in “Putting Passengers First”, whether quality contracts can ever work. They seem to take us back to the pre-1985 solution. The Minister talks about the Bill and “Putting Passengers First”, but rather than trying to make quality contracts work, we want her to make voluntary and quality partnerships work.

The essence of the Government’s proposals is that it should be up to transport authorities to decide locally the best way to run bus services in their areas. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not want to rule out the possibility of quality contracts being the right way in which to run services in certain areas and the passenger transport authorities in those areas having that choice.

I merely remind the hon. Gentleman that the proposed change to quality contracts will re-enact the status quo ante. It was a former Secretary of State for Transport who said that there should be no going back to that era.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have given way twice and I am mindful of your strictures, Mr. Cook. We could rehearse our Second Reading speeches and raise questions of cost, definition and reimbursement, but I intend to save much of that for Second Reading and Committee stage of the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill.

It is clear that concessionary schemes are not simply a subsidy to bus operators. As the Government have said, and as the evidence from a number of passenger transport executives and bus companies shows, reimbursement is made to work on a no better-off, no worse-off basis, which inevitably means that the scheme is revenue neutral in most areas. The level of reimbursement that is offered can be imposed by local authorities, so the ultimate power in terms of reimbursement resides with local authorities.

The funding of local government and of free local concessionary bus travel, which will soon be a national scheme, has caused considerable problems. The Liberal Democrat spokesman said that how funding is distributed is more important than how much is spent, but both questions are relevant. Several operators have written to me about the Bill to say that local concessionary and reimbursement schemes have resulted in many of them not receiving the appropriate level of reimbursement for carrying passengers who travel free, or for the investment required to introduce new vehicles or increased frequencies as a direct result of that concessionary travel being offered.

Equally, many local authorities have complained that the mechanism for allocating Government resources to cover the cost of local concessionary and free bus travel has resulted in a fairly major shortfall. When local concessionary fares were first offered, my office phoned 15 local councils to inquire whether the proposed extra Government funding would cover the schemes that they would have to introduce in their areas. Only one said that it would. I understand that there were 60 initial appeals, of which 44 are still outstanding, against the level of funding given to local concessionary schemes.

It is instructive to look at an example of how some local authorities have been hit. I shall use Christchurch as an example because it has one of the highest percentages of citizens aged over 60—36 per cent. Before the mandatory free scheme, it ran a half-fare scheme that allowed some cross-border travel and travel outside the district, which cost £138,000 in 2005-06. The new scheme cost substantially more, and the Government adjusted the grant to Christchurch by £237,000 from 1 April 2006, but the amount that was needed to enact the new local scheme to meet Government stipulations was £395,000, leaving a deficit of £20,000 for the local authority to pick up. The following year, take-up and usage exceeded expectations by 69 per cent., partly because of local usage and partly because of other people coming in. As a result of the scheme, Christchurch faced a £345,000 hole in its account. Therefore, the issue of how the money is being distributed is of concern.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) told us that Greater Manchester has pointed out that although the national allocation was £250 million, only £212 million actually reached local authorities. The history of the scheme is that the Government are clearly putting money in, but not all of that money is covering the full cost of implementing schemes in local areas.

The Minister has already claimed that, with the additional moneys that the Government are providing to make the local concessionary schemes and now the national concessionary scheme work, they will provide an extra £1 billion of funding. The £350 million that was made available last year and the £250 million for the national scheme add up to £600 million. I am told that the £1 billion is made up by extra movements in grant funding to local transport authorities. I hope that the Minister will clarify how that money will be delivered and how local authorities will recognise that.

Today, we have briefly discussed the hotspot scheme. A number of local authorities are clearly concerned that if the funding for the concessionary scheme does not follow the passenger, there will be a fairly dramatic impact on local council tax payers. It would be worth the Government giving us a clear statement, perhaps before Second Reading, about their thinking on one or two matters associated with the Bill.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) talked about his local residents’ desire for trams to be included, but in several rural areas, although community transport or dial-a-ride is the only form of public service transport available, they appear to be excluded from the national scheme. For many disabled people, the ability to travel or to use the scheme will be real only if it applies to their carers as well. I am sure that, like me, the Minister will have had representations from various charities on that point. Does she intend to amend the Bill to allow that to happen?

The Government’s policy is relatively rare internationally, in that most countries do not offer 100 per cent. concessionary travel. We should be pleased that we do. We are almost unique in that regard. One reason why other countries do not offer 100 per cent. concessionary fares is because they contain a dead weight loss initially unless the funding is sensitive to journeys. I hope that the Minister will give us further guidance as to whether the pass that will be issued to citizens aged over 60 or to disabled people will have smart card technology. If such passes will not be available at the start of the scheme, when will they be? In future years, will the subsidy be entirely allied to usage and entirely follow the passenger?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing this time to discuss the Government’s concessionary fares policy. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that it will further improve the lives of 11 million over-60s and disabled people in England. I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He described this Labour Government’s commitment to improving the well-being and social inclusion of those people on the back of economic success. That success allows us to make a level of commitment that no previous Government have ever been able to make and to which no party other than ours has committed.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue for a moment, I will gladly give way.

I should like to make a few general points and then go on to discuss the specific points that hon. Members have raised. As we all know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last year that from April 2008 people in England who are aged 60 or over and disabled people will be able to travel for free by local bus not only within their local authority area, but anywhere in England. That guarantee will apply from 9.30 am on weekdays, and all day on weekends and bank holidays. The Government are providing up to an extra £250 million a year to fund this important and popular policy.

The Minister is clearly not aware that when the Chancellor introduced in the Budget the decision that local travel was going to be free, it was already Liberal Democrat party policy.

The hon. Gentleman has called for the scheme’s further extension, and I shall be interested to hear the costings and to see whether the Liberal Democrats will commit to them.

This extension will benefit the people whom we represent. To make it happen, we introduced the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill, which moved to this House earlier this year. It has made excellent progress, and I look forward to the further debates in the coming weeks about its contents. I am glad to hear support on both sides of the Chamber for the positive difference that the enhanced concession will make to people in communities throughout England.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) urged me to change my mind before the Bill’s Second Reading. I wondered what I could possibly change my mind about, because my commitment is to extending this scheme and having national free travel in England for those 11 million people whom I mentioned. While listening to his comments, I became concerned, because I got the feeling that we are all doomed—I heard criticism after criticism of the policy. It is important to remember that we would not even be having this discussion were it not for the Labour Government’s commitment to the people whom I mentioned.

We all know that April 2008 is a challenging deadline, but it is achievable with the assistance of local authorities and bus operators. I wish to put on record my thanks for the valuable input from the concessionary fares working group and its task groups. This has been, and will be, a good example of how central Government, local authorities and the bus industry can work together to deliver a real difference to people’s lives. I emphasise that it is in all our interests to ensure that we get this popular and correct policy right, which is where my commitment lies.

Buses are enormously important for getting people out and about, and bus journeys account for two out of three public transport journeys, which comprise more than 4 billion journeys a year in England. We want buses to be used by even greater numbers, and our commitment to concessionary travel will help that aim. Reference has been made to the need to change the way in which buses are run in some areas to attract more people on to them, and I share that view. Our proposals published in “Putting Passengers First” represent the most fundamental change in bus policy for 20 years.

Last April saw, for the first time, free local off-peak bus travel for older and disabled people. Some local authorities had concerns about the funding that they received from the formula grant. An extra £350 million was distributed—the figure is increasing to £367.5 million for this year—and that reflects local government’s wish to have freedom and flexibility in how it spends its funding. That Government policy is generally welcomed. As I have said before, we recognise the concerns expressed about the distribution of existing and future funding, especially in respect of visitor hotspots.

I shall refer to some of the points made by hon. Members. Some of my hon. Friends, who are tremendous advocates for bus passengers in both their local areas and up and down the country, have made several points. I was asked about funding following the passenger. Funding will certainly follow where the trip originates, and it is in all our interests to ensure that funding reflects usage.

Clarification has been requested on the administration of the national concession. We have announced that, in order to give some stability, from April 2008 the national concession will be administered by local authorities and passenger transport executives, as it is at present. I also confirm that the Bill will allow local decision making to continue. Local enhancements to the national scheme may continue, and I look forward to that.

An inquiry was made as to whether the funding level is sufficient. I am confident that it is, and it includes a large contingency due to uncertainties about take-up. The positive concern is that success will put pressure on the scheme, but, as always, I would rather deal with the consequences of success, and the extra funding from this Government allows for that. It is important to state that local authorities were consulted on how we calculated the extra money, and we included them all along the way.

I move on to the card that will be used. What will people have in their hands in April 2008? That question is still subject to consultation. I assure hon. Members that we are working with local authorities and are in the process of holding a series of workshops around the country this month and next month, whereby local authorities can give their input and find out more. We are discussing all aspects of the pass design with our stakeholders, including bus operators and local authorities, and the proposals will go out for consultation before a final decision is made. We intend to negotiate framework agreements with suppliers, which authorities will be able to use, should they wish. We also recognise that issuing passes represents a new burden, and we have proposed to pay an additional grant to cover the issuing costs. We are doing everything possible to assist local authorities in delivery, and we will continue to offer advice and support beyond April 2008.

Subject to consultation, the card will be a credit-card-sized photo pass. It will bear the national logo to ensure recognition by bus drivers throughout England, and it will have space for local customisation, such as a logo, to show eligibility for local concessions. In London, the freedom pass will have a national sticker put on it as a temporary measure, because it is not practical or cost-effective to introduce a national pass there in April 2008.

Concerns about cuts in other services have been raised. Sufficient funding is going to local areas for the statutory scheme, but it is for local authorities to implement affordable schemes that meet their statutory obligations. After that, they must assess local need and their overall financial priorities, and exercise freedom, flexibility and responsibility in deciding how they spend their funding.

I hear what my hon. Friend has said about local discretion, but local discretion in Tyne and Wear before the free bus pass system was introduced was that an extra £3.4 million should be spent on local services because of the introduction of the free pass.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I turn to Tyne and Wear. I was pleased recently to have the chance to go to Newcastle for continuing discussions with Nexus about its good work to develop bus services in the area.

On Tyne and Wear, the Government accept that in such schemes there will be winners and losers. However, that is not specific to the issue of concessionary fares. Indeed, local authorities have long argued in favour of unhypothecated funding. The issue is not unique to concessionary fares. The Department for Communities and Local Government continues to talk to concerned local authorities, such as Tyne and Wear. It is in all our interests to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to provide the statutory concession.

Mention has been made of the Isles of Scilly, particularly by my hon. Friend. I have no brief to speak specifically for the Isles of Scilly, but their eligible residents will be entitled to the national concession on the mainland, so they will need to administer passes for their residents.

On reimbursement and appeals, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, we have acknowledged that there are some problems with the current arrangements for reimbursing operators, which are rather complex and open to too much interpretation. Appeals are time-consuming, costly and in no one’s best interests. We are working closely with operators and local authorities to put in place revised and rather more efficient arrangements for the new 2008 concession. We aim to issue new guidance on reimbursement in the autumn, and I hope that hon. Members will take an interest in them.

On the general issue of appeals, it is right that bus operators should have a right to appeal. They should be reimbursed on a not-better-off, not-worse-off basis, and the Secretary of State has appointed an external, independent decision maker to determine appeals on his behalf.

On the allegations of operators putting up fares, it is worth reminding hon. Members that “Putting Passengers First” will give local authorities a role in the determination of maximum fares as and where appropriate. It is also worth reminding ourselves that the majority of bus passengers are not in receipt of concessionary fares. Bus operators must take account of the fact that putting up fares will be a deterrent to fare-paying passengers. Operators receive not the full fare charged, but an average fare, taking into account the whole range of tickets, including discounted tickets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe asked specifically whether local scheme additions will remain available. The answer is yes, absolutely, and the Bill makes that provision.

On fraud prevention and the delivery of passes, smart cards contain a chip that can record data, which will be immensely helpful. They have many benefits, including the potential to reduce fraud, precise targeting of concessions, and allowing ease of travel, which is very much in line with our integrated approach and our encouragement to get people on to buses. We are actively exploring the possibility of the passes being smart cards. We propose that they should be used as smart cards in areas that have the necessary readers, but will be flashed up in areas where there are no readers. Again, in our discussions with bus operators and local authorities, the need to be pragmatic about what is possible by April 2008, with an eye to beyond, is paramount.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the mutual recognition of concessionary passes throughout the UK, and that was raised with me when I had the pleasure of being the guest of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I understand the point, but it is the nature of devolved Administrations to take devolved decisions. Concessionary travel on buses is indeed a devolved policy area, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill contains the powers it does because we hope that in future—we have had initial discussions with the devolved Administrations—it will be possible to travel on eligible local bus services throughout the entire country. However, I want to make two points. First, it is our absolute priority to get a workable national concession in England in April 2008. That must be the No. 1 priority. Secondly, local authorities across borders can make their own arrangements, if they fund them. That option will always be available under the Bill.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington called for a range of extensions to the Bill, but it extends geographical scope only. I shall give some figures, which the Liberal Democrats might want to consider their commitment to. If the scheme were extended statutorily to the under-18s, it would cost an extra £500 million a year, and if it were extended to community transport, it would cost an extra £25 million a year. Those are rough estimates, because the figures would be affected by take-up, and we do not know about the switch from other transport or the additional capacity required. I understand the point, but cost is clearly not the only concern—the Government have already made a substantial commitment of £1 billion a year—and we must consider fair and robust definitions for eligibility, demand, and whether community transport, which is largely a voluntary sector, would be able to cope without full and proper consideration, so I urge caution.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) extended his support to the legislation, for which I am grateful, but I am disappointed today, as on previous occasions, by the paucity of interest from his hon. Friends. His party has given no commitment to our sustained investment in transport.

There have been references to quality contracts, and the proposals in “Putting Passengers First” will make them a realistic option, while ensuring that the legitimate interests of operators are safeguarded. Quality contracts are about not only cutting social exclusion and reducing traffic congestion, but the radical rearrangement of bus services, and it is important to ensure that that benefits local people.

The concessionary fares scheme is the right policy for this Government, and it is in all our interests to ensure that we get it right. I record my thanks to all those who continue to give us support, and I am pleased and proud to be involved with this important scheme.