1. What policies he has considered to encourage the use of public transport. (136903)

The Government have provided record and sustained investment in transport and have brought decision making closer to local areas to ensure that public transport better meets the needs of passengers.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. He is right to say that the Government have invested heavily in public transport, yet the perception is still that more needs to be done. What does he propose to do to try to get people out of their cars and on to quality public transport in future, thereby solving some of the problem of our CO₂ emissions?

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s suggestion that more needs to be done. That is why we are investing £88 million a week in the country’s railways after decades of under-investment, and why there has been sustained investment in our bus network. In addition, we have brought forward proposals, most recently at the turn of the year in “Putting Passengers First”, to advance the cause of ensuring a better bus service in this country, because although there are communities where buses operate effectively, in too many communities there still is not the standard of service that people want. With regard to both buses and trains, we are seeing real improvements on the back of real investment.

The House debated public transport matters only yesterday, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State acknowledged that there are areas of the country where there is no meaningful public transport at all. He was talking about buses, but clearly there are other forms of public transport, such as taxis and minicabs, that might well be used in areas where the demand is limited, but where the interest in services is great, particularly among elderly people who do not have their own transport. What encouragement will he give to counties such as Cheshire, which has sadly had to reduce the amount of subsidised public transport, because of the reduction in revenue from central Government?

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the reduction of the revenue support grant. It is of course for individual local authorities to determine the level of concession that they offer their residents. He makes a fair point in recognising that in the longer term and in the future, there may well be opportunities, for example through smart ticketing that allows cash to be credited, to consider providing pensioners with facilities that would make a more flexible range of services available, whether that is through dial-a-bus, community travel or taxis. However, those are discussions for the future, as well as for today.

The one form of public transport directly managed by my right hon. Friend’s Department is, of course, the Government car service. Why does his Department require British Government Ministers to drive around in the Japanese-built Toyota Prius, which has two engines and a wasteful manufacturing process, and has to be shipped halfway around the world on boats that pump out emissions, when we could be supporting the environment and showing British industry that we are on its side by using Birmingham-built Jaguars, which use the cleanest diesel technologies in the world?

Give him a Jag!

I am not sure whether that call was “Give him a job” or “Give him a Jag.” My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) is a tireless campaigner for the west midlands, and I once again pay tribute to his efforts. It is fair to recognise that the Government car service has an obligation to consider where we can secure the best environmental technologies, given the commitment that has been shown, not just by the Government but by Members on both sides of the House, to taking our environmental responsibilities seriously. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on the subject.

More people would use rail services at busy times if there were more seats and more regular services. Will the Secretary of State look into the technology to see how we can get more friction and traction for trains that run on commuter lines, so that we can double the number of trains that use the existing lines? That cannot be done at the moment because there is not the technology.

Perhaps rather unusually, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in recognising—[Interruption.] Perhaps I will live to regret that comment. I join him in recognising capacity as a serious challenge. That is why I announced in March, when we published the high level output specification, that we will specify 1,000 extra carriages for the rail network. However, that is without prejudice to the continuing work that we need to take forward on, for example, considering platform lengthening or the possibility of double-decker trains. The number of trains that we can run on the existing network is limited, but I assure the House that we are seriously considering all options to make full use of that network.

Residents in Paulsgrove in my constituency have had one of their bus services—the 1C—withdrawn by First Bus, but following pressure from residents a partial service has been reinstated, which finishes at 5 o’clock. Many people consider the needs of elderly residents, and the partial service means that elderly residents cannot go out at night, but I was told of the case of a young lad of 15 who used to go to a theatre group and get the bus back late at night, but now cannot go. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should consider the needs of young people for bus transport and try to make them less dependent on their parents’ cars?

Improved bus services benefit all ages in the community. It is right to recognise that in my hon. Friend’s community, in mine and in the communities of many Members, bus services are a vital lifeline. That is why, all too often, following the arbitrary withdrawal of services on which people rely, there is understandable concern and anger in those communities. That is one of the reasons why, last summer, we took a long hard look at bus provision in the United Kingdom, why we published “Putting Passengers First”, and why we are determined to drive forward better arrangements to assure effective partnership between local authorities and the bus operators.

If it is Government policy to encourage greater public transport use, why has South West Trains been allowed to increase its fares at off-peak times by 20 per cent. without any consultation? Does the Secretary of State think that that decision will help the Government meet their policy aims?

The fares at off-peak times, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are not regulated fares. Although I understand that there was real concern and public interest in the fares that were announced, it is important to emphasise that those are not fares set by Government. The regulated fares, which are set by Government, in addition to the advance purchase discount fares, account for about 70 per cent. of the journeys made on Britain’s railways. Beyond those regulated fares and advance purchase fares, there must be a degree of flexibility for train companies to set prices against other modes of available transport, but I would urge all train companies to act responsibly when considering the setting of unregulated fares.

My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the overcrowding on train services in the south-east. We recently had an Eltham to Victoria service cut by two carriages. Such a penny-pinching approach to the provision of services in south-east London is not good enough and will not deal with the congestion on our lines. When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of South Eastern Trains, will he impress upon them the fact that south-east London is not served by the London underground, train services are essential, and that it is important that we extend the length of our trains, not cut them?

Here in London, particularly south of the river, there is clearly a strong reliance on the over-ground train network, and I will be happy to ensure that in the discussions that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), has with officials from South Eastern Trains, the points that my hon. Friend has raised are put directly to them.

Further to the excellent point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), one of the biggest barriers to people using public transport in my part of the world is overcrowding on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines into Leeds. When will the Government start putting right the chronic underfunding of transport in west Yorkshire? In everything done by the Government, west Yorkshire always gets a bad deal.

I am always happy to receive representations, but it is an interesting charge to be put to us by the Conservative party that there is chronic under-investment in the railways of the United Kingdom. As I have made clear, a commitment has been made for 1,000 extra carriages for the network by 2014. It is important that all of us in the House recognise that any party that says that it is possible simultaneously to have lower fares, lower taxes and higher investment is not being altogether straight with the general public.

2. What assessment he has made of the barriers to entry to the rail industry. (136904)

The operation of passenger and freight train services is subject to a range of regulatory requirements designed to safeguard the public interest. Before being awarded an operating licence, therefore, a new operator has to satisfy the Office of Rail Regulation that it has the necessary competence, especially in safety management.

Business, commerce and industry in Wrexham all support the application by the Wrexham and Shropshire Railway for a direct rail service to London for the first time since 1957. The only people who are opposed to that are the subsidised franchised train operators in the midlands, who do not provide a direct service to Wrexham. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the rail regulator should take into account the interests of passengers first, not the interests of subsidised franchised rail operators?

My hon. Friend has made a persuasive and eloquent case in favour of the new service. He will understand, of course, that a decision on access to the network is one for the Office of Rail Regulation to take, and it will be made over the next few weeks. He also knows that it would not be appropriate for Ministers to seek to influence that decision. However, he should be aware that Network Rail has also raised concerns about the number of pathways that might be available to the new operator. As I say, a decision will be announced in the next few weeks.

Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), can the Minister give a commitment to the House that he will ensure that Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation do not put up unnecessary barriers to entry as regards the direct link from Shropshire to London? Has he had any discussions about that route in relation to the issues raised today?

I have had meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and several other colleagues about the merits of the case. However, I did not undertake to raise it directly with the Office of Rail Regulation, because it would not be appropriate for me to do so. I have every confidence that the ORR will make a decision based entirely on the merits of the application.

3. When the Highways Agency expects to publish detailed proposals on the improvement of the A14 around Kettering. (136905)

I have asked the Highways Agency to submit recommendations on potential improvements this autumn.

I am grateful that the Minister is urging the Highways Agency to get a move on, because the people of Kettering have been waiting a long time for the proposals to be announced. When that happens, will the Minister ensure that plans for a parallel distributor road include provision for that road to be as close to the A14 as possible so as not to encroach on neighbouring villages? Will he also ensure that the Highways Agency liaises with Northamptonshire county council to provide that a connecting eastern bypass is built round Kettering?

The hon. Gentleman is asking too much if he expects me to commit to all those things in advance of the proposals. However, I can assure him that I have taken a personal interest in transport issues in the growth area around his constituency. I have visited the sites and spoken to developers, councils and development agencies, and I will continue to do so. I will commit the Highways Agency to working closely with everyone in the area to ensure that we come up with the best possible solution for local people.

4. What measures he is taking to reduce noise from aircraft at regional airports. (136906)

The Civil Aviation Act 2006 strengthens airport operators’ powers to control noise at airports. Those powers enable airports to introduce noise control schemes and to charge penalties to operators of aircraft that breach noise controls.

What will the Minister do to encourage aerodromes to use the powers granted under section 4 of the Act and to implement the technology that will enable them to track aeroplanes that depart from minimum noise routings and to have a robust regime to fine those that do so?

It is important that airports take control over noise. It is Government policy to ensure that we work to reduce the numbers of people who are adversely affected. I am aware that Bournemouth airport, which is local to the hon. Gentleman, plans to install a noise and track-keeping system in July. The new provisions under the 2006 Act are welcome, but the consultative arrangements are also working well in many cases throughout the country.

Despite the fact that some years ago East Midlands airport introduced noise preferential routes, track monitoring and penalty schemes, the rapid growth of aircraft numbers to up to 200 air traffic movements a day means that communities around the airport periphery are still suffering a great deal from noise. Does the Minister accept that the 2006 Act should include a fall-back option to allow, in extreme circumstances, ministerial designation under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to relieve the communities of south Derbyshire and north-west Leicestershire from the problems that they endure at the moment?

It is worth reminding the House that the air transport White Paper seeks to strike a fair balance between the local and national economic benefits, as well as the local environmental costs described by my hon. Friend. In respect of designation, where self-regulation is not enough the Government already have the power to designate airports for the purposes of section 78 of the 1982 Act. However, that does not mean that control by the Government, which my hon. Friend requests, ensures a quieter noise environment. What matters is that local consultation produces that, and I urge him to work locally to do so.

It is the noise of a single aircraft that wakes people up in the middle of the night, thus causing stress in their daily lives and generally upsetting their quality of life. What plans does the Under-Secretary have to measure aircraft noise by the noise that is heard on the ground in the eardrums of sleeping individuals rather than by obscure and complicated noise quotients, quotas and averages, which do not especially affect anyone? I stress that the noise of an individual aircraft affects people. What are her plans?

I presume that the hon. Gentleman is offering to be a volunteer to have the noise measured in his ear when asleep. I shall take that information back to the Department.

The Department continues to review measurements of noise—indeed, there is wide discussion about what constitutes the best form of measurement. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s points and I shall ensure that the Department considers his comments.

My constituents in Inverness want to hear more, not less noise from aircraft. They are especially worried that the transatlantic agreement on open skies will threaten essential services between Inverness and London Gatwick and Heathrow airports. Will the Under-Secretary act to protect those vital services by using a public service obligation, thus ensuring that my constituents continue to hear those economically essential journeys for many years to come?

Regional airports add much to local economies. That is why several hon. Members welcome such development in their areas. I confirm that the air transport White Paper recognises the importance of good air links to London to the UK’s regional economies. The Government’s guidance on the protection of regional air access to London was published in 2005 and it set out the way in which we will interpret the criteria for imposing the public service obligations in European regulations.

5. If he will make a statement on the future of rural and branch railway lines. (136907)

The Government recognise the importance of local railway lines to the communities that they serve and seek to support their development, primarily through the implementation of the community rail development strategy. The Department has recently published a review of the progress that we have made in implementing it.

I am lucky to be here to ask this question because the 13.08 from Harlington in my constituency was severely delayed. Given the house-building targets that are being imposed on Bedfordshire, does the Under-Secretary agree that additional investment in rural and branch railway lines is needed now to increase capacity and frequency and to deal with the current problems, to which I can testify today, as well as what we will face in future? Do we not need the investment now?

May I first say how delighted I am to see the hon. Lady in her place? She has managed against all the odds to make it to the Chamber.

I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in an earlier answer. The Government currently spend £88 million a week on investing in the railways. That is a record sum. It is noticeable that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have not announced a single penny of extra investment in their transport plans. Until that happens, I will not take lessons and—

Order.

The Under-Secretary will agree that rural and branch lines are no use without stations to serve them. I raised with his predecessor the question of Kenilworth station, which does not yet exist, even for such a big town. Now that the business case is available and positive, will he join me in doing all he can to ensure that Kenilworth gets that vital transport link?

I am more than happy to discuss Kenilworth or any other non-existent station with the hon. Gentleman, provided, of course, that there is a business case. That must include partnership agreement with not only Network Rail but private sector partners.

The Government have announced plans for thousands of new homes throughout the country, but there is a genuine concern that the transport requirements, and whether the railway network can support that growth sustainably, have not been considered. On 26 April, together with Transport 2000, we launched a campaign to protect disused railway lines from development. On the same day, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him to impose a two-year moratorium on the sale of land on former rail routes, establish an independent study and introduce long-term protections as necessary. Exactly what does the Secretary of State intend to do?

It is the responsibility of British Rail Board [Residuary] to safeguard any disused land that may conceivably be used for railway purposes in the near future. That is done on a case-by-case basis and I am not convinced that it would be helpful or even necessary to produce a list of lines that could at some point in the future perhaps be reopened. That would not be particularly helpful.

6. What his policy is on the setting of rail fares. (136908)

Certain rail fares are regulated by the Government. Those include season tickets and full-fare singles and returns in and around London and other major cities. Regulated fares are monitored to ensure that train operators comply with the limits set for those fares. Other fares are a matter for train operators.

Following that answer and the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the Secretary of State, will the Minister tell us whether the Government are resisting pressures from rail operators to reduce the times when saver tickets are available?

The Government, along with the rail industry, are looking into a new structure to make fares on the railways much more sensible and easy to understand. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that regulated fares—the fares that most people travel on—are actually 2 per cent. cheaper today in real terms than they were 10 years ago.

Does my hon. Friend realise that fares on the rail system from Tamworth to London have gone up remarkably in the past three years? Does he believe that it is due to the near monopoly of Virgin Trains on that line and does he believe that having more operators on it would provide more competition and reduce fares? How can we make that possible?

I am not aware of the details of my hon. Friend’s question, but I would be happy to look into them. However, I repeat my earlier point that regulated fares—most commuters and rail passengers travel on either discounted or regulated fares—are actually 2 per cent. cheaper in real terms than they were 10 years ago. My hon. Friend will understand that if we were to extend the regulation of rail fares, it would mean an increase in subsidy from the public purse. That would mean a consequent reduction in the amount of public money available for other services.

Well, I think that we have just heard the death knell of the saver ticket. When the Department signed the latest round of franchise agreements, were Ministers aware that commitments to increase premium payments to the Government were based on an assumption of sharp increases in unregulated train fares?

The amount of premiums that any rail company wishes to pay to the Department for Transport is a matter for that company at the bidding stage of any new franchise. The fares increased by South West Trains in the past few weeks are not regulated fares. The Government have no plans to extend their regulation and I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has a policy to do so either.

Do not Ministers check the financial assumptions in the agreements that they sign? The Secretary of State is always telling us that there are only two sources of funds for the rail industry—the taxpayer and the passenger. Is the Minister honestly telling the House that Ministers did not realise that when they signed up to the increased premiums, they were also signing up to deals that would mean big fare increases? If he is saying that, I think that people will not believe him.

Franchises are let on a competitive basis and each train operating company is entitled to put forward its own proposals for the franchise over whatever period it will cover. Regulated fares are limited to a 1 per cent. increase over inflation in any one year, but unregulated fares are not subject to that kind of limit. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should regulate those fares, I would be very interested to hear the details of that proposal.

Has my hon. Friend made careful comparisons between fare levels on continental state-owned railways and those on our privatised railways? If so, has he drawn any obvious conclusions?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I have to say that the difference between British and European fares is very often exaggerated. He will be aware that the level of general taxation in this country is significantly less than that on the continent. The prices that passengers pay per kilometre in most European countries are very comparable to those in this country.

7. What plans he has to seek changes in the system of baggage handling operations at UK airports; and if he will make a statement. (136909)

None. The provision of baggage handling services at UK airports is governed by the EU ground handling directive 1996, which aims at liberalising the provision of ground-handling services through the introduction of competition.

Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with British Airways regarding the sale of BA Connect and the resulting outsourcing of baggage handling operations, which many of its staff feel amount to BA abandoning Scottish airports and their staff?

I am in regular dialogue with British Airways and I was of course aware of the decision regarding BA Connect. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that a number of my own constituents have been affected by the changes that the hon. Gentleman has described, not least because they work at Glasgow airport. As I understand it, the airline is now in formal consultation with trade union representatives about the future of existing employees, but this is primarily a matter for the company and its employees.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that baggage handling services have changed hands. Will he use his good offices to ensure that the companies that are now responsible for baggage handling give their staff the proper training that they require? Given that baggage is often accompanied by people, will he also ensure that the people carrying the baggage are treated in an appropriate way, especially at security checkpoints, where the treatment can sometimes be impersonal and intrusive?

Obviously, all of us would wish for people to be treated with respect and dignity. The information that has been provided to me today suggests that British Airways is offering existing employees a choice between transferring to Aviance UK at Edinburgh under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, alternative employment with BA with relocation packages where applicable, or voluntary severance, and that there will be no compulsory redundancies.

I have the honour, in common with many other right hon. and hon. Members, of representing the Commons on the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and NATO, so I have to use airports a lot. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that, despite his good efforts, baggage handling in the big British airports is really quite lamentable—often worse than in some third world countries. It is not his fault, it is not BAA’s fault, it is not the airline’s fault—everyone seems to pass the buck. Will he set up a working party to look into this, to ensure that all the security lanes are properly used and that baggage is delivered to customers at roughly the same speed as it is in Europe or the United States?

I am not convinced by my right hon. Friend’s proposal. He is a committed pro-European—he clearly uses a number of European airlines—and I would be surprised if he were to ask the British Government to deviate from the terms of the EU ground handling directive of 1996 which, as I said in my original answer, seeks to improve services through the introduction of competition.

8. When he plans to make retro-reflective markings mandatory on all newly registered heavy goods vehicles. (136910)

By 10 October 2009.

That is exceptionally good news. As the Minister will be aware from the various Adjournment debates in which we have both been involved, this measure is absolutely essential. After the tragedy on the M25 the weekend before last, in which a commercial vehicle was involved in an accident leading to the death of six passengers, it is also long overdue. I congratulate him on bringing it into effect at last.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I do not usually get thanked by the Opposition; this makes a welcome change. Obviously I cannot comment on the causes of that particular accident until it has been thoroughly investigated, but I have no doubt that retro-reflective tape will reduce the number of accidents. The regulation will come into effect on that date all across Europe as well.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend? I told him that those on both sides of the Chamber pressing for this measure would not go away, and we have not. If we can now get it brought in as a matter of urgency, everyone will gain. I hope that he will acknowledge that this has been a worthwhile campaign.

My hon. Friend has been campaigning long and hard on this issue, along with my hon. Friend from one of the Bolton constituencies which escapes me for the moment. I congratulate them on their endeavour and I promise to continue to work to ensure that the measure is implemented according to the given time scale.

9. What change there has been in the number of rail passenger journeys since 1997. (136911)

The number of rail passenger journeys grew by 35 per cent. between 1996-97 and 2005-06. In 2003-04, for the first time since 1961, more than 1 billion rail journeys were made, and the number of rail journeys increased further in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that each of those journeys reinvigorates a local economy as well as addressing our climate change responsibilities? What more can he do to get people off the roads and on to the railways, so that my constituents will be able to receive the full benefit when passenger transport services return to my constituency in Clackmannanshire later this year?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his assessment of the importance of transport links to local economies. The regulation of rail fares in his constituency is a matter for the Scottish Executive. In regard to getting people out of their cars and on to the railways, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement in July on the high level output specification, which will for the first time allow the Government to specify exactly what they want to buy from the rail industry in terms of performance and capacity, and exactly how much will be spent on that. We are extremely optimistic about the future of the railways in Britain.

While I welcome the figures given by the Minister on the increase in passenger journeys, is not it in the interests of both passengers and franchisees to increase the length of the rail franchise? When he has regard to who the next franchisee on the east coast main line will be, will he ensure that there is competition between the three providers of the main franchises between London and Scotland?

This debate has been aired in the House on several occasions. I understand the arguments for longer franchises, but a conclusive argument in favour of longer franchises has not been made. There are benefits to the current regime, under which most franchises are between seven and 10 years long. In relation to the inter-city east coast franchise, a competitive process is under way, and deliverability, rather than price, will decide who wins that contract. I am sure that her constituents will find that no less of a service is provided by the new Great North Eastern Railway franchise than is the case today.

What would the Minister say to the First Great Western official who told me that it is not sensible to have a major destination with a high-speed 40-minute train journey from London? Over recent years, First Great Western has reduced the number of fast services between Slough, a major draw for investment into the UK, and Paddington. What can he do to make First Great Western realise the impact of its policies on our economy and on inward investment in Britain?

My hon. Friend has spoken on several occasions of her unhappiness with the First Great Western service received by her constituents. I understand her concerns. The Department for Transport is determined to ensure that First Great Western meets the franchise commitments to which it has signed up. I have regular meetings with the management of First Great Western to make sure that the service on that franchise improves. I am confident that, working together with Network Rail, a better service will be received by customers in future.

Despite a large increase in passenger journeys from Wolverton train station, its passenger facilities have not improved. Shortly before the last general election, the Government trumpeted a £2 million package of improvement for the station. Unfortunately, since then, that package has been reduced to just £400,000. Will the Minister explain why that reduction has occurred? Will he at least consider allowing the package to be spent over a longer period of time, so that the station does not lose it in six months?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not have detailed information about that case to hand. I would be happy, however, to write to him with more details. He will understand that part of the Government’s record investment in the rail network is in improving stations. I understand the impatience expressed by Members on both sides of the House when their stations are not attended to. Given the record amount of money being invested by Network Rail in infrastructure, however, I would hope that his and other stations will receive attention in due course.

10. What plans he has to enhance the role of community transport in the provision of bus services. (136912)

The community transport sector plays a valuable role in providing services that complement those of commercial operators. We are discussing with community transport sector representatives the proposals in “Putting Passengers First” to allow it to play a larger role by improving the regulatory regime that applies.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she accept that section 22 permits for community transport are particularly restrictive in terms of payment for drivers and the size of buses? Does she have plans to review both those aspects to make community transport more effective in local transport provision?

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend, who has campaigned in support of community transport in his area and beyond for some time. “Putting Passengers First” contains proposals to lift the restrictions on paying drivers, so that they can be paid more than expenses, and to lift the 16-passenger seat limit for the size of vehicle for which permits can be issued. I hope that that will be of great support to the role of the community transport sector.

In my constituency, the Bakewell and Eyam and Ashbourne community transport schemes provide a fantastic service for elderly people in remote areas. Will the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill, which we discussed yesterday, be of any help to those two organisations?

The community transport in the right hon. Gentleman’s area is indeed to be commended. The Bill that the House passed last night extends geographical provision rather than extending provision to other sectors, but it allows for more provision should it be required in the future. Furthermore, local authorities such as the right hon. Gentleman’s are entitled to, and could, go beyond the national baseline for the provision of concessionary fares.

11. What funding his Department has provided for the half-price coach fare scheme for pensioners and disabled people. (136913)

Total funding of nearly £46 million has been provided to date for half-price fares for older people and disabled people making journeys on scheduled coach services.

Along with a number of other Members, I welcomed the Second Reading of the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill last night. Can the Minister assure us that the details of the financing of the new scheme will not affect the existing concessionary fares schemes that benefit my constituents so much?

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the benefits received by his constituents. Some 17,000 over-60s and disabled people in Copeland are entitled to benefit from both concessionary fares and half-price coach travel, and I can confirm that half-price coach travel will continue to be available to them.