Chamber
Plenary, 10 Dec 2009
10 Dec 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Concessionary Travel Scheme
The member makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I point out that I congratulated her party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats when they introduced the scheme, which we continue to promote and which we have extended to cover disabled ex-servicemen. The scheme has always been better than the one south of the border and our focus should be on establishing how we can sustain and maintain that scheme. I am happy that we have been able to do that.
Our scheme enables older and disabled people to continue to travel for free throughout Scotland, at any time, on any scheduled bus route, for any number of journeys. In these difficult economic times, in particular, the scheme delivers huge benefit to many families and pensioners. It also maintains social cohesion. Charlie Gordon talked about the 158 million journeys that were made. By the way, I will not pick at the numbers; Mr Gordon basically got them right. He made only one mistake and I cannot resist the temptation to correct it. Reimbursement is made on the standard fare, not the average fare. There is something quite important in that, however, because the bus companies have, not unreasonably, tended to raise standard fares at a slightly greater rate than other fares, which has ensured that they protect the revenue from the concessionary bus scheme. That is part of the on-going discussion that we are having with the CPT about reimbursement rates.
Our 73.6 per cent reimbursement rate is substantially more generous than the rate in England and Wales. It still incorporates an allowance for the start-up costs of the scheme, which is why we have commissioned consultants to examine whether the rate properly meets the test that companies should be no better off and no worse off. Charlie Gordon discussed the marginal cost of carrying extra passengers and pointed out that the present scheme, in essence, takes into account the full cost. There is a proper debate to be had on that. The CPT says that its members have put on extra capacity and used the opportunity to invest in new buses. There is merit in that, but we have to consider getting the balance right. In establishing the right reimbursement rate for the future, we need to reflect the fact that the start-up costs are out of the way. We will have discussions on that.
Three years on, with the review completed, we can see how successful the scheme has been, but we can also see the nature of the challenge that we face. The previous Government and the present one should be proud of the scheme, which delivers much for the people of Scotland.
Reference was made to ferry and rail discounts that are provided locally. It is still open for local authorities to provide support to holders of the card, or otherwise, as they see fit. Before the national scheme, six of the 16 schemes throughout Scotland provided support to people who were on the lower rate of disability living allowance. We do not know what the future of DLA will be, as it is one of the benefits that are being considered for reform or abolition. I hope that whatever follows provides appropriate support for people with disabilities, as that is important.
The current scheme comes in two parts: a care component and a mobility component. The mobility component, which is paid by Westminster, is important. Some people have suggested that we might more readily be able to structure support for people who are on the lower level of DLA by transferring the funding for the mobility component to Scotland. That could allow us to fund different ways of supporting people who are on DLA. However, the Government is not yet engaged on that matter, although the issue has been raised.
Our population continues to be an ageing one. I hope that many of those older people remain, as I do, relatively fit and in possession of a bus pass, and therefore able to travel to meet friends and family. Charlie Gordon possibly stretched the use of parliamentary terms when he used the word "geek". Thankfully, the Presiding Officer did not rule that that is unparliamentary language—I wear the badge of geekdom with pride and will continue to do so. Charlie Gordon created something of a hostage to fortune by suggesting that there might have been a cock-up in the establishment of the scheme. I would be more gentle and say that some long-term effects of the scheme have emerged over time. He made the good point that 42 per cent of car owners use the scheme to reduce their driving. I include myself in that, albeit that I probably do too much driving, even now.
When we debated community transport and demand-responsive transport in March 2006, my motion welcomed the formation of Transport Scotland as a way to promote new ideas. That continues to be the case. We have considered the options for including community transport in the existing scheme. One or two providers that run scheduled services can qualify. However, the issue is complex. If we made such services free, I am sure that they would be well used, but that would require a significant increase in capability and capacity in the community transport world.
If Mr Gordon in his closing remarks indicates that, at this stage, he is not asking for additional money to be spent, I will consider my position in relation to the amendment in my name. However, for the moment, I will move it.
I move amendment S3M-5378.2, to insert at end:
", and considers that if the Labour Party wishes this to be the case, it should bring forward a costed proposal to the Budget to show where the resources will be taken from to pay for this."
Our scheme enables older and disabled people to continue to travel for free throughout Scotland, at any time, on any scheduled bus route, for any number of journeys. In these difficult economic times, in particular, the scheme delivers huge benefit to many families and pensioners. It also maintains social cohesion. Charlie Gordon talked about the 158 million journeys that were made. By the way, I will not pick at the numbers; Mr Gordon basically got them right. He made only one mistake and I cannot resist the temptation to correct it. Reimbursement is made on the standard fare, not the average fare. There is something quite important in that, however, because the bus companies have, not unreasonably, tended to raise standard fares at a slightly greater rate than other fares, which has ensured that they protect the revenue from the concessionary bus scheme. That is part of the on-going discussion that we are having with the CPT about reimbursement rates.
Our 73.6 per cent reimbursement rate is substantially more generous than the rate in England and Wales. It still incorporates an allowance for the start-up costs of the scheme, which is why we have commissioned consultants to examine whether the rate properly meets the test that companies should be no better off and no worse off. Charlie Gordon discussed the marginal cost of carrying extra passengers and pointed out that the present scheme, in essence, takes into account the full cost. There is a proper debate to be had on that. The CPT says that its members have put on extra capacity and used the opportunity to invest in new buses. There is merit in that, but we have to consider getting the balance right. In establishing the right reimbursement rate for the future, we need to reflect the fact that the start-up costs are out of the way. We will have discussions on that.
Three years on, with the review completed, we can see how successful the scheme has been, but we can also see the nature of the challenge that we face. The previous Government and the present one should be proud of the scheme, which delivers much for the people of Scotland.
Reference was made to ferry and rail discounts that are provided locally. It is still open for local authorities to provide support to holders of the card, or otherwise, as they see fit. Before the national scheme, six of the 16 schemes throughout Scotland provided support to people who were on the lower rate of disability living allowance. We do not know what the future of DLA will be, as it is one of the benefits that are being considered for reform or abolition. I hope that whatever follows provides appropriate support for people with disabilities, as that is important.
The current scheme comes in two parts: a care component and a mobility component. The mobility component, which is paid by Westminster, is important. Some people have suggested that we might more readily be able to structure support for people who are on the lower level of DLA by transferring the funding for the mobility component to Scotland. That could allow us to fund different ways of supporting people who are on DLA. However, the Government is not yet engaged on that matter, although the issue has been raised.
Our population continues to be an ageing one. I hope that many of those older people remain, as I do, relatively fit and in possession of a bus pass, and therefore able to travel to meet friends and family. Charlie Gordon possibly stretched the use of parliamentary terms when he used the word "geek". Thankfully, the Presiding Officer did not rule that that is unparliamentary language—I wear the badge of geekdom with pride and will continue to do so. Charlie Gordon created something of a hostage to fortune by suggesting that there might have been a cock-up in the establishment of the scheme. I would be more gentle and say that some long-term effects of the scheme have emerged over time. He made the good point that 42 per cent of car owners use the scheme to reduce their driving. I include myself in that, albeit that I probably do too much driving, even now.
When we debated community transport and demand-responsive transport in March 2006, my motion welcomed the formation of Transport Scotland as a way to promote new ideas. That continues to be the case. We have considered the options for including community transport in the existing scheme. One or two providers that run scheduled services can qualify. However, the issue is complex. If we made such services free, I am sure that they would be well used, but that would require a significant increase in capability and capacity in the community transport world.
If Mr Gordon in his closing remarks indicates that, at this stage, he is not asking for additional money to be spent, I will consider my position in relation to the amendment in my name. However, for the moment, I will move it.
I move amendment S3M-5378.2, to insert at end:
", and considers that if the Labour Party wishes this to be the case, it should bring forward a costed proposal to the Budget to show where the resources will be taken from to pay for this."
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5378, in the name of Charlie Gordon, on concessionary travel.
Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome this opportunity to open the first parliamentary debate for five years devoted to concessionary travel.On 1 April 2006, the national concessionary ...
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
SNP
For the avoidance of doubt, I report to Parliament my interest in the scheme by displaying my old person's bus pass, which I have used on ministerial busines...
Charlie Gordon:
Lab
Is the minister aware that I took a leaf out of the book of his colleague, Angela Constance?
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Indeed, but I think that Leonard Cheshire probably also had something to do with the drafting of the motion.This is a serious matter, and it is good that we ...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
Will the minister reflect on yesterday's debate, during which members of his party were trumpeting on about other parties and the Parliament doing things bet...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
The member makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I point out that I congratulated her party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats when they introduced the sch...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):
LD
We all agree that the national concessionary travel scheme, which was introduced by the previous Executive, has been a resounding success. We also agree that...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
When engaged in the political process, I meet a lot of people who believe that politicians just argue with one another all the time and that we do it for the...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I hope that the member will agree that the key point here is that we should look to the Government to say precisely where the money will come from. It is the...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
The member has missed the point entirely.I spent part of yesterday afternoon listening to Alistair Darling's pre-budget statement. I heard a chancellor talki...
Alison McInnes:
LD
Does Alex Johnstone accept that I said in my speech that the Government ought to look at this in an holistic way, for example by looking at the health benefi...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
Indeed, I fully accept that. However, since the election in 2007, I have listened to many Liberal Democrat spokesmen in the Parliament make what appear to be...
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Alex Johnstone:
Con
I am just about to finish.We have always said that money does not grow on trees, and that has never been more true than today. We must prioritise. If we are ...
John Park (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this morning's debate and support fully the sentiment and details of the motion.Like many MSPs, I have received a signi...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Does John Park welcome, as I do, the work that Glasgow City Council is undertaking to develop a statuatory bus partnership, that will deliver almost all the ...
John Park:
Lab
I think that there will be an awful lot of support for what Charlie Gordon is trying to achieve through his bill. There is support not just in the Scottish P...
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I understand that Ian McKee and Chris Harvie, who will be speaking later, and the minister have already collected their bus passes and that Charlie Gordon mi...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
For more than a year after the scheme was established, not a word came from the parties on the unfairness of the criteria that they introduced, unless I miss...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
I fully appreciate and understand that we got it wrong in the previous parliamentary session. No Labour member will say anything different from that. However...
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
I have heard from no Labour members how they would pay for their motion—I will come on to that in due course.Within weeks of becoming the Opposition, members...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
So did Angela Constance.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
Ms Gillon.
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
General demands to spend money are one thing; detailed and costed proposals are another. Opposition members must face up to the reality.
Alison McInnes:
LD
Ms Somerville accuses us of opportunism, but that is not the case. The Liberal Democrats raised the issue as we headed into a review, which Tavish Scott buil...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Please face your microphone—we cannot hear you.
Alison McInnes:
LD
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.When that review began, we rightly suggested amendments to the scheme.
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
Many people have proposed amendments to the scheme, but Opposition members have not addressed how to pay for those amendments. I will return to that.When we ...