Hansard

I will try to stick to the headings that you used, convener, the first of which was the need for concessionary travel schemes. The main purpose of local authority travel schemes is to provide low-cost travel for people who are perceived as requiring assistance to move around, either because their mobility is impaired or because they have low or no income. One problem is that the trend during the past decade has been for high fare increases. Between 1990 and 1997 there was an increase of no less than 60 per cent in fares. During the same time, the gap between rich and poor has increased further. For a large number of people, therefore, the affordability of transport has become an increasing factor in and a major cause of social exclusion.Local authorities have little or no direct influence over fare levels, so concessionary travel—lower fares—is a significant tool for them to promote social inclusion. Concessionary travel schemes have a number of indirect effects. The bus industry is quite dependent on the income from concessionary schemes. At the moment, throughout the United Kingdom, approximately 14 per cent of the industry's income comes from concessionary schemes. Arguably, that figure is even higher in Scotland where concessions are more generous than those south of the border. Payment for supported services makes up only 10 per cent of income for operators, which gives a clear indication of the importance of concessionary schemes.Concessionary travel schemes also assist in safeguarding the bus network, especially during off-peak periods and weekends, when often the majority of passengers are pensioners and disabled people. Should concessionary schemes be cut back, the number of such passengers would be reduced, with the effect of contracting the network. Such contraction would affect not only concession holders, but full fare paying passengers. It could be argued that under the Transport Act 1985 local authorities should support the network through tenders, but there is no doubt that it is also supported through concession schemes. I refer members to the three diagrams at the back of the paper that I have circulated, which show the large variations between authorities in expenditure on concessionary travel. The authority with the lowest expenditure spent only one sixth of the amount per head of population spent by the more generous authorities. When it comes to support of the network, however, rural authorities are the higher spenders. City councils in general spend less. The ratio is typically something like a factor of four. If one adds the two together, one finds that the variation between authorities is not that great, so if one looks at concession and support for services together, the lowest and highest variation between authorities are perhaps only a factor of two. That shows that concession schemes assist in supporting networks.We are all aware of rail concessions, but they are not as extensive as bus concessions and it could be argued that local authorities, as well as the concession users, view rail concession as being of lesser importance than bus concession. With the possible exception of Strathclyde, the income from concession schemes to rail operators is of much lower significance than it is to bus operators.A further indirect benefit from concession schemes is traffic reduction. Generous concession schemes encourage people to get out of their cars. The growth in car ownership is highest among the elderly. Twenty years ago, people who reached pensionable age were not normally car owners, whereas now such people have got used to their cars. They grew up during the 1950s, when mass car ownership really took off. Road safety is also a factor, as road accident statistics show a marked increase for fairly elderly people, whereas statistics covering other types of accident normally decrease. Concession schemes certainly have an effect on that.Finally, I stress the importance of concession schemes to 16 to 18-year-olds who travel to school. There are problems with car traffic around schools and we encourage safe travel to school. Schemes for 16 to 18-year-olds encourage pupils to take the bus—that is, schemes for those pupils who do not already receive free travel from school because of distance. It also encourages young people to use the bus in the future. They gain confidence in public transport.Moving on to the second topic, the current scope and focus of travel concession schemes, the briefing paper outlines eligibility for concession and I will not dwell on that point. Most authorities operate schemes for the elderly and disabled. In respect of concessions for young people, only a handful of local authorities include such schemes for 16 to 18-year-olds. For the lower age groups, schemes are provided by operators on a commercial basis, usually by charging half-fare for those aged up to 16. I would argue that the indirect benefits of travel concession schemes, in terms of road safety, traffic reduction and sustaining the bus network, are achieved, to a reasonable extent.However, there are a large number of groups who are not covered by travel concession schemes, such as the unemployed, single parents and people on income support, although we should acknowledge and congratulate those operators that have shown their initiative by introducing special deals for job seekers on a commercial basis. On the other hand, it could be argued that a fair number of retired people are relatively well off and perhaps do not warrant such a high priority in terms of reduced fares. The main objective—to provide affordable travel for low-income groups and to promote social inclusion—is only partially achieved by the current schemes. Perhaps some of the resources that benefit those pensioners who are better off could be better utilised elsewhere.It is also necessary to look at the legal considerations. Lawyers have advised me that it is not that straightforward to change the categories. The way in which the act is worded could lead to a legal challenge if certain people within a group are excluded from the concession schemes. We would prefer to see a change in the legislation should this be the direction in which the country goes. There is, however, a catch-all in section 93(7)(f), under which the Scottish Executive has powers to include additional groups. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to take action that might lead to legal challenge.I want to raise the issue of financial constraints and the administrative complexities of current concession schemes. There is no doubt that concession schemes have become much more vulnerable to cutbacks in local authority expenditure. Many councils also face a funding crisis due to steep price increases, and sudden increases of 10 per cent in concession expenditure are not uncommon. Of course, local authorities have great difficulties in dealing with such sudden hikes, especially when budgets have not taken full account of what is likely to happen. The rules regarding financial reimbursement for operators are extremely complex and I suggest that operators and councils alike would benefit from a review of those rules. In contrast, payments to rail operators are arranged through individual agreements and there are therefore great variations throughout the country for payments to ScotRail. Again, there ought to be a review of that situation.Reorganisations in local government in 1996 also caused difficulties. Some operators now have to cope with three or four concession schemes on just one service, and that places extreme demands on the drivers. Some standardisation of schemes would therefore be of benefit. Some authorities, in the Lothians and the Grampians for example, have arranged joint schemes, but it has been difficult to sustain those systems.The issue of a national concession scheme has been raised and I would argue that such a scheme would require completely different administrative and funding arrangements from those that are in place today. There is no doubt that additional financial resources would be required, and there may also have to be changes to legislation.However, a national concession scheme would have a number of benefits. It would increase travel and social benefits for the most vulnerable groups. It would remove the perceived unfairness of variations in local schemes from one authority to another. It would avoid the difficult and controversial task of estimating generated travel as part of the complex apparatus for reimbursing operators. It would allow local authorities to concentrate on the important task of quality partnerships and quality contracts, rather than spending lots of time on dealing with concessionary schemes. It would also lead to greater consistency in concessionary travel and to a more stable basis for funding. I believe that local authorities ought to have powers to top up facilities for concession schemes. Of course, some authorities, including my own, value such schemes very highly.It is difficult to envisage a national travel scheme being established without additional funding. A voluntary scheme is being introduced for the blind, but there is only limited scope to expand it any further. For a national scheme involving a significant number of people, one possible option would be to force operators by law to carry the relevant concession groups on, for example, a half-fare basis without any direct reimbursement. As a possible compensation, there could be an increase in fuel duty rebate, because that is the existing apparatus that is available to the Government to pay operators. Such an arrangement would simplify administration, and I am fairly sure that, in the long run, such an arrangement will be viewed as a natural right for the relevant groups, just as the current half-fare schemes for young people and teenagers are viewed as a natural right.Along similar lines, compensation for rail travel could be incorporated into new franchising arrangements. Again, that would simplify the administration procedures. However, should we continue the existing principle of an operator being no better or worse off, a national administration system would have to be set up, incorporating a complex monitoring procedure. The development of smart cards might simplify the process.I would have to ask whether a national concession scheme would provide best value. Originally, concession schemes were set up to assist people in travelling to their local town centre, to go shopping and to gain access to essential services. If that was expanded to become a national scheme, allowing travel all over Scotland, there would still be a cost to the user at the end of the journey, and we might still exclude certain low-income groups from benefiting. I would have to ask whether we were putting resources in the right place to gain best value.Most authorities in Scotland operate a taxicard scheme. There are many differences between the schemes, which is confusing for taxi operators. Standardisation would improve the situation.In conclusion, we ought to reassess who should receive assistance and what level of benefit should be offered—that is a best value exercise. We should consider scope for greater standardisation of concession schemes. We should definitely simplify the administrative procedures. We must review and amend legislation as required. Finally, of course, we must consider who will pay for it all.