Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords]

That may be so, but it is equally true that no one is currently proposing that the scheme should be watered down; neither would the amendments water it down. In the latest edition of his freesheet, ““The Londoner””, the Mayor states:"““My ability to guarantee the scheme if boroughs disagree ensures that it is never under-funded or watered-down.””" That is nonsense. London Councils and the official Opposition have always been consistent. There is no threat to the freedom pass and no attempt to underfund it or water it down. The guarantee of the scheme is enshrined in law, not with the Mayor. The Mayor goes on to state:"““My ability to guarantee the Freedom Pass each year ensures that older and disabled Londoners continue to get free concessions.””" Again, that is wrong. It is guaranteed by the 2006 scheme, the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and now, the Bill, not by the Mayor. The legislation on concessionary fares in London differs from the rest of England, partly, but not entirely, because the bus industry in London is more regulated. A further major difference is that the concessionary fares negotiations in London are underpinned by the statutory reserve free travel scheme in section 241 and schedule 16 of the 1999 Act. There is no equivalent scheme anywhere else in the UK. It is odd that the Government continue to consider that this elaborate special legislation for a reserve scheme is necessary in London but not anywhere else in the country. In negotiating travel concessions, London Councils, on behalf of the London boroughs, has to reach agreement with Transport for London for a scheme that needs to be implemented on their services by 31 December before the financial year in which the scheme comes into effect. That clearly puts London Councils at a disadvantage when negotiating with TfL. TfL can determine the costs of the reserve scheme. The negotiations cannot be conducted on an equal footing, because whatever London Councils proposes, TfL—or in most cases, as he so often claims, for TfL read the Mayor—can reject whatever the proposals may be. There is no reason or incentive for it to negotiate. I am sure that in a moment the Minister will repeat that if London Councils and the Mayor reached an agreement on alternative arrangements, the Government would consider them. However, it is no good her saying that. The reserve powers have never been used because TfL is in an unfair and unequal position. The Mayor and TfL have no incentive to agree any change. It suits them very well to have a reserve scheme in the background where the costs can be determined by TfL, which is one of the parties to the negotiations, and where there is no appeal mechanism. The attempts by London Councils to raise this issue have been met by the Mayor saying that that it is attempting to water down the scheme and to reduce benefits. London Councils has repeatedly said that that is not so. There has been a war of press releases, and the Mayor has even roped in various celebrities to support him. This week, Andrew Gilligan’s article in the Evening Standard was most interesting. It stated:"““WARNING to all London pensioners: if a man with a nasal South London accent, a nasty temper and a bad record of dodgy ""press releases turns up at your door claiming your free bus pass is ‘under attack’, call the police at once.””" That is fair. All that the amendments would do is give the Secretary of State a role as the final arbiter in the event of a dispute about whether the cost is excessive. That would happen in only limited circumstances. First, London Councils and Transport for London would have to fail to reach an agreement by 31 December. Secondly, the reserve scheme would have to be effected, Transport for London would have to let London Councils know the cost, and London Councils would have to take the view that it was excessive. The Secretary of State would have a role only if those things happened. One hopes that they never will. The current scheme is unique and places a more onerous requirement on London than on authorities in other parts of the country. If the Under-Secretary believes that the new scheme will work so well elsewhere and that the appeal process is appropriate for other parts of the country, why is it not appropriate for London? The amendment’s impact would be significant. By having the Secretary of State as the final arbiter in the circumstances that I described, Transport for London and London Councils are much more likely to agree to reasonable demands. The threat to invoke the reserve scheme if no agreement is reached will lessen. The change is simply to ensure a fair and appropriate deal for boroughs in their negotiations with Transport for London and to put the boroughs on an equitable basis with all other local authorities in the country. The amendment is not, was not and will not be about altering the concessions that well over a million older and disabled Londoners, many of whom are my constituents, enjoy. I urge the Government to use the opportunity of the Bill to alter the reserve scheme so that, in the case of a dispute, it is decided, in extremis, by the Secretary of State. That puts London in line with the rest of the country and must be correct.