Transport and the Environment Committee, 01 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 1, 2000

Official Report 223KB pdf

---

Concessionary Travel Inquiry

I am pleased to welcome Bill McQueen and David Eaglesham, who have a pressing appointment and will have to leave us by 5 to 12 at the latest. Is that correct, gentlemen?

We have an appointment with the First Minister.

I did not want to mention that, but there you go.

I refer members to the background information for this discussion. We have a paper on possible terms of reference for an approach to a committee inquiry. Members will recall the discussion that we have had already on the subject. We also have a letter from the minister that sets out the details of the Executive's proposed research into concessionary travel and the covering note from the clerk setting out the latest position on the committee's proposed inquiry.

I ask our witnesses to make some initial comments on the scope and the time scale of the research.

The proposals in the Executive's document set out the minister's intent. This morning, she confirmed that she hoped that the results from the research study would be back with her in July. At that point, she will consider the findings of the study. We expect that if we go in the next week or so to a shortlist of established contractors who have done this type of economic analysis, we ought to be able to place a contract in March or early April. Members will appreciate that that gives us a short time in which to cover the ground that is set out in the research specification.

I will ask the same question that I asked the minister: what is the budget that is set aside for consultants' costs?

We expect the contract to be in the region of £20,000 to £25,000, excluding VAT. The department has a research budget for transport projects and, when we put projects out to tender, we often give an indicative range so that consultants have an idea of the kind of budget with which we are working. That sum should be sufficient for the three or four months' work that is entailed.

Will that research reflect only views in the UK, or will models in other parts of the world be taken into account?

The contract makes clear that the contractors will be expected to review what is available in Europe.

With regard to the letter that the convener received from the minister about the options for various levels of concession across all land or sea based forms of transport as well as inter-island air travel in Scotland, I would like to clarify the phrase "inter-island". Will air travel from the islands to, say, Aberdeen or Glasgow be considered? I have informed the minister that I have had letters from people who are partially sighted or who are disabled to a similar extent, pointing out that the alternative to air travel from Shetland could be a journey of as much as 14 hours on a boat.

The intention in the specification as drafted was that the research would consider inter-island travel to the administrative capital of the island areas—Stornoway, Lerwick or Kirkwall. I think that the concession scheme for Shetland already includes an element for international ferry travel—international in this context meaning to Aberdeen. [Laughter.] Perhaps that phrasing was unfortunate. The air concession in Shetland is confined to the services to Sumburgh and probably Tingwall. I do not think that the specification as drafted would cover the sort of flight that you describe, but I see the point that you are making. The minister promised to consider points raised by the committee.

So it is not ruled out, and could still be part of the work?

I would have to put that back to the minister.

Okay. Thank you.

I would like you to clarify a point that arose from Helen Eadie's question. Is it your intention to consider the best examples from Europe?

I do not know the exact paragraph, but it is set out that we will consider the literature of schemes in Europe.

That is important for future discussion.

The study as drafted in this specification is a desk-based exercise, and does not involve primary surveys. We want consultants to consider examples from all over Europe where there is documentary evidence of things such as the generation factors. If the minister is thinking of expanding the potential width of concessions, evidence from abroad may yield better information than the evidence that we have in the United Kingdom, where schemes are typically for one local authority or for one passenger transport authority area.

The paragraph that I referred to earlier is paragraph 17i of TE/00/4/3.

Thank you.

I would like to ask a question about the geographical scope, which naturally has to be restricted to Scotland. A particular difficulty arises in the south of Scotland, where the terminals for rail journeys are Berwick and Carlisle, which are outwith Scotland. That means that people can get bus travel concessions as far as Carlisle, for example, but cannot then take advantage of three-day or 10-day rail tickets for trains running from Carlisle. Is there any way that we can bring in Berwick and Carlisle, so that people can get rail concessions? They would be able to get those concessions if there were a station in Galashiels, but they cannot get them in Berwick and Carlisle, which seems anomalous.

There are difficulties with cross-border travel, as we discovered when we set up the scheme offering free travel to the blind. Great North Eastern Railway and Virgin Trains were concerned that concessions would be available only to Scottish travellers going to Berwick and Carlisle, and not to people living in Berwick and Carlisle, because of the different system in England. At the moment, the minister is talking just about travel in Scotland, but that does not exclude the possibility of individual local authorities trying to enhance that provision. It could be considered further.

It is an area in which it would clearly be impossible to legislate, but the persuasive power of Government sometimes works at the margins.

As Mr McQueen and I well know, when the scheme for blind people was being considered, a number of representations were made to GNER and Virgin Trains, and we could not shift them. However, we could give further thought to that.

I am interested in that point. Perhaps when we renegotiate the franchises with GNER and others, we can bring some pressure to bear in relation to concessionary schemes.

Will you consider making contact with Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St Andrews or with Alan Bryan, the head of the transport department at Fife Council? We considered the example of the partnership ticket used in Freiburg in Germany. That system had the effect of halving the cost of public transport and doubling its use. An additional and especially attractive aspect of the system was that the ticket was interchangeable among family members, and was not only for a pensioner. That allowed, for example, a young person to use the father's ticket in the evening.

We will certainly take all the evidence that we can get from suitable schemes. I reiterate what the minister confirmed this morning: that her commitment in the published proposals is for concessionary fare schemes for the disabled and the elderly.

I wonder what current research is available from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, given that the Transport Bill in England brings in the concessionary fares scheme. Presumably, the DETR would not have embarked on that bill without having done some research. Has that been handed over or passed for consideration? If so, can we get sight of it?

We have a copy of the latest Transport Research Laboratory work on concessionary fares and trip generation among elderly passengers. We can make that available to the committee.

The commitment by English ministers is, I believe, to a minimum 50 per cent travel scheme within the local authority areas. That commitment may not go as far as that which our ministers here have in mind. We perhaps need to consider research that goes beyond what may have been done already.

Is there any intention to include carers within the concession? There are some people who cannot travel without being accompanied. Will there be a scheme to allow their carers to obtain a concession as well?

Such a policy decision would be for ministers to take in due course. Some local authority schemes have concessions which apply to carers who assist people who need help with travel. Our intention for the study is to monitor the costs of that and find out what we can about the impact that giving concessions to carers has had on the generation of disabled travellers, for example. The final outcome will be for ministers to decide when they see the costs that are entailed and the resources that are available.

We have discussed these matters before, and it is on record that we have examined broader areas. The minister has mentioned carers, low-income groups and the social inclusion strategy this morning.

I wish to ask you about the process. Specifically, will this committee get a chance to view interim reports prior to publication? Has that been discussed?

We have not discussed that with the minister. We had in mind a small steering group to manage research, involving the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and us. At key points, we would report to a wider group, involving the interested representative bodies working for the elderly and the disabled. I am perhaps going beyond my brief in saying this, but I imagine that the logic of that is that one puts those interim reports and emerging findings into the wider domain. Perhaps, though, I ought to check that with the minister, and confirm that we would report to the committee at the relevant stages.

We would certainly want to note our interest in such an opportunity being made available to us in some shape or form.

I want to ask about the available research data. From the information that we have been given, I note the lack of information about the calculations underpinning some of the concessionary fares schemes at the moment. Do you think that this research opportunity would provide a way for the calculation process to be more open, accountable and transparent for the future? Will we get full results from the survey of how calculations will be done?

It is certainly our intention that the research will produce the best assessment that it can of factors such as the generation effect. As I understand from my cursory reading of what has already been reported, that effect is very difficult to measure with any precision.

From this committee's recent evidence, the operators were saying that the effect from one authority to another can vary without a sound basis. I am sure that it is within everyone's interest to put into the public domain any robust analyses of those complicated factors.

Mr Eaglesham is the development department's expert on generation, or G, factors.

I disclaim any responsibility in that regard. [Laughter.] It is correct to point out that a wide variety of generation factors can be used by local authorities. They are exceedingly complex. East Lothian provides an example. There, a payment factor is used. The calculation is 12 plus the fare divided by 12 plus two times the fare. The assumed generation is the inverse of the above calculation.

I lost you in the first part.

In Edinburgh, it is assumed that for every fare of 45p, 5 per cent is generated by concessionary travel, and for every maximum fare, 75 per cent is generated by concessionary travel. There is a whole range, and the research will list them.

I implore David and Bill to consider not using the terminology "the elderly" or "the disabled" in their document. Instead, they should say "elderly people" or "disabled people". The people for whom I speak have told me that the sort of terminology that is often used makes them into an abstraction. They are not an abstraction, they are people whose needs must be met, and I would like that point to be taken on board.

We should be careful in our use of language and I am grateful to Mrs Eadie for reminding us of that.

The English transport proposals are predicated not so much on local authority areas as on passenger transport areas, many of which have as big a population as the whole of Scotland. We may not choose to accept such proposals, but that is an idea that we could lift.

My second point follows on from what Helen Eadie said about GNER's difficulties. Given that we are embarking on franchise negotiations on the east coast main line, will it be a condition precedent that anybody obtaining that franchise will be obliged to accept the terms of any concessionary fares scheme?

The second question must be a matter for the minister to determine when she decides the Executive's approach to the renegotiation of the franchise.

On passenger transport authorities, you are quite right to say that there are six in England, plus greater London. We can usefully build upon London evidence about costs to illuminate the possibilities for Scotland.

In England, there are 11 or 12 local authorities that do not have concessionary schemes. They are coming up to a level of 50 per cent concession within those local authority areas, although that may be the passenger transport authority area. I should also point out that those provisions relate only to elderly people, rather than to elderly and disabled people, which is the intention in Scotland.

I know that you have another pressing engagement, so I thank you for coming along. We appreciate your help.

As members are aware, we have a long-standing interest in this matter, and the Executive's paper is welcome. We must now decide on our approach. My view is that we should indicate to the Executive our views and the areas in which we think that their research proposal does not meet our past decisions. We should also defer any investigation, if we decide to do one, until the Executive's research has been completed and the results published. I hope that the Executive will bear in mind our interest in being involved in preparing interim reports. It would not be a good use of our time to embark on what we originally proposed to do—a full-blown investigation of concessionary fares schemes in Scotland.

We should do three things: first, express our view on those groups that have not been included in the scope of the Executive's research and on other matters that were originally included in our proposals for an investigation but are not covered by the Executive; secondly, press to be involved in interim discussions before the Executive's report is published; and, thirdly, state our intention to review the position once the report is published.

Would it also be worth while for this committee to take limited evidence to back up our case that the concessionary fares scheme should be widened to include groups that we think are important? Taking evidence need not take up much time, but could help to show how the scheme could help social inclusion, and could give us back-up information to enable us to respond properly to the Executive's proposals.

I am not sure about that and I am open to views. We will have time after the publication of the report to take evidence.

I agree with your proposal, convener. We will not make best use of our time if we duplicate what the Executive does. However, it might be a good idea to take limited, perhaps written, evidence. Our concern is that the Executive will not consider some areas about which we are concerned. If we are to have an input into the Executive's inquiry, we will have to be well informed.

The minister said whom she wanted to include and, by default, whom she intended to exclude. Therefore, Linda Fabiani is right to say that we should build evidence to support the inclusion of other groups. I am comfortable with Janis Hughes's proposal that we take evidence in written form. Do other members agree that we should do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will take a broader social inclusion approach, then, and will include, in particular, the unemployed and those living in inaccessible areas. At our next meeting, we will need to discuss the best groups from which to hear evidence.

It may also be useful to consider the issue of carers. I heard that the Executive was going to examine that but, as we have highlighted the issue, we could perhaps take information from carers' groups.

Absolutely.