Transport and the Environment Committee, 15 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 15, 2000

Official Report 196KB pdf

---

Concessionary Travel

I welcome the committee back after that short break. We now come to agenda item 4, our on-going discussions on concessionary fare schemes. In the light of the minister's responses, we have several decisions to reach. A paper has been circulated to committee members, at the end of which are several options. I invite the views of committee members on those options before we reach a conclusion.

The minister has indicated clearly the groups that will be approached and the areas that will be examined. She has also indicated that we will be involved with the matter at interim stages of reporting. The paper outlines several options for deferring a decision until that work has been undertaken, for taking evidence from specific groups between now and then, and for other steps that could be taken in consequence of the Executive's decisions.

It would be useful to request written evidence from some of the groups that are mentioned in the paper. The committee could establish a view on that evidence so that, when we receive the interim reports from the minister, we will be able to offer feedback.

That is a good point.

I have a general point. We must be wary of raising expectations that we have no realistic chance of satisfying in the short term. In seeking evidence, we should make it clear that measures will not be implemented in the short term.

We should keep the evidence written. Bringing people before the committee would raise greater expectations than would requesting a written submission.

Our time is not best spent talking to the different groups of people who want concessionary fares. That is what the Executive will be doing. It might be better for us to consider "joined-up" areas, such as concessions linked to job seeking and the new deal. We could speak to some of the providers of concessionary schemes and ask how they see the links between such schemes and other social objectives.

Perhaps we could follow a combination of those suggestions. We should not spend time taking evidence from the same people whom the Executive is approaching. However, if we take written evidence and areas of concern emerge—matters on which people do not think that the Executive is taking account of their views—we could still take oral evidence if necessary. We should focus on the groups that the Executive has not decided to include in its consultation, such as the unemployed and people in caring roles.

Do we need to be more specific about the groups that we are approaching? We could come back to members with a list of suggestions. The issues that we have identified are based on the categorisation of those who could be included in a concessionary scheme. We are drawing on a broader remit in relation to social exclusion. We will circulate a list of the bodies that we are likely to approach, bearing in mind what Nora Radcliffe said about raising expectations. Is it agreed that we will take focused written evidence on areas that are not included in the Executive's remit?

Members indicated agreement.