Concessionary Travel Scheme

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 the objectives of promoting social inclusion by allowing older and disabled people-especially those who are on low incomes-improved access to services, facilities and social networks through free use of scheduled bus services, and of improving health by promoting a more active lifestyle for the elderly and disabled are, largely, being met. However, they are not totally being met, as the scheme is not completely fair and equitable.

I will pre-empt interventions by saying that it could not have been easy to set up such an ambitious scheme from scratch, so I do not criticise the previous Executive for the omissions. After all, the Executive had the foresight to say that the scheme would have to be reviewed after three years to see what needed to be amended. However, that review, under the direction of the current Government, was ultimately a wasted opportunity. Although ministers had an opportunity to build on the groundbreaking travel schemes that the previous Administration introduced, little progress has been made. The only change that is recommended by the review is to extend free bus travel to seriously injured veterans. Although I support that and know that it will be welcome news to our war heroes, it just does not go far enough.

There are two areas in which a change in the scheme would redress some of the unfairness in the current system. First, I support Charlie Gordon's call for those on the lower level of disability living allowance to be eligible. Secondly, as set out in my amendment, proper consideration must be given to bringing rural community transport into the scheme. Addressing those two issues would make an immense difference to people who are trying to lead independent lives.

Extending the national concessionary travel scheme eligibility to include recipients of the lower rate of DLA has been advocated by several charities that represent people with disabilities. For example, Leonard Cheshire Disability has called for the scheme to be extended through its action for access campaign and the report "Mind the Gap: The Next Step". Although the inclusion of people on lower level DLA would undoubtedly increase the cost of the scheme, it would bring significant benefits by increasing social inclusion and promoting a more active and independent lifestyle for people with disabilities.

As WRVS points out in its briefing, research shows that, by keeping older and disabled people independent, active and connected in their communities, community transport makes people's lives better and improves their health, which is well in keeping with the aims of the national concessionary travel scheme. By helping to keep such people out of expensive acute and residential care, the public purse saves far more money than community transport costs to run. Community transport meets social need like no other transport service can. It is a cost-effective way of supporting some of society's most vulnerable people, and we must maintain it.

The Government must consider in an holistic way the costs and benefits of the two proposed changes. The cost of extending the scheme to all current community transport services has been estimated as no more than 3 per cent of the total budget for the scheme. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have long supported community and demand-responsive transport initiatives, as they provide a vital lifeline for communities who are served poorly or not at all by traditional bus services. In remote or rural locales, such schemes might be the only available viable public transport option. It is therefore crucial that the providers are supported in their operation and not discouraged.

It is worth noting that March 2008 marked the end of specific Scottish Government funding for community transport. The demise of the rural transport fund and demand-responsive transport grants as discrete funding pots has increased the pressure on those organisations. As local authority funding becomes tighter, lifeline services could well be put at risk, which would be a retrograde step. Recent research that was commissioned by WRVS shows that one in three older people cannot always get to where they want to go. That is certainly true in rural areas and it is why I am so keen for community transport to be brought into the equation.

My region contains the two great cities of Aberdeen and Dundee but, for the most part, it is a rural region taking in Aberdeenshire and Angus and with a widely dispersed population. For example, Aberdeenshire is, geographically, one of the larger councils in Scotland. It has a population of slightly more than a quarter of a million, yet it has only six major towns with a population of more than 10,000 and not one of them reaches the 20,000 mark. The area has another 68 settlements and villages and, beyond that, about 68,500 people live outwith the towns and villages.

The majority of people have to travel to access health services, to study, work, or meet their social and leisure needs. Good commercial bus services are provided on the main routes into and out of Aberdeen, but there are much poorer links across country. Many rural residents rely on a range of community transport and demand-responsive transport services. I am sure that my colleague Jamie Stone could tell a similar story.

My point is that elderly and disabled rural residents get a poor deal. They might well have a concessionary card-at least those on full DLA-but they will not be able to get the benefit of it as mainstream bus services can be few and far between, if not completely non-existent. Elderly residents with relatives in a nursing home, or disabled people getting to work, rely utterly on those transport services.

The north-east has built up a strong tradition of social enterprises providing employment for disabled people. That kind of independent living must surely be encouraged. Why should not those on lower level disability living allowance be able to access free bus travel and take up those employment opportunities?

The minister will be familiar with those issues, representing as he does the Banff and Buchan constituency. I know that as a local MSP he has long supported community transport. Indeed, anyone who has experienced at first hand the rise and rise of Buchan dial-a-bus could not fail to be a convert to community transport. Buchan dial-a-bus, operating out of Maud, is a local transport charity providing a fully accessible transport service for people who have problems accessing public transport due to age, infirmity or rural exclusion. Last year it provided over 1,000 individuals with transport to hospitals.

When we debated the topic last year, the minister, Stewart Stevenson, responded directly to me in the chamber:

"The member may recall that I secured a members' business debate on that subject in the previous session of Parliament, so she will know of my interest in it. I take the opportunity to assure her that we will include the matter in our consideration of the scheme."-[Official Report, 12 June 2008; c 9624.]

I am therefore disappointed that the minister has not been able to propose changes to the scheme in support of that interest and I call on him to consider the matter further. As he said to a previous transport minister on 15 March 2006:

"The minister can correct that oversight. It would take merely a bit of time, a bit of money and a willingness to respond flexibly."-[Official Report, 15 March 2006; c 24035.]

He continued:

"A nationwide bus scheme means little if the disabled or older rural dweller cannot gain any benefit from it."-[Official Report, 15 March 2006; c 24036.]

I move amendment S3M-5378.1, to insert at end:

"; recognises that rural areas suffer disproportionately from bus fare increases or reduced bus services, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider extending eligibility for the national concessionary travel scheme to include older and disabled people using community transport in rural areas."