Agenda item

The Chairman agreed to change the order of business and therefore item no. 6 was considered.

The Committee considered a report from Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economic Development which gave details of Concessionary Travel Arrangements for Disabled Residents and their Carers/Companions.

The Sustainable Transport Manager referred to the information contained in the report which Members had requested at a previous meeting, regarding benchmarking and potential costs of issuing a companion pass for a disabled child.  Members had also asked for an Equality Impact Assessment to be carried out.

Members were advised that national guidance indicated the government’s intention that the concession applied to passengers of fare paying age and that children under the age of five travelled free on local buses.

The Sustainable Transport Manager advised that of the 122,000 active passes issued 17380 had been issued on disability grounds and one in four of those passes issued included the plus companion element of travel.

Members learned that there were 280 under 5s eligible for the higher rate of disability allowance and depending on variables including take up and usage there was a potential cost of £56000 to the Council.

The Legal Manager PPP confirmed that he was asked to consider the issue of Concessionary Travel Arrangements was first raised and he was satisfied that the Council were acting lawfully and in accordance with government guidelines.  He added that following the benchmarking exercise it was apparent that Durham County Councils current scheme was consistent and in fact better than some other local authorities.

Councillor Hopgood had raised the issue following a query from one of her constituents who had moved to Durham from York, where they had received a concessionary pass for their disabled child and a companion.  Although this was a discretionary scheme, she referred to the moral obligation of the Council for other schemes, such as the Council Tax reduction scheme, which was a non-statutory scheme that the Council felt was morally correct to offer.  She referred to the pressures of the family to attend medical appointments and the cost of using public transport to travel long distances.  The report referred to a potential cost of £56k however it was highly unlikely that every person eligible would take up the offer considering that many people would use their own transport.  Considering the Council paid millions into other schemes, Councillor Hopgood stated that the money was not a great deal overall.

The Chairman referred to para 23 of the report and highlighted that no other authority, including York, offered Concessionary Travel passes to children under fare paying age.

Councillor Armstrong referred to the generosity of the scheme considering that it was a non-statutory arrangement.  He raised the question of where the additional funding could be found considering the Councils targeted savings of £29m from the 2017/18 budget.  Councillor Armstrong confirmed that any additional cost would have to be subsided by the Council and with services already being considered for reductions, it would not be wise to put an additional burden on the service.

Councillor Potts stated that the authority needed to find further savings to meet targets in the Medium-Term Financial Plan and would be looking at the non-statutory elements of the current scheme.  The likelihood was that the provision of concessionary travel for carers accompanying over 5s would come under scrutiny. 

Councillor Hart considered that the expense to an individual family was a considerable amount, but it was not a considerable amount to the Council.  However he was not confident that the Cabinet would support such a scheme.

Councillor Hopper confirmed that she was aware that in some areas of the County, including North West and South Durham, a volunteer taxi service operated for attending hospital appointments however, there was a charge.

The Sustainable Transport Manager confirmed that volunteer transport was available for a charge, however it may be reimbursed by the NHS.  Councillor H Smith confirmed that to her knowledge the NHS did reimburse patient travel costs.

Councillor Lethbridge confirmed that although the Council had excellent moral standards and attempts were always made to stand for what was right and good, the fact remained that the ability to provide services was being stripped away by austerity.  Should the Committee support such a proposal, there would inevitably be a service which would suffer due to the cost implications.

The Chairman agreed to a request from Councillor Hopgood that the Committee vote on a report of the findings being put forward for consideration by Cabinet and Councillor Hopgood moved a recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Simmons.

Councillor Armstrong moved that the report be noted and that no further action be taken which was seconded by Councillor Lethbridge.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved:

That the report be noted and no further action be taken.