Author: simon
£3m Year: Expected Cost to Island of Pensioner’s Free National Bus Travel
Friday, 6th November, 2009 at 11:32 am, Isle of Wight
Bus, Isle of Wight Council, News, Politics, Tourism
Cllr Edward Giles, IW Council cabinet member for environment and transport, has revealed that the current shortfall in the scheme that sees any pensioner in the UK travel free on Island buses is expected to cost the Island £3 million this year.
The scheme was brought in by the Government and applies across the whole of the UK was discussed by the IW Council and introduced two years ago, in November 2009.
The heart of the legislation was a clause that the scheme should neither financially benefit or disadvantage the two main parties involved – the bus company and the local authority. Clearly from these figure this isn’t the case.
The Island is particular affected by the scheme as it’s such a popular holiday destination.
Trying to sort it out
To try and address this Andrew Turner, Cllr Tim Hunter- Henderson and Stuart Love Director of Environments and Neighbourhoods met with the then-Transport Minister, Paul Clark MP, in January and outlined the difficulties the Island faced because the funding formula does not properly recognise the additional journeys we are obliged to provide for tourists and holidaymakers.
In a letter to the Island’s MP, dated 4th November, the Transport Minister, Sadiq Khan MP said that they would revise the grant formula to lead to increases in payments to around 30 local authorities including an additional £890,000 to the Island for the financial year 2010/11. It would be paid for by reducing the grant to London and 63 other authorities.
“Too little – far too late”
Andrew Turner has labelled this as “too little – far too late,” explaining “Although I am glad there is some movement from the Government on this issue, it implicitly recognises that the existing funding formula is unfair. If the formula for funding the national scheme is unfair now – it has been unfair since its inception in 2008, yet there is no suggestion of any sort of compensation for those authorities, including the Isle of Wight, which lost out in previous years.”
Cllr Edward Giles, IW Council cabinet member for environment and transport, also commented on it, “While we welcome the apparent acknowledgement that the scheme is inadequately funded, we regret this response still leaves IW Council tax payers significantly out of pocket.
“Not only does this announcement fail to account for the historic nature of the flawed funding mechanism since the concessionary fares scheme was introduced in 2006, the figure in question does not even come close to meeting the current shortfall in the scheme which is expected to be around £3 million this year. This is money that, had the scheme been properly funded, could have been spent on other areas of importance to Island residents.”
image: Banalities under CC BY-SA 2.0
Related posts:
- School Reorganisation Could Cost the Isle of Wight Council Taxpayer £2.5m More Each Year!
Press Release From Standards-Not-Tiers Research released by SNT this week... - Free Travel for Pensioners Scrapped on Breezer and Island Coaster Buses
Isle of Wight Council gave pensioners free travel on all... - Guarding Prisoners in Island Hospital Costs Over £1m Year
Question by Andrew Turner in the House highlights how St... - Godshill Primary Named Sustainable Travel School of the Year
Godshill Primary have scooped a prestigious award.... - ALAN TITCHMARSH LAUNCHES ISLE OF WIGHT NATIONAL YEAR OF READING
THE ISLE of Wight’s newly elected High Sheriff and popular...
Email This Story To A Friend
Does this Tory Council have any idea what it is doing?
I recall that last year the ’shortfall’ was claimed to be £3.8 million, and I have the documents to prove it. Now they are saying it is £3 million – a difference of £800,000. Hardly chicken feed !
No wonder Government doesn’t meet all their demands if they can’t calculate the precise shortfall.
The doubling of Government grant for next year – which is what has been awarded – is a result in most people’s book. But not to Island Tories who seem to think taxpayers are a bottomless pit.
Stop moaning IW Council about the claimed ’shortfall’and just be pleased that you make some sort of contribution – probably a lot smaller than you now claim – to the highly popular concessionary fares scheme. Better than wasting it on other nonsense.
(Report comment)
Geoff,
£3M is still £60 per household (50000 homes) on the island, in ADDITION to every household’s contribution in direct taxes to fund the government’s distributed element. That’s about £100 per household on the Island.
Whilst not questioning the merits to the beneficiaries, let’s not hide the true cost.
Another consequence is that the minimum fare on SV (£2.50) might just have something to do with the reimbursement mechanism. Not very green it terms of encouraging options for fare-paying occasional users is it?
Stephen
(Report comment)
Steve
But is it £3m ? They have managed to reduce it by £800k in the last year. Whose to say it’s not in reality even less ? Their track record on this figure is all over the place. I don’t believe them, the government probably doesn’t; and at the end of the day you get what you get and you work with it.
Geoff
(Report comment)
If you base the reinbursement on the minimum fare (£2.50), SV apparently gets 38% (they did at first get over 70%!)which equates to around £1.00 per journey. Unlike fare paying passengers, the over 60’s have to have a ticket for every stage of their journey (if the are usuing more than one bus). This generates a charge every time a ticket is issued. SV are claiming the ‘biggest growth in passenger numbers in the UK’ and obviously most of those are concessionary passengers. Take a look next time you travel on a bus and count how many actually pay and do the maths. Also lets no forget that the govenment only pay for off peak travel. The council have decided to extend this to unrestricted travel which they are obliged to pay for.
(Report comment)
It’s a pity the council doesn’t seem to know that the scheme doesn’t apply to the whole of the UK, but only to English pensioners. In addition, they always quote the cost of the scheme but fail to quote the government contribution to it and the fact that they made a significant contribution to the previous half-fare scheme. In short, they appear more interested in making political capital out of it rather than in stating the true facts. Let them say how much they receive and how much they pay out so that we can see the real situation.
(Report comment)
Exactly. They used to pay just under a million for half fare, which would be over a million now with inflation. They are due to get just under £2million a year for visitors from April. How much did they get originally extra for free travel for Islanders – it had to be a million or more. That makes £4million plus. Are they really spending £7million??? Lets see the books!
(Report comment)
It’s a wonderful scheme that allows you to get out a bit and to important places like St Mary’s for treatment. I bless the Labour Government for establishing the scheme, after all I pay full council tax for which I get my bin emptied and free ‘bus travel, with some bad grace from Eddie Giles and the Council it seems.
(Report comment)
Not all todays over 60’s have paid their council tax, worked all their lives contributed to the state and even lived in this country ect but still get the same benefit as those who have. Is that fair?
(Report comment)
I will be eligible for my bus pass in 4 months time, and yet I work full time, receive a pension, my wife works in a well paid job. Of course I should not receive this benefit. I am not unusual, particularly on the Isle of Wight and I get sick and tired of well off pensioners bleating about money – perhaps if they’d put some money away during their working lives they wouldn’t be so poor now.
The people I feel sorry for are youngsters on minimum wage (£4.60 at age 18). They can’t afford the cost of driving lessons never mind buying a car, and they have to pay full price for their bus journey to work. Instead of paying for pensioners days out on the buses we should be helping them.
(Report comment)
it should be means tested
(Report comment)
Would people look at the wider picture (of the benefits of concessionary travel for over 60’s) The fact is that this concession allows and encourages older people to get out of their homes, meet other people, and spend the grey pound in places benefitting the economy in the long run (even if they only buy a coffee and / or a few groceries) not to mention the health benefits of getting out and about and meeting people – thus in the long run possibly avoiding health issues caused by loneliness and being stuck in ones home) The majority of pensioners have worked all their lives, paid taxes, paid national insurance, and are entitled to a little something back in their later years. The cost is a drop in the ocean compared to the benefits is provides. Also, they fill up what would be half empty buses which are making the journeys anyway, therefore it benefits the environment as well (as a half empty bus would not!) please stop griping about this relatively small expenditure and see the full picture of benefits.
(Report comment)
You talk about over 60’s as if they are a different species. When you hit 60 you don’t suddenly become a housebound lonely old man or woman incapable of getting about.
Do you really think its fair to give free bus travel to wealthy people and not to poor working people based solely on their age?
(Report comment)
I agree entirely Rob.
However the point everyone overlooks is that providing a blanket benefit is relatively simple from an admin point of view.Sorting out those eligable from the rest will put up the running cost considerably In fact,knowing how local and national civil servants think and operate,probably more than any intended savings
(Report comment)
Getting rid of the free peak travel is now recommended for next year.
http://www.iwight.com/council/committees/cabinet/17-11-09/Paper%20D.pdf
That should reduce the arguments that are damaging social cohesion.
The arguments for helping ‘youngsters’ are well founded. Pension fund deficits due to longevity increase, related house price affordability and education fees could all be cited.
The argument that buses would otherwise run empty are somewhat naïve. The increase in frequency on profitable routes, and fare structure is good evidence of the acumen of private bus companies.
There is valid argument for the scheme assisting the tourism industry on the Island, but recovery of funding through the business rate may be difficult, especially as some businesses are disadvantaged by the scheme.
Stephen
(Report comment)