Review of the Issue of Discretionary Freedom Passes

Transcription

1 b Cabinet 25 July 2011 Review of the Issue of Discretionary Freedom Passes All Wards Cabinet Portfolio: Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing: Councillor Jim Dickson Report authorised by: Executive Director of Adults and Community Services: Jo Cleary Executive summary In line with other local authorities, Lambeth uses national eligibility criteria when awarding freedom passes to disabled people. However, in addition, we have also created an inequitable provision by providing passes to people who do not meet these national criteria, mainly to people with mental health difficulty leading to long term dependency. There are currently 768 people in Lambeth with a discretionary freedom pass. Because of the current financial situation, Lambeth has been considering whether to stop issuing these discretionary freedom passes. Public consultation on these proposals ended on the 24 th June Should a decision be taken that Lambeth no longer provides this discretionary service, we will make sure that people get information on other potential travel options. Consultation papers can be found in Appendix 1. At present, 22 London boroughs say that they provide discretionary freedom passes. However, London Councils figures show that only three boroughs provide more discretionary passes than Lambeth; five boroughs provide between two and nine passes; others range from 16 to 537 passes. Camden council has recently taken a decision to discontinue their discretionary freedom pass provision after their consultation exercise. Camden had approx 1500 Discretionary Mental Health pass holders; of these just over 400 successfully met the National criteria. The discretionary scheme in Lambeth is projected to cost an estimated 478,000 this year. The full year impact of savings at current prices will thus be as stated. It is also intended to take a strategic approach both in Lambeth and encourage London Council s regarding the way in which concessionary fares are allocated looking at the criteria used to ensure there is fairness and consistency whilst looking at the opportunities to incorporate into personalised services and use of individual budgets. Summary of financial implications The cost of the concessionary fares scheme is 12,294,099 for 2011/12. Payments to Transport for London (TfL) are 11,447,787, with the remainder of 846,312 paid to London Councils.

2 The current budget of 8,153,137 is held in Adult Support Services Business Unit in Adults and Community Services Department. The issues relating to the funding of concessionary fares as a whole will be addressed as part of the July Finance Review. The cost of the discretionary pass is estimated to cost 478,000 in 2011/12, which is calculated using the 2010//11 apportionment and the number of pass holders at 31 st May Savings made from withdrawing the discretionary pass will not have any impact on the Council s costs until 2013/14 due to charges being based on historic data. Recommendations (1) To maintain the Council s discretion to provide Freedom Passes to service users with severe mental health needs whose travel is essential to ensuring delivery of their therapeutic plan; and to instruct officers to develop eligibility criteria that ensure a consistent application so that passes are allocated on a fair basis. (2) To recommend that consultation takes place on new eligibility criteria over a 3 month period (September November 2011) (3) To recommend that this new criteria be in place by January 2012 and thereafter all current holders and new applicants to be assessed against this. (4) To allow current 768 Discretionary Freedom Pass users to continue using their passes for travel until such time that an eligibility criteria is in place. (5) To note and take account of the outcomes of the consultation exercise set out in Appendix 1 and of the equality impact assessment set out in Appendix 3.

3 Consultation Name of consultee Department or Organisation Date sent Date response received Comments appear in report para: Internal Jo Cleary Executive Director of Adults and Community Services Mike Dickens Governance and Democracy Pete Hesketh ACS Departmental Finance Frank Higgins Corporate Finance Cllr Jim Dickson Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing Report history Decision type: Key decision Key decision: reason EITHER a) expenditure or savings of 500,000 or more Authorised by Cabinet member: Date report drafted: OR/AND: b) proposal affects significantly two or more wards X Date report sent: Report deadline See above Report no.: Report author and contact for queries: 104/11-12 David Bello, Head of Service Physical Disabilities dbello@lambeth.gov.uk Background documents See appendices, and also: July Finance Review report to Cabinet and Council, 25 and 27 July 2011 Revenue and Capital Budget report to Cabinet and Council, 7 and 23 February 2011 Appendices Appendix 1 Consultation report on Discretionary Freedom Passes. Appendix 2 Equalities Impact Assessment Appendix 3 HASSC Consultation response

4 REVIEW OF THE ISSUE OF DISCRETIONARY FREEDOM PASSES 1. Context 1.1 There are a range of door-to-door services in Lambeth providing essential transport for those with special needs and/or mobility impairments. These services are both statutory and non-statutory but are essentially similar with some overlapping of their customer base. These services are Taxicard, Dial a Ride, Capital Call, Community Transport/Plusbus, Special Educational Needs (SEN), Adult Services Transport and NHS patient transport services. In addition some residents can be entitled to a Freedom pass and Blue Badge if they meet the national eligibility criteria. Discretionary Freedom passes are also issued but mainly to people with mental health difficulty. There is a future need for coordination between these services for residents in order to reduce potential duplication and improve efficiencies. 1.2 In 2008 people aged 60 and over and eligible disabled people in England became entitled to free off-peak travel on all local buses anywhere in England. The Mayor of London extended free travel for Londoners to any time of day. It became unlawful for any Authority to issue a National Freedom pass to anyone who does not meet the National criteria. However an Authority is allowed to establish discretionary criteria to provide passes to other user groups. Given the change in the concessionary travel entitlements, Lambeth stopped issuing new discretionary freedom passes for mental health users in April Transitional arrangements for existing users allowed their passes to continue until a final decision is taken about the future of this scheme in Lambeth. The scheme is projected to cost estimated 478,000 this year. 1.3 As at the end of March 2011, Lambeth had a total of 34,671 Freedom passes in circulation which equates to 29, 648 older people passes, 4, 255 disabled passes and 768 issued on a discretionary basis only. 1.4 Following the introduction of the Transport Act 2000, new London wide criteria were introduced which set out seven categories of persons entitled to a Freedom Pass. These are: 1. people who are blind or partially sighted 2. people who are profoundly or severely deaf 3. people without speech 4. people who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has left them with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk 5. people who do not have arms or have a long-term loss of the use of both arms 6. people who have a learning disability, that is defined as, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning 7. people who, if they applied for the grant for a licence to drive a motor vehicle under, Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol.

5 1.5 These criteria effectively ruled out Mental Health service users unless they had a physical disability or met section 7 of the National criteria. 2. Proposals and reasons 2.1 To maintain the Council s discretion to provide Freedom Passes to service users with severe mental health needs whose travel is integral to ensuring delivery of their therapeutic plan; and to instruct officers to develop a comprehensive eligibility criteria that ensure a consistent application so that passes are allocated on a fair basis. 2.2 To allow current 768 Discretionary Freedom Pass users to continue using their passes for travel until such time that an eligibility criteria is in place. 2.3 To recommend that this new criteria be in place within 3 months (September November 2011) and thereafter all current holders and new applicants to be assessed against this. 2.4 Introduction of new discretionary Freedom Pass (DFP) criteria will ensure that only those with regular contact with their mental health services would get a pass allowing for a more targeted provision. 2.5 Ensures equitable awards of DFP. 2.6 This option takes into account the feed back from public consultation and ensures that the scheme is carefully implemented over the next year ensuring that individual needs are taken in to account and discretionary freedom passes are allocated in accordance with any new criteria 2.7 Other Options considered: Option 1. Issue zone 1 to 3 travel pass to cover all zones in the council to MH service users. Risks: The funding formula used to allocate resource to cover the operation cost of freedom pass would be lost if we adopt this option. TFL will not contribute towards any travel card issued in place of a freedom pass. Therefore, purchasing zone 1 to 3 travel cards would cost more than a normal freedom pass as the TFL subsidy would be removed. A zone 1 to 3 travel card would cost 1,288 annually or monthly, whereas a Discretionary Freedom pass costs approximately 623 each annually. Providing concessional travel for only mental health service users creates long term dependency and exposes the council to the charge of favouritism.

6 The number of applications is likely to grow and would lead to significant pressure on budget. Providing travel cards would be difficult to administer. Option 2: Issue a Bus pass only Risks: The obstacle associated with issuing Bus pass only is the same as that of option 1 above. A high proportion of MH users are on incapacity benefits so access to income discount on a bus pass and the Govt s New Deal for those actively seeking work would be limited. The proportion of users who are able to use the tube would have their ability to travel widely curtailed. Several buses would need to be taken in order to visit a relative or friend outside the borough if tube or train are not an option. Increase dissatisfaction from users due to limitation of usage and pressure to allow variation in the scheme. Option 3: Implement a travel assist scheme through Mental health social work team. This would allow social workers to include travel cost as part of mental health users support plan packages. Risk: It would create inequitable service depending on the person making the arrangement at that particular time. Cost would come from the care package budget and we would lose the subsidy of the freedom pass scheme. It will cost more than the cost of a freedom pass. If 768 users are supported with their travels cost then it would cost 989,184 per year (base on zone 1 to 3) in comparison to a discretionary freedom pass of 478,464 (covers all zones) for the same number issued. The more users that are on the scheme the greater the cost will be.

7 London Councils currently support with the administration of the freedom pass, which would cease with Lambeth funding the additional administrative cost and audit checks. The money can be included in their support plans but it might not be used for purchasing the travel cards. There could be a tendency to provide free travel to a high number of people in order to persuade their participation due to lack of a set criteria. If cash is provided then there is a risk of everyone asking for this as a way of supplementing their income. There is also the administrative process within mental health team as additional support may be required to deal with the over one thousand people would may present for reassessment in order to access this fund. 3. Finance Comments 3.1 Changes have been made to the way that the concessionary fares scheme is funded and the apportionment allocated across the London boroughs, which has considerably increased Lambeth s contribution to the scheme. Apportionment was previously based on the number of passes issued but since 2009 London Councils has been working towards the apportionment being allocated on usage. This was phased in over 2 years and in 2011/12 our apportionment is based on 100% usage, using data from 2008/9 and 2009/10. The loss of the 5 year settlement deal with TfL and a significant increase in the national rail settlement increased the total charges across London councils by 30million over 2010/11. Lambeth s costs have increased from 5,877,576 in 2009/10 to 12,294,099 this year. This includes any subsidy for discretionary passes, which cannot be quantified on its own. The current budget of 8,153,137 is held in Adult Support Services Business Unit in Adults and Community Services Department. The issues relating to the funding of concessionary fares as a whole will be addressed as part of the July Finance Review. As our apportionment is calculated using data from previous years it will take time for any changes to the scheme to filter through. The apportionment for 2013/14 will use the data for 2010/11 and 2011/12, which is the first year that any savings can be realised. 4. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy 4.1 Section 240 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended by the Transport Act 2000 and the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007) provides:

8 (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may enter into arrangements with Transport for London under which (a) Transport for London grants, or arranges with some other person for that other person to grant, such travel concessions as may be provided for by the arrangements to such of the persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below as are specified in the arrangements; and (b) that local authority reimburses (or, as the case may be, those local authorities in such proportions respectively as they may agree amongst themselves reimburse) the cost incurred in granting those concessions. (3) The concessions that may be provided for by any arrangements under subsection (1) above are concessions on journeys (a) between places in Greater London; (b) between such places and places outside but in the vicinity of Greater London; or (c) between places outside but in the vicinity of Greater London (5) The persons eligible to receive travel concessions under arrangements made under subsection (1) above by an authority are persons appearing to the authority to be persons], (a) who have attained the age of 60 years; (b) who are blind; (c) who are partially sighted; (d) who are profoundly or severely deaf; (e) who are without speech; (f) who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk; (g) who do not have arms or have long-term loss of the use of both arms; (h) who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or (i) who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol. 4.2 The arrangements described above are discharged, pursuant to section 244 of the 1999 Act and other enabling powers, by a joint committee consisting of participating councils called the London Councils Transport and Environment Committee (LCTEC). Its functions include: To manage on behalf of the Participating Councils the Concessionary Fares Scheme and in particular to make arrangements to reimburse to the Transport Operators the cost of the Current Concessions providing that nothing herein shall prevent any of the Participating Councils from setting their own eligibility criteria for the discretionary elements of the Concessionary Fares Scheme 4.3 The agreement includes the following provisions:

9 The cost of reimbursement to The Transport Operators in respect of the concessionary fares scheme, together with the cost of survey and other work needed to assess the reimbursement due to The Transport Operators, are: (a) in respect of permits issued to eligible London residents, allocated to Participating Councils in proportion to the number of persons resident in those boroughs holding valid permits to travel on 30th September in those years in which permits are reissued, or on such other dates as LCTEC may determine following consultation with the Participating Councils and (b) in respect of permits issued to eligible persons under section 145A(4) of the Transport Act 2000, allocated to Participating Councils in such proportions as may be agreed by LCTEC 4.4 With regard to the consultation exercise carried out by the Council as detailed in this report, the following principles of consultation were highlighted in a very recent High Court judgment (in the case of R (on the application of Peat & Others) v Hyndburn BC) First a consultation had to be at a time when proposals were still at a formative stage. Second, the proposer had to give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third, adequate time had to be given for consideration and response, and finally, the product of consultation had to be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals. The process of consultation had to be effective and looked at as a whole and it had to be fair. That required that consultation took while the proposals were still at a formative state. Those consulted had to be provided with information that was accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response. They had to be given adequate time in which to do so and there had to be adequate time for their responses to be considered. The consulting party had to consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision. 4.5 Section 149 (1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 states that: a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; 4.6 Section 149 (3) states that having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

10 4.7 Section 149 (7) states that the relevant protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. 4.8 Part of the duty to have due regard where there is disproportionate impact will be to take steps to mitigate the impact and the Council must demonstrate that this has been done, and/or justify the decision, on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Accordingly, there is an expectation that a decision maker will explore other means which have less of a disproportionate impact 5. Results of consultation 5.1 Between 24 March and 24 June 2011, we consulted on proposals to remove the discretionary freedom pass, asking what people currently used the pass for, and the impact it would have on individuals if they no longer has the pass. 5.2 People took part in the consultation in a range of ways, including attending public meetings and discussion groups, completing hard copy and online questionnaires, and providing feedback via , phone and in writing. 5.3 The main issues raised as part of the consultation were that people mainly used their discretionary freedom passes to attend health appointments, followed by using it to go shopping, and to keep in touch with friends and family. They said that the Pass made a difference to their lives in a number of ways, including being able to get out and about more in the local area, having more opportunities for social contact and feeling that they had more choice and control over their life. They told us about the impact that the loss of the discretionary freedom pass would have for them, including loss of independence, increased isolation, and a consequent negative impact on their mental health. 5.4 The full consultation report is attached as Appendix Organisational implications 6.1 Risk management: 6.2 There is a potential risk to widen the scheme to cover other disabled groups who do not qualify within the National Freedom Pass eligibility criteria. However, people with physical disabilities are adequately covered within the National eligibility framework 6.3 Given the way in which London Council s and TfL calculate each year s usage the savings for this financial year will not be achieved Equalities impact assessment: An equality impact assessment on the proposed withdrawal of the discretionary Freedom Pass for mental health service users was undertaken in tandem with the consultation.

11 The EIA concluded that the proposed withdrawal would present a high risk of differential/disproportionate adverse impact in relation to disability since the clients affected are by definition disabled people. The risk in relation to race, gender and socio-economic factors was judged to be medium. The full equalities impact assessment is attached to this report as Appendix 2. To address these adverse impacts, ACS has decided to maintain provision of discretionary Freedom Passes to those service users who have severe mental health needs, who need access in order to ensure delivery of their therapeutic plan. New eligibility criteria for this will be drafted and consultation carried out. In addition, the department will make widely available accessible information on alternative opportunities for free or subsidised travel which will meet the needs of some pass holders: Older Person s Freedom Pass This is issued automatically to residents in the 60+ age group Disabled Person s Freedom Pass Six of the seven national eligibility criteria for this pass do not specifically cover mental ill health. Criterion 7, on fitness to hold a driving licence, may apply to some of the current discretionary Freedom Pass holders. ACS will support people through the process of applying under criterion 7 and there will be regular drop-in sessions to facilitate the process. Lambeth is also working with the borough s GPs who will need to confirm that an applicant is not fit to drive. Personalisation - The introduction of personalisation has potential mitigating impact as individual care packages may incorporate the provision of transport. Information on alternative travel support ACS will provide current discretionary pass holders with information on travel support for people on benefits or low income. For example, people on low incomes can access the government s New Deal scheme or the Bus and Trams discount concession, which allows travel at half the adult rate in London. 6.5 Community safety implications: 6.6 Having freedom passes has meant for some a reduction in stigma and ensures they are part of mainstream public transport. 6.7 Feedback from the consultation was that users felt safe travelling around the Borough using their discretionary freedom passes 6.8 Environmental implications: None 6.9 Staffing and accommodation implications: None Any other implications: None. 7. Timetable for implementation 7.1 As set out in the recommendations