Are the above comments from a tabloid journalist trying to make news on a day when there is none? Not at all. The quotes are balanced statements published in a House of Commons document after seeking detailed evidence from across England. The document, entitled Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, was published in July 2011.

Most UK readers are likely to have noticed in their area during the past year reductions in Council funded bus services. We are all too aware that Councils have to cut expenditure and that public transport must take its share of reductions in the available money. It does seem a pity, however, at this time of many people out of work and struggling to make ends meet that the means of getting about without your own transport may have been severely reduced or even taken away altogether.

In the areas I know most about, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, there have been cuts to tendered evening and Sunday bus services, but so far few if any places have completely lost their service, though it may now be necessary to change where a through service was previously provided.

One problem is that once a service only runs up to 6pm and/or not on Sundays people who want to travel when there is no bus have to find alternatives which they may well then use in the daytime too. When Dr Beeching closed many branch railway lines it was found that the main lines suffered as people lost the link to the major services. There is a risk that a similar problem could arise following bus service cuts. What is very worrying is that the Report predicts more severe cuts are yet to come.

The Report paints a challenging time ahead for bus operation in England. Some statements are not what one would expect in a balanced government document (for example, talking about withdrawn subsidised bus services, in some cases ‘. . . with inadequate or no consultation. The evidence we have received from bus users around the country demonstrates the anger and concern that people feel about the impact of these decisions on their everyday lives. Some of the most vulnerable people in society, including the elderly, will be most affected by these changes.’ Page 3)

The 1985 Transport Act states when referring to the ‘Functions of local councils with respect to passenger transport . . . to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as the council consider it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within the county which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose....’ (taken from Government legislation website HERE). I wonder how this can be reconciled with those councils who have withdrawn most or even all subsidies to bus services.

The rest of this article contains the exact words from this comprehensive government document so you may draw your own conclusions. This is intended to give you a flavour of the Report at the risk of disturbing the balance by taking extracts. This may be overcome by reading the full document (see box above right). Bold text is used where it appears so in the original document.

STOP PRESS:
As this web page was being prepared to go online, news came on 8 December 2011 of a Government boost of £60million for English buses, in addition to the recently announced extra £30million pounds for 'Green' buses. £10million of the extra £60million is to support the development of Community Transport, while the remainder is to promote a Better Bus Areas fund, 'an initiative which will see bus operators working in partnership with local authorities to increase passenger numbers'. More information may be found on the Department of Transport website HERE. Certainly a step in the right direction. Well done Transport Minister Norman Baker.

Extracts from Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth Report of Session 2010-12 by the House of Commons Transport Committee

'Buses are the most available and frequently used mode of public transport in England, carrying two thirds of all passenger journeys, yet they remain a comparatively undervalued mode of transport. The Government’s 2010 Spending Review included three decisions with implications for the funding of the English bus industry: first, a 28% reduction in local authority revenue expenditure, second, changes in the formula for concessionary travel reimbursement, and finally, a 20% reduction in the Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG) from 2012–13. Our inquiry examined the funding of bus services in England (outside London) in the light of the Spending Review.' Page 3

'The proportion of tendered services varies by local authority, from zero (for example, Southend) to 100% (for example, Rutland), and it is notably high in some local authority areas—around 85% of services in Somerset, for example, received at least some subsidy prior to the Spending Review.' Page 7

'Three announcements in the Government’s 2010 Spending Review will have an impact on bus industry funding:
>A 28% reduction in local authority revenue spending (Formula Grant) from 2011– 12, combined with the ceasing of ring-fencing for some types of bus provision such as the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. As a result, the provision of tendered bus services must now compete with other (statutory and non-statutory) priorities for local authority funding from a single, typically reduced, pot of money. In January 2011, the TAS Partnership estimated that English local authorities outside London could, as a whole, reduce bus subsidy funding by a quarter, or £125m per annum. By February local authorities had confirmed reduction in bus subsidies amounting to £44m.
>Changes in concessionary travel reimbursement arrangements from 2011–12 . . . new guidance was issued in November 2010 better to reflect levels of reimbursement required to ensure that bus operators were no better or worse off through their participation in the concessionary fares scheme. If followed, the changes set out in the guidance would result in an overall reduction in reimbursement in the range of £54m to £100m per annum, with a best estimate of £77m.
>A 20% reduction in BSOG from 2012–13. BSOG is a grant paid by the DfT to reimburse bus operators for some of the excise duty paid on fuel consumed. It represents about 9% of all income for the English bus industry outside London; the reduction could remove £60m per annum from the industry.
Page 9

'Bus Operating Revenue in England (outside London), 2009–10' page 8

'Local authorities seem destined to make deeper cuts to their tendered bus service budgets in 2012–13 than the current year. We call on the Department for Transport and the Local Government Association (LGA) to implement the recommendations in this Report as a matter of urgency. We recognise that the scale of local authority budgetary reductions in some areas mean that cut-backs are inevitable. It must be demonstrated—not least for the benefit of bus users around the country—that lessons have been learned from the mistakes made during the current round of cuts to bus services.' Page 10

'By June 2011, over 70% of English local authorities had decided to reduce funding for supported bus services. The extent of the reductions varied considerably, although, in general, rural, evening and Sunday bus services were most affected. In the most extreme cases, Cambridgeshire and Hartlepool councils decided to withdraw all their subsidised bus services (saving £2.7m and £290,000 respectively)— although Cambridgeshire County Council has since agreed to review its decision following a legal challenge. Other councils such as Northamptonshire, Shropshire, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, significantly reduced funding for subsidised bus services: in the last two cases, the councils controversially withdrew all evening, Sunday and Bank Holiday services. Some authorities, such as Devon, opted to reduce the frequency of subsidised services rather than withdraw them. Some local authorities, such as East Riding, Kent, Luton and Peterborough, did not reduce bus services at all.' Page 10

'The LGA told us that the reduction in formula grant had been the main driver behind local authorities’ decisions. We heard that local authorities had to protect statutory services, such as social care, in the first instance, and provision of tendered bus services was not statutory. Devon County Council argued: “the cuts are not a reflection of the fact that the council doesn’t value public transport. It is to do with the maths of what is left when you have undertaken your statutory responsibilities”.' Page 10

'We heard that commercial bus services had also been affected by the Spending Review. Large and smaller bus operators, such as Arriva and Norfolk Green, told us that they had been forced to make changes mainly due to a reduction in reimbursement revenue following the DfT’s changes to concessionary fares guidance, although the cancellation of tendered contracts and fuel price increases also played a part. Rural services again had borne the brunt of the impact. Arriva increased fares by 6–8% and reduced mileage by 6– 7% in parts of the country. Norfolk Green, a rural-based operator, reduced bus mileage by 4–5% due to a 7% reduction in its funding in 2011–12. We were told that fare increases were less acute in the Passenger Transport Executive areas. Bus operators argued that the cancellation of local authority tendered bus services had knock-on implications for commercial services because, for instance, people would no longer catch the morning bus to work if there was no guarantee of an evening service back home.' Page 11

'A common theme in the evidence was that it was the combined impacts of the Spending Review funding changes that were proving most challenging to the bus industry: Arriva described the situation as “death by a thousand cuts”. Some operators and other witnesses believed that the impact of the 20% BSOG reduction in 2012–13 would be manageable, but others, such as Arriva and Stagecoach, argued that this too would lead to service reductions and/or above-inflation fare increases.' Page 11

'Bus users from around the country, from different sections of society, wrote to us about the impacts of local authority and commercial operator decisions. We were given direct examples of how reduced or withdrawn local bus services had made people more socially isolated, in some cases removing the only bus link between their village and the nearest town. Elderly people described how withdrawn services had reduced their access to hospitals and health facilities, social activities, and opportunities for shopping. Several could not drive nor afford taxis on a regular basis. People could no longer visit or assist sick relatives as frequently. Commuters described the difficulties they now faced to return home from work in the evening following the curtailment of their local bus service after 7pm. We were given examples of younger people changing their employment due to bus service reductions and withdrawals, or no longer being able to socialise, play sports or access educational facilities in neighbouring towns, reducing their independence. A parent told us how the proposed withdrawal of her local bus service would make it very difficult to take her young children to playgroup. Bus reductions were said to impact on local tourism. Witnesses complained about the impact of above-inflation fare rises.' Page 11

'Bus Users UK questioned whether local authorities could reconcile massive funding reductions for bus services with their duties under the 1985 Transport Act to “ensure bus services are provided where they are socially necessary and would not otherwise be provided commercially.”' Page 13

'The Minister accepted that local authorities had been presented with a “challenging settlement”, but said that the Department had been “careful” to ensure the Spending Review did not have an undue impact on bus users. He noted a “varied picture” across the country, which was “a reflection of the new localism agenda and the ability of councils to make their own choice as to what is important for them in their areas”. The Minister said that some councils, such as Surrey, had shown “imagination” in protecting bus services, and he stressed that some councils had not reduced bus services at all. However, he described it as a “major concern [...] how one or two local authorities appear to have decided to cut drastically their bus services without very much consideration of the consequences”. Some councils, he believed, had decided to save money “disproportionately” from bus services in order to protect other services, although the Minister emphasised that it was their right to do so . . . .' Page 13

'The Minister claimed that commercial bus services were generally not “under threat” because of the way that BSOG had been restructured. Contradicting the statements given by bus operators, the Minister argued that commercial services would “continue largely without change in terms of services or even fares”.' Page 15

'Current legislation encourages local authorities, where they deem it appropriate, to involve and consult individuals, groups, businesses or organisations likely to be affected by their actions. The consultation undertaken by local authorities following the Spending Review was, according to Passenger Focus, “very patchy”. Whilst some local authorities such as Central Bedfordshire Council undertook detailed and comprehensive consultation processes, others either held unsatisfactory consultation processes or, in some cases, did not consult local people at all. Bus users from the Somerset area told us that the County Council did not properly consult local people about significant reductions to the tendered bus network. North Yorkshire County Council held a 12-week consultation but only one option was offered; and the outcome ignored the overwhelming majority view of the consultees. Cumbria County Council reduced tendered bus services with little consultation or warning.' Page 16

'We considered the ways in which local authorities could make alternative transport provision for residents, particularly in areas where the conventional bus network had been, or is likely to be, significantly reduced . . . At least 1,700 community transport organisations operate in England, offering transport services for people unable to access conventional public transport because of location, personal circumstance or a lack of suitable (available) transport provided by commercial operators.' Page 19

'The Minister has said that “where commercial bus services are not viable, community transport can play a valuable role in preventing isolation”. On 9 March the Department for Transport announced that a £10m fund would be distributed to rural local transport authorities to “kick-start the development of community transport in their area”.' Page 19

'We welcome the Department for Transport’s decision to allocate £10 million to rural local transport authorities to encourage the growth of community transport in their area. This came months after the Department withdrew several ring-fenced transport funds on the basis that local authorities should choose their own priorities. The new fund is a welcome admission of the need for targeted funding.' Page 20

'The growth of the community transport sector could mitigate, to a degree, the effects of the loss of subsidised bus services. However, the evidence suggests that community transport schemes are unlikely to replace more than a small fraction of withdrawn local authority-subsidised bus services. Community transport schemes are themselves often reliant on public funding.' Page 21

'There is evidence of some potential for local authorities to reduce costs through better co-ordination, planning and delivery of different types of transport services, including public buses, community transport, education, social care and health. The Government should identify ways to overcome the barriers (including regulatory or legislative barriers) to co-ordination, drawing on good practice around the country. The LGA should have a key role in identifying and disseminating best practice.' Page 22

'Since the introduction of free concessionary travel in 2006, the number of over-60s who have taken up concessionary fares passes has risen from 56% in 2005 to 76% in 2009. The proportion of people aged 60 and over who said they use a local bus at least once a week increased from 28% to 39% over the same period.' Page 23

'Norman Baker MP told us that ministers had considered the concessionary fares scheme “very carefully” during the Spending Review. He confirmed that the Government would not change the entitlement for the free pass for the “foreseeable future”. When questioned further, the Minister said that “theoretically, if you were going to do something at all, you would have a flat fare to be paid either for a journey or a flat fare for the pass each year, because that could be administered relatively cheaply”, although he stressed that this was not the policy. Means-testing, on the other hand, would be “enormously expensive”, “negate the benefits of the pass” and costly for local authorities and the Government to administer.' Page 24

'It is obvious that the concessionary fares scheme is highly valued by users and the evidence suggests the scheme provides a number of social, economic and environmental benefits. There is likely to be scope for further cost savings in the management and administration of the scheme, particularly with advancements in smartcard technology, and there may be a case for a one-off payment for the card. We strongly believe, however, that the provision of free bus travel for the elderly and disabled is to be valued. We endorse the Government’s commitment to protecting the entitlement.' Page 25

Below is the conclusion of the Report printed in full (page 26)

Below are the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Report printed in full (pages 27 to 29)

So there we are!

Oliver Foreman
7 December 2011