Conclusions and recommendations
1. Bus
patronage figures have been in decline since the 1950s. Nationally,
that decline has not been reversed since the introduction of deregulation
in 1985, although journeys in London have increased. We welcome
the Government's commitment to look at this problem from first
principles and to put into place any new arrangements that may
be required. Modal shift from car to bus is vital if the United
Kingdom is to properly tackle congestion and reduce carbon emissions.
(Paragraph 17)
2. Quality Contracts
would provide Passenger Transport Authorities with the security
and control that they require to implement efficient, desirable
bus networks within their areas. The Committee is concerned that
no Authority has felt able to apply for such a Contract given
their evident dissatisfaction with the present arrangements. (Paragraph
30)
3. As part of any
move to simplify the Quality Contract procedure and enable Passenger
Transport Authorities to implement them in their areas it is important
that an objective analysis is made of the difficulties Authorities
and operators have in working with one another in Partnership.
Even with enforceable contracts, it is vital that a détente
is reached between these two groups to ensure that bad relationships
do not persist into any new arrangements. (Paragraph 31)
4. It is not clear
whether the London system could be transplanted wholesale into
other metropolitan areas. While some of the measures that have
been implemented so successfully in London are available to PTA
areas, they have not been used. Our evidence indicates that this
is because the PTAs are not confident that the efforts that have
been put in so far are met by a reciprocal commitment by operators
to improve services. (Paragraph 35)
5. If PTA areas are
to get the bus improvements that they need, there must be a system
available for the Authorities to use to guarantee that investment
on their behalf will be met with improvements on the part of operators.
Quality Contracts are the way to do this. (Paragraph 36)
6. The Department
told us that it was willing to look at 'new approaches' to providing
bus services. It should therefore back some trial areas in PTAs
within the next year or two which could try different variations
of the 'London system' and Quality Contracts - with no strings
attached. (Paragraph 44)
7. In the longer term,
Quality Contracts would enable PTAs to develop the integrated
network they - and passengers - want. The Department must recognise
the futility of continuing to insist that the PTAs work within
a system that they do not like and apparently do not feel that
they can trust to deliver a better bus service. To this end, the
Department should revise the Quality Contract process with a view
to making them easier to obtain. The wording should be changed
to facilitate a Contract - if it is demonstrated to be the 'best'
way of implementing a clear transport strategy aimed at increasing
use of public transport, rather than the 'only practicable way'
approach currently applied. (Paragraph 45)
8. This Committee
is clear that any threat of legal action by bus operators against
PTAs who wish to introduce a Quality Contract is tantamount to
intimidation and is unconscionable. If Quality Contracts are to
work, the Department must find a way of indemnifying PTAs from
any such legal action or propose changes to the law which would
make such a challenge impossible. We are concerned that the Department
does not know itself what the legal position is in terms of the
Human Rights Act 1998 and its implications for Quality Contracts,
if indeed there are any. We would like the Department to issue
firm guidance on this matter and also to make available any relevant
legal advice it received at the time of the Transport Act 2000.
(Paragraph 46)
9. Whilst PTAs insist
that they have the 'public interest' at heart, it is important
that the Contracts themselves are democratically accountable.
This means that all affected local authorities in a PTA area must
be party to any Contract. Local authorities should retain their
highway powers and become partners with the PTAs, with a duty
to provide priority measures and traffic constraint. Contracts
will also have to be enforced. (Paragraph 47)
10. The Committee
commends the important work done by the Traffic Commissioners,
despite their limited numbers and resources. (Paragraph 53)
11. It is critical
that the Commissioners are retained as an independent entity.
In our view, the Commissioners need a much higher profile and
more resources - both in terms of money and people. This is an
important investment for the future of the bus industry, and one
the Department must make. The advantage of the independence of
the Commissioners cannot be understated if they are to take a
stronger enforcement role, and we believe that they should. (Paragraph
54)
12. The powers of
the Commissioners should be strengthened to allow them to enforce
Quality Contracts in PTA areas and partnerships elsewhere in the
country and to penalise both operators and local authorities/PTAs
when they do not meet their obligations. The Commissioners must
have the powers to allow them to guarantee a certain quality of
service. (Paragraph 55)
13. While we welcome
the apparent willingness of some bus operators to share journey
information with the Commissioners, the present arrangements are
inadequate. It is vital that the Commissioners have the information
they need to do their job properly. To this end, we recommend
that the Commissioners should have an automatic right to any journey
information held by the bus operators. If there are commercial
sensitivities in any such information, the Commissioners will
have a duty to keep it confidential. (Paragraph 57)
14. It is clearly
important, particularly for PTAs who often lack trust in their
relationships with operators, to establish the minimum profit
bus operators (of all stripes) need to stay afloat and fund investment
and to what extent this is being achieved or exceeded. We recommend
that the Government commission a study on this aspect of the bus
industry. (Paragraph 61)
15. 'Competition'
is clearly failing many non-core routes and the communities that
depend on them. The current situation cannot go on. Local authorities'
budgets are stretched. We see no reason why a different kind of
Quality Contract could not be employed by local authorities, outside
of the PTAs, to secure socially necessary services. In some areas,
where partnership is working well, there will be neither the desire
nor the need for change. Change should not be forced upon them.
However, for those areas where there is a problem, there should
be a better solution available. The Department should look seriously
at this and any other suggestions for tackling the problems outside
PTAs and report back to the Committee on its conclusions before
July 2007. (Paragraph 65)
16. Community transport
helps the most disadvantaged in our society and relieves local
authority resources. The Government must hold a consultation on
reform of the community transport system, offering options of
modifying the current permit scheme or a complete overhaul and
a unified permit scheme, as it promised two years ago. (Paragraph
68)
17. It is ridiculous
that bus operators are forbidden from providing through-ticketing
and co-ordinating scheduled services. There must be a thorough
review of how the Competition Act applies to bus services. The
Office of Fair Trading states clearly that it does not view the
bus as being in competition with the car. This is wrong. It must
look again at the reality of competition 'on the road'. If necessary,
the legislation should be amended to reflect this. (Paragraph
71)
18. Congestion is
acknowledged by all those involved in the provision of bus services
to be a major contributor to the unreliability of bus services.
This is particularly worrying because passengers who are driven
away from buses because of unreliability are likely to switch
to the car, thereby exacerbating the problem. We are concerned
that the Government has not acknowledged the role that congestion
plays in undermining the provision of bus services and we urge
the Government to give a high priority to tackling congestion,
in partnership with local authorities, as a central part of the
provision of integrated transport services. (Paragraph 74)
19. Highway authorities
must recognise that priority measures are in the interests of
the entire community. Where possible, and particularly in metropolitan
areas, bus lanes should be co-ordinated across local authority
boundaries. Bus lanes must also be rigorously enforced by the
police or safety cameras in order to actively discourage car drivers
from flouting the law. Priority measures, such as bus lanes, should
also be open to community transport as a matter of course. It
is an anomaly that these vital services do not receive priority
on the roads. (Paragraph 76)
20. The concessionary
fares system in England is a mess. The Government requires local
authorities to provide a minimum concession without providing,
in the view of many authorities, sufficient funds to do so. The
Government plans to put concessions for the over 60s and disabled
people on a national footing in 2008. This does not however mean
that concessionary national travel will be permitted, just that
there will be a uniform minimum standard for all local schemes.
It is not clear how this will be administered or even if the amount
of funding the Government has announced for the scheme will be
adequate. We seek reassurance from the Department that they have
begun work on determining how this important policy will be introduced
and administered. (Paragraph 84)
21. There is clearly
a problem with the way concessionary fare monies are distributed
to local authorities. Neighbouring authorities can be at the opposite
end of the spectrum - one having plentiful resources to provide
a full concessionary service; the other having to cut back other
services to pay for concessions. This needs to be fixed, perhaps
by the Department or the Treasury administering the proposed national
scheme from 2008. (Paragraph 85)
22. Concessions for
pensioners clearly promote bus use. Indeed, ridership in many
areas may have increased by the end of 2006 thanks to the extension
of this scheme. (Paragraph 86)
23. It is right that
minimum statutory concessions are currently targeted at disabled
persons and the over 60s. There is however a case, made by many
witnesses, for an extension of the mandatory concession scheme
to the under-16s and others in full-time education. Concessions
for children to use buses to and from school would cut down on
the school run and for those in full-time education might cut
the numbers of 17-25 year olds who learn to drive and buy a car
as soon as possible. A good experience using buses when young
could also influence travel choices later in life. Local Authorities
must always have discretion to provide higher than minimum standards.
(Paragraph 87)
24. There persists
a perception that bus services are generally unreliable and of
a poor quality; that vehicles are old and inaccessible; that drivers
are rude; and that passengers are unsafe and uncomfortable. This
image must be countered, not ignored. Although local authorities
and operators can clearly be effective, particularly when they
work in partnership to 'brand' and promote local services, the
Department must realise that it, too, has a role to play. The
Department should be prominent in promoting bus use not only to
the public but through public policy and guidance. It could do
more to monitor the industry or at least give the Traffic Commissioners
the tools they need to do it. (Paragraph 93)
25. The public must
play its part too. By anti-social behaviour, vandalism, and littering,
buses can be made unpleasant and hostile places in which to travel.
Sadly, it appears that this type of behaviour is often shown by
young people. Schools, particularly those that use a regular bus
service, must play a part in tackling this behaviour and educating
pupils to respect both the vehicle and fellow passengers. It would
be unfortunate if this kind of careless behaviour forced operators
to take steps - such as banning food and drink from vehicles -
which they should feel entitled to do if things do not improve.
We recommend that the Department for Transport work with the Department
for Education and Skills to develop policies for encouraging responsible
behaviour by students travelling to and from school by bus. None
of this, however, should relieve operators of the responsibility
for providing a safe, clean environment for passengers by investing
in CCTV and other security technology, or by providing security
personnel on particularly difficult routes. (Paragraph 94)
26. We commend those
cities and counties that have made the deregulated bus system
work for them, we rather suspect that they have done so in spite
of the arrangements they work within, not because of them. It
is clear, however, that for many areas, including all of our major
metropolitan areas outside London, the current regime is not working.
It has been over twenty years since deregulation, six years since
the Transport Act 2000. This leads us to conclude that the current
arrangements cannot be made to work. We therefore support the
introduction of some flexibility into the system, allowing those
transport authorities who feel they need a more structured network,
to apply for a reformed Quality Contract. These Contracts should
be enforced by the strengthened Traffic Commissioners and will,
we hope, deliver the much needed improvements that our cities
have long required. Traffic Commissioners should be given the
resources to monitor the speed of travel of buses on routes in
their areas and have the power to require local authorities to
draw up traffic management plans to deal with delays where they
require bus priority, or traffic management measures. In more
rural areas, authorities should also have the flexibility to apply
for Contracts to supply those socially necessary services which
currently have to be supported by the public purse. (Paragraph
95)
| 
