Written evidence from Community Transport
(BUS 12)
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Community Transport is a national charity
and social enterprise, operating passenger transport services
in six West Midlands districts, three in Greater Manchester and
also in Newcastle upon Tyne. The Charity operates 92 accessible
and standard minibuses, driven by a mix of paid staff and volunteers,
providing more than 400,000 passenger trips per year.
1.2 The services provided comprise:
— Transport
for voluntary and community sector groups—typically
children and young people, older people, disabled people and people
on low incomes.
— Contracted
services in partnership with local authorities,
Passenger Transport Executives and NHS bodies - for example for
home-to-school services for children with SEN, access to day care
and day opportunities for older people, access to primary and
secondary health care, where statutory PTS is unavailable.
— Tailored
services for particular purposes—for
example, the Charity's service taking families to visit offenders
in prisons, thereby supporting strategies to reduce re-offending.
— Social
car schemes—in Coventry and Dudley.
— Shopmobility—in
Oldham.
— Demand
responsive transport—for example
shopper services in the West Mids and Newcastle and Dial-a-Ride
in Oldham.
— A
Section 22 Community Bus service—the
649, started in Birmingham in December 2010.
2. EFFECTS OF
CHANGES TO
BUS SERVICE
OPERATORS GRANT
(BSOG)
2.1 The Charity played a role in lobbying for
BSOG to be extended to Section 19 operations some years ago. The
grant effectively recognised that many of our services are provided
to passengers because they are unable to access conventional,
timetabled bus services that were already supported through BSOG.
We believe this principle of equity is important and that a measure
of subsidy for community transport must be retained to address
holes in the transport system - especially for older people, disabled
people and other socially excluded groups.
2.2 In terms of plans to reduce the value of
BSOG by 20% from 2012, it is our view that this will disadvantage
non-scheduled service users to a greater extent than conventional
bus users. In our case, claimed BSOG has a value of £40,000
per year, which is broadly equivalent to the purchase of one accessible
minibus per year; this in a context where we need to replace eight
minibuses per year (on a 12 year cycle). There are already huge
difficulties in attracting capital investment both because of
downwards pressures on contract prices and the decrease in the
number of capital grants available from public sources.
2.3 It should be noted that the Charity has only
once been successful in attracting capital funding through the
Local Transport Plan - from Dudley in 2004.) Greater DfT encouragement
for funding modern low floor accessible minibuses (cost, £65,000)
through LTP would carry enormous benefits for our service users.
2.4 The Charity is aware of plans to move responsibility
for administering BSOG from the central DfT unit to local authorities.
We cannot support this move unless there is a legal obligation
on transport authorities to ensure that the funds made available
will be available to support community transport in direct proportion
to the money currently available through BSOG.
2.5 In overall terms, it would be wrong to exaggerate
the importance of reduced BSOG to our finances; it represents
just 2% of the charity's service-generated income. The real problems
lie in the shape of services that will be available to disadvantaged
groups and individuals as the effects of the lower local authority
spending work through.
3. REDUCTIONS
IN SUPPORT
BY LOCAL
AUTHORITIES FOR
TRANSPORT SERVICES
3.1 In terms of services contracted from local
authorities (total forecast value in 2010-11, £1,252,000),
it is important to draw a distinction between services provided
on a statutory basis and those commissioned on a discretionary
basis.
Statutory contracted services
3.2 About half our contracted services are related
to statutory home-to-school transport for children with SEN in
seven metropolitan districts: Birmingham, Dudley, Manchester,
Oldham, Salford, Sandwell and Solihull. From discussions we are
having with commissioners, we are not aware of any major changes
to SEN transport eligibility, and commissioners are forecasting
continued service provision at or near current levels.
3.3 Nevertheless there are pressures of competition
in most urban areas. Some authorities have piloted electronic
e-tendering run on a real-time, "Dutch auction" basis.
In at least one area (Coventry), the result has been the transfer
of almost all SEN transport to PHV/Hackney providers. We are concerned
that we have, as a result, been effectively excluded from the
market, as we are unable to reduce wage costs to the level apparently
acceptable to self-employed drivers (below NMW rates). We are
one of many agencies concerned that this mode of provision may,
if not properly monitored, result in poor quality in terms of
vehicles, drivers and safety standards.
Discretionary services
3.4 The other major segment of our contract portfolio
is discretionary services mainly, but not entirely, provided to
older and disabled to access shops, health care, day care and
day opportunities and social contact. The vast majority of these
people are 75 or over, have a variety of mobility problems, and
would otherwise have to rely on relatives or more expensive care
services funded from the public purse.
3.5 We have major concerns that the costs involved
in meeting government aspirations for personalised care services
- a move which we support in principle and are in some cases providing
transport for - will deter local authorities, reducing choice
for service users. Indeed we have already seen a loss of some
10% over the last year in the value of such contracts (£140,000)
- and a further 25% of our contracts are at risk either in the
form of grants or contracts for the 2011-12 financial year.
3.6 The loss of such a large volume of contracted
services, if not replaced, is likely to lead to a reduction in
paid staff, a shrinking of the fleet and less ability to replace
ageing vehicles. Unlike cases where services transfer after tender
processes under TUPE regulations, local authorities are usually
unwilling to pay for redundancy costs, which add a further twist
of the financial screw on our organisation.
Transport for voluntary and community sector (VCS)
groups ("Group Transport")
3.7 Another important impact of the Spending
Review cuts is the potential effect on our minibus transport for
other VCS groups. Where these groups are unable to supply their
own volunteer drivers, many have traditionally been willing to
pay the invoiced cost of a paid driver service, drawing on their
own grant aid from the local authority. We now have strong indications
from regular customers that their public funding is at risk and
that their clients, therefore, are likely to travel less often
or not at all. This will also impact negatively on the Charity's
financed - we estimate by £50-100,000 in 2011-12.
3.8 We have enormous potential to solve this
problem by a big push for new volunteer minibus drivers: in theory,
this would enable us to reduce invoiced charges by as much as
50%. However, we are finding that the pool of available volunteers
is shrinking for a number of reasons:
— People
in the early years of retirement are tending to have less time
available for volunteering.
— Congestion
on the roads and perceptions of liability in the event of accidents
are deterring people from coming forward.
— The
driver licensing change as of 1997 mean that younger volunteers
(typically under 35) are usually limited to minibuses with lower
Gross Vehicle Weights than the minibuses required by many groups.
3.9 We would suggest that the community transport
needs a specific programme of support for volunteering - including
improved ability to finance PCV D1 minibus driving tests for younger
vehicles, which cost in the region of £1,000 after tuition
and various fees.
3.10 The effects of uncoordinated VCS transport
services are, we believe, of serious concern on a number of counts:
— Fragmentation
of provision could lead to lower safety standards for children
and older people.
— An
overall increase in the cost to the public purse of purchasing
more, less well used minibuses.
— The
dangers of lower maintenance standards and the temptation for
groups to run their own minibuses well past their use-by date.
Grant aid to finance the core costs of community
transport services
3.11 Community Transport has traditionally benefited
from grant aid from local authorities to support its passenger
transport services, as well as for our other business divisions
of furniture re-use/recycling and transport-related training.
The total value in 2010-11 runs to £732,000, spread across
seven authorities. This funding is used to finance infrastructure
costs such as rents, office costs, managerial posts, investment
in buses - and in one case, direct support for low cost transport
for VCS groups.
3.12 However, the prospects for retaining current
levels of grant appear bleak. It needs to be noted that this trend
is the result of cutbacks in support that pre-date the current
spending round but which we expect to continue at a faster rate
from 2011-12 onwards:
| Birmingham | Grant cut by 30% over the last two years
|
| Coventry | 100% cut from 1 February 2011
|
| Dudley | Cut by 30% over the last three years
|
| Manchester | No grant aid available
|
| Newcastle | Grant applied for (none currently available)
|
| Oldham | 30% cut expected in 2011-12 - shopmobility service in town centre at risk
|
| Solihull | No grant available - supported by Big Lottery to mid-2012
|
3.13 The Charity has already streamlined management so as
to share costs between neighbouring districts. Any further significant
cut in grants is likely to mean reductions in services, possible
district closures, higher prices for VCS groups and/or a potential
long term risk to the viability of our passenger transport services
as a whole.
4. LOCAL BUS
SERVICES
4.1 The Charity does not currently operate a significant number
of registered local bus services.
4.2 On December 6th 2010, the Charity commenced its first
Community Bus service, run under the more flexible regime for
Section 22 minibus-based service brought in under the 2008 Local
Transport Act. The 649 Kings Heath service in Birmingham is supported
on contract by Centro on a six-month pilot basis to replace a
service deregistered by a commercial operator.
4.3 We believe that the new S22 regime is a considerable opportunity
for community-based operators and fits well with the government
agenda for localism. The support of the local community in the
first few weeks suggests the basis for a new model for bringing
on services which fit with local priorities and aspirations. At
the same time, such innovation will not come about without political
support and some investment especially for capital costs.
4.4 We would propose that the DfT should seek ways to develop
a new "Community Challenge" scheme that incentivises
communities to develop potential new local bus services in partnership
with local transport authorities.
5. CHANGES IN
CONCESSIONARY FARES
ARRANGEMENTS
5.1 The Community Transport charity currently has only one
service, the 649 in Birmingham, which benefits from concessionary
passes as of right. We also run some shopper services for older
people in the Midlands where grant aid is given by Centro on the
basis of a free service to older users.
5.2 We believe that the current statutory arrangements whereby
the concessionary fare system is limited to registered local bus
registration is fundamentally unfair to those people that cannot
use timetabled service for whatever reason - lack of mobility,
unavailability of an available service, etc. We would support
the calls of many to end this anomaly and target the concession
and financial support on those people whose mobility is most limited.
December 2010
| 
