Our political expert examines how DfT supports local transport authorities in shaping bus strategies
Just before Parliament rose for the summer recess, Department for Transport (DfT) officials Conrad Bailey and Stephen Fidler gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee at its one-off session on “Local Bus Services in England”, following a study and report on the subject by the National Audit Office.
Looking at the transcript, I was struck by how hands-on DfT officials are with local transport authorities in England and the development of their local bus strategies.
They are clearly doing a lot of hand-holding as authorities develop their own bus policies, either by taking forward and improving existing Enhanced Partnerships, assessing the merits of bus franchising or generally helping them make the best use of the powers to be provided through the Bus Services (No.2) Bill.
This isn’t a criticism, by the way. Far from it. The reality is that, outside of the combined authorities, most local transport authorities simply don’t have the necessary expertise or resources to develop franchise proposals and, in many cases, need help in developing Enhanced Partnerships so they are effective and deliver intended results.
Local expertise
However, it’s a curiosity that DfT officials know, or appear to know, so much more about how best to deliver local bus services than the local transport authorities themselves.
Given the history of bus policy since deregulation in 1986, perhaps that is hardly surprising.
Of course, Mr Fidler has been working on bus policy for a considerable period of time, so he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of bus issues.
There will surely come a time when local transport authorities have developed sufficient expertise to enable DfT to step back a little
But, while this government is keen to devolve more and more power to local authorities, when it comes to bus strategies and delivery, DfT remains very hands-on. It’s an interesting dynamic, but perhaps no more than that.
There will surely come a time when local transport authorities have developed sufficient expertise to enable DfT to step back a little.
Otherwise, what’s the point of the Bus Centre of Excellence, or the funding to enable every local transport authority to afford at least one designated Enhanced Partnership officer, or equivalent, to support the authority’s local bus strategy? Quite when that time will come, I don’t know.
Funding concerns
Naturally, DfT officials painted a fairly rosy picture of what is happening on the ground in terms of improvements to bus services, increases in patronage and so on.
Granted, their evidence was selective in this respect, although they were quick to acknowledge that things were far from perfect everywhere, especially when MPs on the Committee highlighted problems with cuts to services and declining patronage in their particular constituencies. None of this is surprising.
However, it cuts to the central point: will there ever be enough funding, whether that comes from central government or council tax, to provide the level of support to maintain service levels and even grow patronage across the country, not just in isolated pockets?
Given the dire state of our public finances, which is getting worse not better, I fear the answer to that is a resounding “no”.
Necessary interventions
This begs an interesting question: amid the effort from DfT to help local transport authorities, are the measures being taken in the Bus Services Bill worth it, if this doesn’t lead to a material increase in patronage?
It’s a theoretical question because, politically speaking, this government was always going to legislate in the way that it is.
Indeed, the previous Conservative government was also becoming more and more interventionist in its approach to bus policy.
Perhaps more to the point, in the absence of this level of intervention by government, it’s almost certain that service cuts and a decline in patronage would be even steeper than they are today.
Indeed, Greater Manchester can point to an increase in patronage following the introduction of its franchising plans, while other authorities have introduced Enhanced Partnerships which have seen patronage grow.
Intervention is necessary, even if it’s only to prevent further cuts and declining patronage.
Value for money
Another interesting, but again perhaps entirely theoretical, question is this: what level of patronage do ministers want to see? Or, put another way, what level of increase in patronage do ministers want to see from the policies they are pursuing?
We have targets for reducing NHS waiting lists, for example. But do we have a target for an increase in bus patronage against which to measure the value for money of the funding being provided? I don’t think we do, do we?
I accept that any such target would be somewhat academic. However, as a taxpayer, I would rather like to know if the funding being made available represents good value for money.
It would be quite good to know what level of funding represents value for money and what doesn’t, and what target increase in patronage ministers have in mind
That said, I acknowledge that, even if it didn’t, the case for continuing the funding, or even increasing it, will remain strong for a whole variety of reasons: the environmental benefits of the bus over the car, the need to provide those without access to a car with a decent form of public transport, and related benefits.
So, yes, it might be academic, but it would be quite good to know what level of funding represents value for money and what doesn’t, and what target increase in patronage ministers have in mind as a result of their policies.
A number of combined authorities are actively pursuing franchise proposals, with some at quite an advanced stage. I hope that the business cases they develop are robust.
Much has been said about the cost of introducing Greater Manchester’s franchise scheme. If these costs are replicated with other combined authorities, the final bill is going to be pretty eye-watering.
