Written evidence submitted by Unite the Union (BHC0146)

Introduction

This response is submitted by Unite the Union, the UK’s largest trade union with 1.42 million members across the private and public sectors. The union’s members work in a range of industries including transport, manufacturing, financial services, print, media, construction, energy generation, chemicals, local government, education, health and not for profit sectors.

In the arena of transport Unite represents over a quarter of a million members in all transport modes, making it the largest transport union in the UK.

In writing this submission Unite has obtained the views of our members in the bus sector through a survey which received 1861 responses mainly from bus drivers and other bus workers in a range of roles[1]. Therefore Unite is in a unique position to submit a response to the Transport Committee Health of the Bus Market Inquiry.

Executive Summary

• Buses are an essential form of transport for millions of people and account for six out of 10 of all public journeys[2]. Efficient and affordable buses are vital to the economy and around 8.5% of all workers normally commute to work by bus. Buses provide greater access to education and jobs and play a vital role in reducing emissions and road congestion[3]. For the elderly and most vulnerable groups in society, buses are key to addressing loneliness and social exclusion.  Yet funding for supported buses has been halved in the last eight years[4], leaving many rural and some urban areas without public transport.

• Since the industry was deregulated in the 1980s, Unite has been actively lobbying for public ownership of the bus system as the way forward for a fully integrated, reliable and cost effective world class bus system that puts bus workers, bus users and communities at the forefront of bus strategy. Unite has supported the conclusions in the Transport for Quality of Life report – ‘Building a world-class bus system for Britain’[5]. Unite argues that the current deregulated model has failed to increase bus use. According to research from Campaign for Better Transport[6] from 2010 to date 3,088 bus services have been reduced or withdrawn across England. 

• Bus and coach fares have increased by 19% from 2001 to 2011[7] whilst local authority spending has reduced by 64%, with a £20 million reduction in local authority spending on supported bus services in England during 2017-2018 (ibid). When looking at local authority spend on buses, the Campaign for Better Buses report found that 56 out of 88 local authorities had reduced or spent nothing on supported bus services in the period 2017-2018[8].

• According to the latest DfT statistics, the numbers of local bus passenger journeys in England (outside London) have fallen by 1.5% in the period 2016/2017[9]. Unite is concerned about the impact this has on jobs and communities. Unite maintains that Trade Unions should be statutory consultees on all aspects of bus policy. Trade Union density levels in the bus industry are amongst the highest in the whole of the economy at around 80%. Unite believes bus workers in the industry deserve to be represented as much as the bus passenger representatives who have already been given statutory consultee status. Trade Unions should be included as statutory consultees as worker representatives under 123E (4) of the Bus Services Act 2017. Unite promotes more public ownership, including our bus services and believes there should be a legal presumption in favour of re-regulation for our buses. Unite is calling for a transport strategy that includes a commitment to investment to build an accessible, affordable, integrated and accountable public transport system that is also part of tackling climate change. We believe in a safe transport system with decent employment standards, equality and protection for transport workers. Devolving transport powers should not result in the damaging fragmentation of public networks, or compromise the need for a properly accountable and integrated transport system. Nor should devolution be used as a means to further cuts and austerity.

• Driver fatigue is gravely impacting bus drivers. Unite has called for proper implementation of the European driving hours regulations in the UK as bus drivers are driving for longer periods and over greater distances than their European counterparts. The 50km route distance rule should not be exceeded by any company simply by stopping to change the route number of the bus. This is a matter of public safety on our roads. Within the context of Brexit, the final settlement must retain all that we have fought for within the EU – from regulations on vehicle standards to health and safety legislation and we should as a minimum retain parity with that in Europe.

• The Bus Services Bill could have been an opportunity for the Government to try and wrestle back some control from the main operators. Unite’s view is that the Bill was too limited in its scope and lacked evaluation leakage of profits from the bus industry. 

• The licence for London covering 25000 bus workers in the capital was launched in January 2017 by Unite and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and puts an end to the previous system where bus drivers moving from one bus company to another would be paid the lowest driving wage as if they were starting their careers, even though they may have driven with another company at a pay grade equivalent to their level of service and experience. Unite’s shop stewards, members and officers at London Busses are to be congratulated on this landmark achievement. Unite would like to see this replicated across other cities in Great Britain.

• Inadequate and expensive public transport and hostile walking and cycling environments – is forcing millions of people to choose between debt and social exclusion. Government must tackle transport poverty to ensure a fair public transport system must be affordable to all. Our transport planning system penalises people who cannot afford a car, who struggle to cover rising public transport fares and who lack access to public or private transport because of age, disability or where they live. Unite is also concerned about how women who are more likely to rely on local buses, less likely to commute by car or train, more likely to be part-time and disadvantaged by the high cost of season tickets, more likely to need transport for caring responsibilities as well as paid work[10].

Part A: The effectiveness and ambition of the Department for Transport’s policies on buses

Privatisation and deregulation 

Bus fares have more than tripled since deregulation in 1986[11], hitting low-income households hardest. Analysis of company accounts shows that over the past ten years, bus operating profits in the Metropolitan areas were 8.5% and 6.4% elsewhere in England. Some bus companies make very high profits in the city regions. For example over the past ten years Stagecoach in Tyne and Wear had an average operating profit margin of 18.8%. Midland Red (Stagecoach in Coventry and Warwickshire) had 15.8% and First West Yorkshire 15.6%. In the Metropolitan areas, big operating groups paid out 85% of after tax profits in dividends to shareholders[12]. Consequently no more than 15% of profits were actually reinvested in the local area.

A report by Transport for Quality of Life[13] found that;

“Nationally, dividend leakage is roughly equivalent to one-tenth of the public money that goes into supporting bus services. In some areas, dividend leakage is comparable to the level of recent cuts in public funding for bus services.”

Unite’s main concern about private bus companies is with how profits are distributed. Privately run bus companies profit maximisation is determined by corporate governance rules in the interest of shareholders as opposed to community need.  Therefore, if profits cannot be achieved there is no moral or indeed legal imperative contained within the governance code for the bus company to keep the bus route running, rather bus operators are able to cherry-pick profits from the more profitable routes extracting revenues which local authorities could otherwise use to improve the bus network[14]. The practice of cherry picking profits from prime routes, results in other services being provided through public funding at disproportionately high costs.  This public subsidy, including fuel duty rebates and grants for concessionary fares, makes up 45% of funding in the industry[15]. Ultimately this has led to cuts in bus services.

Unite believe that deregulation has led to a lack of competition in bus services where the dominant companies have created a monopoly in the bus network which serves shareholders but not necessarily the needs of the travelling public or wider economy. Continual consolidation and mergers have meant that the five largest private bus operators, Arriva, First, Go-Ahead, National Express and Stagecoach, carry 70% of all passengers.[16]  

Unite believe privatisation and deregulation has led to:

• Bus workers terms & conditions and health being eroded
• Increased stress on the workforce. 
• Passenger numbers continuing to fall.
• Bus services unreliable and of a poor quality.
• Unstable network with frequent and confusing changes.
• Shrinking network with less Sunday and evening services.
• Competition failing the public.
• Bus wars and ‘high prices’.
• Decisions that are detrimental for the environment.

Impact on bus workers

Bus sector workers deserve to be rewarded fairly for the service they deliver day in day out keeping the buses running and the economy going. However, with a squeeze on profitability around routes, bus companies have looked at other ways to reduce costs and have focused on worker’s pay, terms and conditions.

Since deregulation the wages of our members have not kept pace with inflation and in some cases, the wages have actually declined as a percentage of the average wage.  A report by Transport for Quality of Life (TfQL) identified that before bus regulation, the average wage of a bus driver was roughly in line with the average wage. However since bus deregulation while the average wage has increased by 25 per cent, the average wage of a bus driver has actually gone down by 11 per cent. [17] This is no surprise as workers are now organised through patchwork coverage of individual agreements not covered under a robust national agreement. This has created a race to the bottom on workers’ pay, terms and conditions, with comparators often based on the lowest common denominator.

Unite calls for all awarded bus contracts, either through partnership or franchise models to include collective bargaining at its core. Unite would also wish to see pay, terms and conditions within the bus network negotiated nationally under a national bargaining agreement, except where there is established bargaining arrangements with trade unions. In London Unite and our members in the bus sector worked together with the mayor of London Sadiq Khan to develop ‘The Licence for London’ covering 25000 bus workers in the capital.  This resulted in a new minimum London bus driver’s wage being introduced to all new TfL contracts awarded to bus companies from April 2017. As such bus companies operating in London will be required to pay drivers at least £23000 per annum, a figure which reflects the challenging nature of the bus driver’s role. The Licence will also allow for drivers to move between companies taking their qualifications and driving records without having to go on a lower new starting rate which will form a new enhanced reference for their new employer and enable employers to bring drivers into relevant local pay structures which reflect their experiences. This is an example of what can be achieved when unions work with policy makers and bus companies in providing quality contracts and preventing a race-to-the-bottom.

TUPE Application - Unite is concerned that the current protection that is built in to the Bus Services Act 2017 for current workers is not undermined by an overly prescriptive percentage stipulation on how it should be applied. When the Local Transport Act was being created the Government amended the definition of “principally connected” to set the threshold at 50 per cent, rather than two thirds, of an individual’s working time. Unite believes that it would be better to leave the term “principally connected” undefined in the Regulations, as in Unites view avoiding specific thresholds could allow greater flexibility in local circumstances. The trade unions would be happy to share their extensive experience in dealing with TUPE to contribute to this process.

Pensions Protection - Regulation needs to be put in place to allow an independent pension actuary to assess if a new operators pension provision is the same as the rights the transferring original employee had as an employee of the original operator, or under provision made by regulations, count as being the same as, or better than, those rights. In addition in the Local Transport Act there was the opportunity (for a successful operator who is awarded the Quality Contract will have Admitted Body Status) to apply for access to the Local Government Pension Scheme or equivalent scheme. The current bill intends to remove the Quality Contracts option. If this happens then the Bus Services Bill should include that a successful operator who is awarded a franchise will have Admitted Body Status) to apply for access to the Local Government Pension Scheme or equivalent scheme.

Minimum terms and conditions and pension standards for new employees who are not covered by TUPE - Unite is concerned that the bill does not appear to offer protection for new employees who are not covered by the TUPE and pension protections built into the Bus Services Act 2017 in the way current employees are. This could lead to a risk that operators bidding for the contract will drive down costs through reducing terms and conditions for future employees, with resultant risks to future service delivery. Unite strongly urges the Government to regulate to protect the minimum terms and conditions and pension standards for new employees who are not covered by TUPE. A franchise could, for example, set minimum terms and conditions based on the best available TUPE and pension conditions in the franchise area in order to ensure that conditions are not harmonised downwards. 

Our members have also identified issues around long working hours without a break due to staff shortages, an exceedingly controlled working environment and irregular and unsocial hours, creating stress and pressures throughout the working day which has led some workers in the industry to suffer mental ill health. Our members have also observed that:

“Due to the tightening of tenders insufficient time is given for a bus journey to take place. Buses are getting busier with less time for journeys. With proposed cuts to bus services adding to the problem in the near future. Bus operators are not sufficiently controlling buses during congested times leaving bus staff under pressure and exhausted. This leads to unsafe working conditions which make bus journeys more dangerous”.

Bus sector members have raised concerns regarding the ever decreasing levels of morale. Members reported they are over stretched and stressed because of worsening conditions relating to coverage of shifts and feel obliged to work half shifts. Driver fatigue is constantly raised by union reps. The increasing numbers of drivers that have had their licence revoked over the past few years is a damning indictment of the passenger industry and the difficult job that bus drivers undertake, often to the detriment of their own health.

“I used to enjoy my job I don't anymore which is a shame as I have been doing this for 20 years.”

A FOI request by DC Thomson to the DVLA in 2016 showed that between 2010 and 2014 there was a 63.5% increase in the number of bus drivers who had their licences revoked in the UK.[18]

“Messing with shift patterns which increase the risks of accidents due to the drivers being fatigued. For example you get up at 4.00  for a few days and just over 24 hours later be expected to stay up till 1,2 o'clock in the morning. The current British law for driving buses needs to be addressed because the companies follow it nearly to the T. If you finish at 20.00 they could and will expect you in at 06.00 if required. Drivers are not respected at all do as I say or get out attitude.” – Unite bus sector member

“The companies use loopholes to get around the European laws on longer routes it should be made mandatory for max driving 4.5 hours driving where currently it's 5.5 hour.” - Unite bus sector member

Bus drivers in the UK are driving for longer periods and over greater distances than their European counterparts. The 50km route distance rule should not be exceeded by any company according to European legislation; however, companies are overcoming this hurdle simply by stopping to change the route number and ultimate destination of the bus, without changing drivers. This is a matter of public safety on our roads and it should not be ignored by simply ignoring the spirit of the legislation.

As reported by a Unite member in the bus sector;

“Transdev ignore the ruling completely. They actually change the wording in their own internal documents and memos. Again, the powers that be do not have the resources to enforce any rules. This has allowed us to massively break the rules in order to increase profit. For example, we run a route that runs from Leeds to Scarborough and other coastal towns with zero breaks of driver change over.”

The Bus Services Act 2017

The focus of the Bus Services Act 2017 was to reregulate the bus market and strengthen arrangements for partnership working in the bus sector by introducing ‘enhanced partnerships’; ‘advanced quality partnership’ and new franchising powers. Granting local authorities in England the power to agree with bus companies how local bus services should be organised.

The case for Municipality

Clause 21 of the Act prohibits municipalisation in England. This is a major concern for Unite. If the government was genuinely interested in local authorities being able to deliver the best service possible to meet local needs and ensure value for money, then municipalisation should be an option available to all local authorities.   Public ownership would save us £506 million a year[19] that could be invested in developing better bus networks and lower fares, and at best meets the requirements of a ‘world-class bus system’.

Unite maintains that the Bill has not allowed local authorities to consider all options for bus service reform by explicitly ruling out municipalisation, stating:

“Local authorities will in future, not be able to set up new municipal bus companies.”

Enhanced partnerships

The Bus Services Act 2017 created a new type of partnership, called an ‘Enhanced Partnership’. The core principles of which are that:

• The bus market in the partnership area remains commercial.
• The partnership proposals can cover any geographical area within the boundaries of the relevant local transport authority (or authorities).
• The partnership proposals must receive majority support from the bus operators who would be affected by the proposals. If they do not, then the proposals cannot be taken forward.

Unite believe enhanced partnerships have limitations, for example, bus operators cannot be required to charge a set price for their own, single operator tickets, and proposals must receive majority support from the bus operators, otherwise they cannot be taken forward. The partnership proposals do not dictate the price of bus operators’ own tickets or compel them to run services that they do not wish to operate.

In Unite’s view partnerships are a weak alternative to existing arrangements and certainly not a substitute for robust regulation. Indeed why partnership was put forward as a suitable option and not municipal ownership is still unclear.

Unite’s past experiences of partnerships has been a disappointing one. Trade unions are not consulted when partnerships are formed and all too often operators abandon the partnerships claiming commercial reasons and face no penalty.

Unite believes Trade unions should be a statutory consultee as previously mentioned in this submission. Enhanced partnerships should not be agreed solely between the local authority and operator but should include all statutory consultees including trade unions.

Responding to our survey question concerning the impact of enhanced partnerships on buses, our members in the bus sector expressed the following views where 28% felt the policies had led a positive impact, whilst 36% felt the policies had had a negative impact:

Do you believe the enhanced partnership policy has had a positive or negative impact on bus service provision?

Franchising

Franchising allows some local transport authorities to determine the frequency and standard of service, fares and whether bus operators will have to sell and accept multi-operator and multi-modal tickets.  However, the Bus Act is limited in scope. Automatic powers to franchise bus services should not be limited to Combined Authorities with directly elected mayors. The legislation places barriers in the way of local authorities re-regulating services through franchising, as they will only have access to these powers on a case-by-case basis subject to regulations and with consent from the Secretary of State. This could potentially provide central government with the power to block any franchise proposals if they wish to do so, based on subjective set of criteria.

Unite surveyed our members in the bus sector on whether they felt that franchising has had a positive or negative impact on bus service provision, there responses were:

Unite maintains the view that bus sector statutory joint industrial councils should be established for

each franchised area and at national level to set staff pay, conditions and pensions. Explicit rules to apply TUPE to bus franchising are required. In addition transport authorities franchising powers should direct authorities to adopt minimum staff terms and conditions that must be met by all operators.

Part B: Factors affecting bus use

Transport poverty

Ticketing and the costs of travel are an issue impacting bus use. Bus fares have increased faster than overall price inflation[20]. Unite is concerned that some passengers are unfairly penalised financially in the transport system as it is presently set-up.  Unite recommends a review of ticketing options to take account of working hours/days can vary from week to week as discounted ticketing is not presently set up in such a way to give value for money for people working on precarious contracts. Working patterns are such that precarious working does not necessarily allow for consistent and affordable use of public transport.  There are 1.8 million people on insecure or zero hours contracts[21], without guaranteed hours or income, many of whom are required to attend work at short notice. This doesn’t allow for any planning and certainly not to benefit from a weekly/monthly/annual travel card. Journeys made without a weekly or monthly travel-card result in high travel costs for less frequent travellers.

Unite believe the lack of affordable and accessible transport options is hindering people on low incomes from accessing essential services or work[22]. Access to reliable and affordable transport can mean the difference between being able to work and being locked into welfare dependency. Statistics from DWP[23] reveal that 64% of jobseekers do not have access to a car and two in five say lack of affordable transport is a barrier to getting a job. In addition transport costs can also easily wipe out modest financial gains from entering or returning to work[24], and difficulties in accessing childcare by public transport can present a further barrier for working parents[25].

Unite supports comments made by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which highlight the inter-related issues around poor public transport and how for some people, being able to access efficient, affordable and integrated transport is key to achieving wider economic success:

“Currently unaffordable and unreliable public transport is holding people back from being able to achieve a better standard of living. With more powers being devolved to city and local leaders, now is the time to redesign our transport, housing and economic policies so that everyone can get into work and progress in their careers.”[26]

Concluding its report on transport poverty Sustrans[27] stated;

“Our transport planning system penalises people who cannot afford a car, who struggle to cover rising public transport fares and who lack access to public or private transport because of age, disability or where they live”.

Unite would be disappointed if, 5 years from now, a review of England’s bus network finds passenger numbers continue to decline and that accessibility and affordability show no positive or meaningful change.  If so, government will have failed our communities, the economy and the individuals who work in the bus sector.

Unite recommends making bus travel more affordable for job seekers as this would assist them in accessing work for those in areas with slack labour demands. Refocusing existing public transport subsidies, such as the Bus Services Operators Grant, on socially-necessary and non-commercial services and targeting affordable fare schemes to meet the needs of jobseekers and those in full time education it would ensure existing subsidies are spent to maximum effect.

A number of issues could be better addressed if the focus of bus policy was more centred on the community needs and employment of bus workers rather than profitability. The survey responses from our members have revealed that reliability of the bus service and road congestion are the overwhelming factors which our members felt were affecting bus use:

Other factors included:

• High ticket prices, single fares specifically
• Unrealistic schedule running times
• Road works
• Operators in a bid to make money give minimal time in running causing unreliable services putting profits above passenger and driver needs
• Lack of timing and drivers being forced to drive at a unsafe speed to obtain times
• Inadequate route combination. Poor route coverage.
• Regulation of bus service as in high frequency which unnecessarily an inconvenience to planned connections to some other forms of transport like trains and trams
• Condition of fleet compared to private operators and congestion of bus lanes by service buses cycles and express services all using the only provided bus lane being slowed by cycles act
• Not enough funding to councils for services
• Staff leaving due to bad working conditions and poor pay
• Reduction in subsidised routes
• Road congestion is a factor but also that other motorists show total disregard to buses on the road by dangerous manoeuvres around buses and also using bus lanes, gates and bus stops stopping buses from doing there route properly. Local authorities know this happens and do nothing about it.
• Passengers getting priced out, bus services run as a business, non-profitable routes being axed, people being cut off and overcrowding
• Free travel is being abused and deterring paying customers
• Prams and buggies
• Management
• Lack of frequency, comfort and long journey times
• Stop companies fitting the time table around the rules and regulations and start running them for the needs of the public , stop different companies from running services five minutes in front of another company and look at the route and give the public a service with sensible structured time tables , ie two companies one runs on the hour the other on the half hour public gets an half hour bus service
• Routes being changed so often, elderly are so confused they are moving to taxis
• Buses cold in winter hot in summer just not comfortable and horrible for both passenger an driver
• Antisocial behaviour in buses.
• Tendering
• Insufficient local government support when there is a need for routes to be profitable
• Service provision has reached a point where it is rarely an alternative to car ownership and so a cycle of decline continues
• The technology (wayfarer machines) not up to 2018 standard. Far too slow in this day and age. Customers want quick, easy and reliable machines as do drivers. This puts a lot of people off using buses. I have had feedback from passengers and people who refuse to travel by bus
• Lack of bus lanes, Taxi's other road users occupying bus stops.
• Taxis becoming cheaper than buses
• Bus operators having vested interests in other transport services ie Metrolink
• It is many things.  Congestion causing unreliability, poorly managed ENCTS system with insufficient funding.  Lack of funding for bus routes compounded by austerity and massive attack on council budgets.
• Poor state and uncomfortable buses. Some of which are over 15 years old. Very uncomfortable for driver and passengers
• Car use; Privatisation - ban on Municipally-owned bus services; antipathy of bus operators; lack of local authority funding - all result in declining bus network
• A combination of factors:- road congestion, roadworks (particularly the 'pop up' ones, cost of fares and the constant tension between buggy, wheelchair and trolley users
• Deregulation has led to a decline in services; all but the most profitable routes have been cut over the last 30 years. Also automation such as internet shopping recently has had a massive impact, with less people travelling to town centres there are less passengers.
• General morale has gone down
• Shortage of drivers
• Cash strapped councils removing subsidies from certain routes
• Fare dodgers

The survey responses above highlight a need for better planning of bus services, taking into account the limitations of road structure, passenger needs and working conditions.

Part C: The provision of services to isolated communities in rural and urban areas, and the reliance of particular communities and groups of people on bus services

According to the latest National Travel Survey[28] report bus use in rural and urban areas is in decline. The report attributes the decline to a shift to car ownership in these areas but also cites income and quality and cost of bus services as additional factors.

In a Commission for Rural Communities survey[29] public transport was mentioned by 28% of respondents as one of the main things rural people would like to see done to improve the quality of life. Indeed the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission[30] highlighted the lack of transport as a major contributor to poor social mobility in the most remote rural and coastal areas. The lack of bus services in such areas increases problems of road congestion and pollution as more people are driven into car use and dependence on car travel. Rural bus users experience a skeletal service or, in some places, no service at all[31]. Resultantly people who cannot drive, mainly the elderly, young people and people on low incomes are being cut off.

Bus services supported by local authorities are often the only form of non-car transport in rural areas and are essential for vulnerable groups who would otherwise be isolated. However there have been significant cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 which have resulted in 30 million miles of bus journeys have been lost as supported mileage has fallen to 13.4% in year ending 2017[32]. 

The future for bus services across large parts of England is now in doubt. The Department for Transport predicts that by 2040[33] bus journeys will have dropped faster than any other form of transport, while only single passenger car journeys are predicted to rise. This could have severe impacts for England’s rural and vulnerable population.

Unite is concerned about the lack of access to buses in rural and isolated communities which particularly impact the following groups:

• Older people. Many older people are unable to drive and so rely on public transport
• Younger people.
• Women are less likely to have a driving licence or to have access to a car – 25 per cent live in a household without a car compared with 17 per cent of men[34].  Three-quarters of women over the age of 80 live in households without a car[35].
• Job-seekers. Two thirds of people claiming job-seekers allowance either do not have access to a car or a licence to drive it.
• Those on low incomes. People in the lowest income group make three times more journeys by bus than those in the highest income group.
• Disabled people. 60% of disabled people have no car in the household and use buses 20% more than those without disabilities.

Unite calls on the government to safeguard services in rural, not least in evenings and weekends, as funding and powers are devolved to local areas .

Disabled users

As detailed in the Unite Bus Survey responses listed below; more than 23 in every 25 disabled passengers are either dependant or more than dependant on the provision of bus services. Consquently the removal of these services and/or the provision of services that are unreliable / have limited access has a disproportanatly greater impact on these often isolated parts of communities.

Unite does not believe that there is even adequate undertakings by the providers of these public services to establish how the changes to timetables and or the provision of these services has on these passengers and other groups of passengers including (but not limited to) workers, job seekers, the elderly, young people and those on low incomes.

The Paulley v FirstGroup plc[36] supreme court judgement has increased pressure on drivers to enforce the disabled passengers rights over those of other able bodied passengers, however, accessability remains a barrier as wheelchair space on busses is limited to an absolute maximum of two chairs. Unite believe, the attempted enforcement by drivers has lead to some ugly confrontations between the driver and passengers increasing the drivers stress levels and increasing the instances of sickness amongst staff.

Responding to our survey drivers have left the following comments on this issue:-

“They, like most rural people, make other arrangements due to unreliability and infrequency.”

“Our buses can only carry one wheelchair user at a time which is inadequate. The space for wheelchair users is over used by buggy users who are very reluctant to make way for a wheelchair user if at all willing.”

“Buses aren't built for handling the volume of disabled users that try and use the service.”

“They do have adequate access but this day in age as electric chairs are bigger, users often struggle with the width of the galley and getting into position.”

“We have high disabled usage and often not enough space if there are buggies on as the people with pushchairs don't want to fold them up”

“We can carry only one wheelchair user at any time which can lead to conflict with buggy users.”

The feedback from our members illustrates how inadequacies in service provision and accessibility impact those who are most reliant on these services.

Part D: Regulations affecting the provision of bus services and the adequacy of guidance to operators and local communities

Cuts to local council subsidies

Almost half of all bus routes in England currently receive partial or complete subsidies from councils and are under threat as councils in England face an overall funding gap that is expected to exceed £5 billion by 2020.  Unite is concerned that this will cause significant cuts on bus routes, particularly in rural areas and isolated area,  putting jobs at risk and increasing social isolation.

Unite believes that giving councils control over the Bus Service Operators’ Grant, a fuel duty rebate currently paid directly to bus operators, would also enable councils to protect vital bus routes, and give them the funding they need to provide an effective and efficient bus service.

Unite believes that the subsidy to bus companies, which in 2016/17 was £298 million, is provided  without adequate oversight of how this is spent, whether it is addressing issues related to workers concerns or importantly whether taxpayers and the travelling public are receiving value for money.

Furthermore, reductions in spending have led to substantial reductions in bus services especially in the evenings[37] [38].

The recent Campaign for National Parks study[39] highlighted that more than 9 out of 10 families have to travel to the parks by cars because of poor bus services, says the study. In Exmoor National Park, for example, a return journey between Exeter and Dulverton, a distance of 29 miles, costs £22 and two changes of bus each way. This is placing a major strain on family budgets, increasing car pollution and road congestion.

The prohibition on new municipal bus companies delivering bus services

Unite believe municipal operations would deliver greater financial gains than franchising. Instead of being used to pay dividends to shareholders, the profit from commercial routes could be used to support non-commercial routes, reducing the amount of subsidy required from the local transport authority. As with franchising, there would be patronage and revenue increases over time as a result of unified network design and simplified ticketing, and there would be efficiencies in the provision of services that are currently tendered. The total gain from municipal operation would be of the order of £506 million per year in Britain excluding London (Table 4 below)[40]. This is substantially greater than recent cuts to bus funding, so would allow both for restoration of services that have been cut, and investment in new services.

There are 10 publicly owned municipal bus companies in operation in England (outside London)[41], running buses in the interests of local people, not private profit.

Nottingham City Transport (NCT) provides an example of a publicly owned bus company delivering reliable and frequent bus services. Nottingham City Transport has scored the highest bus operator satisfaction score in the UK in a recent survey of customer satisfaction, achieving an impressive 97% in a study carried out by nationwide independent passenger watchdog, Transport Focus.[42] According to the survey 20% of Nottingham commuters use buses to get to and from work, and, in part due to the quality of the city’s bus network, Nottingham is ranked as one of the least car-dependent cities in England. NCT’s majority shareholder is Nottingham City Council. Municipal bus companies have scooped the UK Bus Awards ‘Operator of the Year’ prize in 6 out of the last 9 years.

The Bus Service Bill does not allow local authorities to consider all options and explicitly rules out municipalisation, stating:

“Local authorities will in future, not be able to set up new municipal bus companies.”

This is a major concern. If the government was genuinely interested in local authorities being able to deliver the best service possible to meet local needs and ensure value for money, then municipalisation should be an option available to local authorities.

October 2018