Meeting documents

The County Council at its meeting on 10 November referred the motion by Councillor Ros Kayes (County Councillor for Bridport): Clause 21 of the Bus Bill - seconded by Janet Dover (County Councillor for Colehill and Stapehill) – to the Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration at its meeting on 25 January 2015; the Motion being:-

‘This Council notes:

1. That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively "prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service".

2. That this might have profound implications both for the proposed Combined Authority in seeking Local Transport Authority powers and in DCC’s ability to support small community transport schemes with its own fleet as is currently happening in Southill and Portland.

3. That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

4. That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

5. That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This council believes:

1. Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2. If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services

3. Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4. Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This council resolves:

1. To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

2. To write to local MPs to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.’

Unless determined otherwise by the Chairman the maximum time to be allowed to present this motion shall be 10 minutes.

Associated with this, the Bus Subsidies Working Group met on 29 November 2016 to consider evidence of the reasoning for the decisions taken by Cabinet for how bus subsidies would be managed and applied in the future. In doing this, they also took the opportunity to give some initial thought to the motion and made recommendations on what progress might be made. The notes of the meeting are attached.

The Committee took the opportunity to consider the motion ‘Clause 21 of the Bus Bill’ proposed by Councillor Ros Kayes, County Councillor for Bridport, which had been submitted in the first instance to Full Council on 10 November 2016. The motion was primarily concerned with the effect the Bill would have on effectively prohibiting a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service, which might in turn have an adverse effect on the effectiveness of any combined authority.

Although there currently were no plans for the Authority to pursue the formation of an ‘arms length’ company for the purposes of running their own service, Clause 21 of the Bus Bill sought to deny local authorities the opportunity of doing this if they so wished. Accordingly it was felt that they would be disenfranchised in their ability to pursue this course of action if they considered this to be viable option. As it stood, Clause 21 would limit local authorities options on how they were able to proceed in managing these arrangements and determine the grounds on which services were able to operate.

Accordingly, as the motion considered that Clause 21 contradicted the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011 and given the weight of public support for local bus services, it asked for support from the Committee that Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill and that a submission be made to the Secretary of State on this matter.

In light of the fact that the Bill was progressing through Parliament, the motion encouraged the County Council to play their part in influencing how this proceeded and on what basis this should be. The Committee considered it necessary to do what could be done whilst there was still an opportunity for it to be done. Additionally, a statement was circulated to the Committee from Councillor Kayes further emphasising the importance of opposing Clause 21.

So as to take the opportunity to influence proceedings at the earliest possible stage and to ensure progress could be made as soon as practicable, as part of the discussions of the Bus Subsidies Working Group on 29 November 2016 the opportunity was taken to consider - on an informal basis - the motion in advance of it being formally considered by Committee.

Whilst the motion did not directly relate to the issue of bus subsidies, it was felt that the principle of the motion had a bearing on how passenger transport could be delivered in future years. On that basis the Group felt that, in principle, the motion had merit. Arising from that meeting, a position statement was made available to all members setting out the facts and what these entailed about how Clause 21 would affect the County Council's ability to manage its own passenger transport arrangements as it chose and saw fit. 

This allowed members to be able to make an informed judgement on their merit and gave them the opportunity in their own right to use this a basis for making any representation they considered appropriate to their respective MP, as a means of influence.

The Committee endorsed the approach taken and the broad principle of the motion, its merits and what it was designed to achieve and considered it appropriate that Cabinet be asked to endorse this.

The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the primary purpose of the work of the Bus Subsidies Working Group - in considering evidence of the reasoning for the decisions taken by Cabinet for how bus subsidies would be managed and applied in the future.

In order to determine what process had been followed for the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Cabinet about how bus subsidies should be managed, there was a need to understand if that process was delivering what it was designed to achieve and in a way that was sustainable and manageable. Given this, the Group had asked that evidence should be provided on the criteria identified to determine this. Each criterion was assessed to see on what basis the decisions taken had been made, what had been taken into account in coming to that decision and the reasoning for this. From this analysis, evidence had been able to be provided which showed that the decisions taken were on the basis of agreed strategies, policies and plans and that the application of these had formed the basis on how bus subsidies should be managed and, crucially, the reasoning for this.

The Group were therefore satisfied with the reasoning provided, which was seen as being the justification for the decisions made. The Committee endorsed the opinion of the Group and thanked them for their work.

Resolved

That the Chairman of the Committee, the Cabinet Member for the Environment, Infrastructure and Highways and the Director for Environment and the Economy write to the Secretary of State on the basis of the motion.

That the opinion of the Bus Subsidies Working Group of the reasoning for the decisions taken by Cabinet for how bus subsidies would be managed and applied in the future be endorsed.

Recommended

That Cabinet be asked to endorse the approach taken by the Committee and their broad support for the principle of the motion, and that the Leader might consider agreeing to add his name to the letter being written.

Reason for Decision/Recommendation

To ensure that the County Council was able to maintain and fulfil its obligation in how passenger transport could be best delivered in future years.