Email now to cast your vote — take our buses into public control!

Do you think South Yorkshire's buses should work for people and planet, not just for profit?

The South Yorkshire Mayor wants to hear from you as part of a consultation on reforming how buses run. But you only have 3 days left to respond!

Enter your email address below and send our template response calling for:

Public Control and ownership of local bus services.
Passenger-led decision-making.
Better T&Cs for drivers.

Bus Reform Consultation

First name *

Last name *

Your email *

Town

Postcode

Subject

<div>
<div>I’m getting in touch to respond as an individual to the “SYMCA bus franchising consultation” having engaged with the information in the Consultation Document. Please find my answers below.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Short Questionnaire</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q01. Overall, to what extent do you support or oppose the introduction of the Proposed Franchising Scheme? Please tick one box only.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Strongly support</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q02. Why do you say this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Deregulation and privatisation have been devastating for our South Yorkshire bus services. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The consultation document reinforces two key principles that mean franchising is better.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>First, there is more strategic control of the network with interests more aligned to those of the public. Under the current fully privatised model, any and all changes need the consent of the large operators.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Secondly, there is a better financial set up. Any profits made can be extracted from the current network, even when they result from councils investing our tax to improve services. Franchising means that more of the profit can be retained in the region and reinvested. However, some profit will still leak out to the private operators.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Proposed Franchising Scheme would cover the whole area of South Yorkshire. This includes the four district authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, and Sheffield. It would apply to all services across South Yorkshire (other than some services excepted from the Proposed Franchising Scheme and services to which the service permit scheme would apply).</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q03. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I support having the whole of the South Yorkshire network under the franchising scheme. I’d like the Mayor to use franchised control to increase integration and coordination with neighbouring regions, like Wakefield and Kirklees in West Yorkshire, especially where they are also under franchised control.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Strategic Case summarises the South Yorkshire bus network’s day to day challenges and concludes that it is not performing as well as it should be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q04. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree with the 8 issues set out in the strategic case. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would add that fares are too high and do not offer value-for-money. A possible priority for franchising should be to keep fares low or lower them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I also worry about the terms and conditions of drivers and how this impacts my experience as a passenger. Driver shortages, caused by poor pay and conditions, have led to more cancellations and service reductions. Drivers are out under increasing pressure by poor conditions and pay which can affect how well passengers and drivers get on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, I think there is a lack of power for passengers and communities to shape the services we rely on. Private operators make decisions without us having any real say: even where the Mayor controls services, we don’t get to shape the network directly.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Strategic Case concludes that a Proposed Franchising Scheme is the best option for South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (when compared to EP and EP Plus) to deliver its aims and strategic objectives for buses in the region.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q05. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I support the conclusion of the Strategic Case that franchising is the best option because:</div>
<div>It provides certainty on delivery. I was concerned that it said leaving private companies in charge under the alternative to franchising (the EP+) means there is “no certainty.” Our communities need certainty, not to be at the whim of private company shareholders.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>It guarantees simple tickets.</strong> It is simply illegal to provide a single set of tickets that work across all operators or time-bound tickets like the London-hopper fare, as shown by when Reading Council tried to introduce a “short hop” fare under its EP and the CMA prevented it from doing so.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>It is more straightforward.</strong> Under the privatised alternative (EP+), any negotiation to deliver improvements (e.g., lower fares) may be undermined by the private operators finding some further way to serve their interests as we saw when the West Yorkshire Mayor paid for a £2 fare cap and Arriva raised all its lower fares, with no notice, to £2.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>I want buses to be run with commonsense.</strong> No other country in Europe runs services through a complete private control system. I’ve heard all use some system akin to franchising.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>I want to follow the evidence.</strong> Research shows that the powers of EPS are legally limited compared to franchising, including on bus targets set by:</div>
<ul>
<li>the Centre for Cities, where only 5/23 targets are deliverable by EPS, but 23/23 by franchising.</li>
<li>Transport for a Quality Life, where only 5/16 targets are deliverable by EPS, but 16/16 by franchising.</li>
<li>South Yorkshire MCA, where an EPS put 14/40 targets at risk of not being delivered but franchising risked none.</li>
</ul>
<div><strong>Q06. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the introduction of the Proposed Franchising Scheme will improve bus services in the South Yorkshire region? Please tick one box only.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Somewhat agree</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q06b. Why do you say this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bus services in London, parts of Greater Manchester, and the rest of Europe are always more impressive and reliable than in South Yorkshire. Taking some control away from private operators and retaining some of the profits will obviously improve services towards a similar standard.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, the current plans leave many important decisions in the hands of private companies and introduce instability by relying on a cycle of putting contracts out for bus companies to bid in and win. They also spend our money on expensive contract fees.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Decisions about workers rights, fleet and depot safety, and other parts of passenger experience will be left to the operators who win contracts. The role bus companies play in bidding in to deliver services will also constrain decision-making.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In South Yorkshire, operators are assumed to make a profit of 10% under the Enhanced Partnership but 7.5% under franchising. If operations were delivered directly by an in-house company owned by local people, we would bring that down to near 0% — saving up to three times as much again in reinvested profits.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those aren’t the only savings. Research by Transport for a Quality of Life suggests that 50% more could be saved through making services more efficient if they were under direct ownership, rather than a privately held franchise contract.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Economic Case concludes that, of all the Bus Reform options considered, the Proposed Franchising Scheme would offer the best value for money for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q07. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The economic case for franchising is strong (and would be stronger if it involved a municipal operator) as it retains nearly £80 million in profits that can be reinvested into better services. It also provides 20% more in economic benefits across reduced congestion, accidents, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gases. The Mayor’s report says that franchising provides high value for money, compared to only medium value for money for the continued private control alternative.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Commercial Case concludes that the Proposed Franchising Scheme reduces barriers to entry by providing fleet and depots to operators, thereby supporting increased competition for franchise contracts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q08. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think the commercial case is too complicated and comes at a cost to the public.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Running a competition to get a private operator who will cream off 7.5% profit is a very costly and time consuming exercise. It involves employing more staff and making them work on it. The cost of the bids put in by bus companies who go on to win contracts are also paid for by passengers. The competition can also lead to a race to the bottom on workers' terms and conditions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Officers in Glasgow have identified that if they set up a council owned operator it could be awarded contracts directly under existing legislation: the same law Labour is using to renationalise train operators. This could make the process quicker, remove the need for the false-benefits of a “market” approach.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The consultation document also says in the commercial case that “strategic control would be held by the MCA, while operational control would remain with bus operators.” So this will not deliver full public control, something I am keen to see.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I want the Mayor to set up a publicly owned bus company.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There would be security benefits of having a publicly owned Operator of Last Resort. The major operators in the UK are used to working within regulated and franchised systems across all of Europe and should face no difficulty in harmonising their approach in South Yorkshire to their operations elsewhere. However, if a tender receives no bid, a company must be barred from the region due to poor service, or if an operator attempts to pull out of a contract, the Commercial Case doesn’t provide a strong enough answer on how continuity of service will be provided. In the rail industry, the Government can step in with a competent public operator to guarantee provision of service.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If we don’t have a council owned bus company, then the competition process to win contracts will have some benefits for us against the current set up.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’m glad to see that there will be some level of performance regime. I would like to see some performance markets tied directly to public complaints so that when we feedback it really matters. For example, if 5% of passengers on a route complain about it being late, then this could automatically trigger a fine. Passengers should also have a vote, online/paper/app, on how financial penalties are spent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Financial Case concludes that the Proposed Franchising Scheme would be affordable for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, but that there are further risks which would need to be carefully managed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q09. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think this is really important to note that the alternative to franchising which leaves private operators in charge, the Enhanced Partnership Plus, is deemed to be unaffordable. A key reason for this is that private borrowing would be 40% more expensive and create a “significant annual deficit” for the network.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The report also says that without change the poor bus network will play a part in keeping 146,000 people in the region in transport poverty, a massive cost to our communities.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Management Case concludes that the Proposed Franchising Scheme is deliverable and sets out how South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority would implement and manage it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q10. Do you have any comments on this? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I see that the management case suggests that transition to and running the franchising scheme will involve employing more people in the Combined Authority than the alternative. I think this is good as any increased costs are well outweighed by the benefits and creating democratically accountable jobs with good terms and conditions is a good thing for our region.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I would push for the Mayor to go beyond casual “consultation” of bus users and to put the public directly at the heart of bus governance. In France and Spain, public water companies have representatives from their employees, civil society, water campaigners, scientific experts, and local businesses on their boards. A Combined Authority board that delivers our integrated transport services should have similar representatives. In West Yorkshire, a poll by Survation showed that 76% agree with having representatives from local businesses, community groups and drivers on a transport board.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consultation with non-bus users, those currently excluded by choice or necessity, is also needed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Q11. Do you have any further comments? Please write in the box below.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<ul>
<li>A top priority is for the Proposed Franchising Scheme to properly address the unreliability and unpunctuality issues caused by the driver shortages. To do this we need a guarantee that drivers will never see their pay, terms and conditions, seniority, or pension negatively affected by a change of employer when franchise contract are introduced or change hands.</li>
<li>I want a fair deal for bus drivers in South Yorkshire. I demand that the Proposed Franchising Scheme commits to harmonising pay, conditions, and pensions upwards so that all workers have the same conditions as those with the best pay, conditions, and pensions under the current deregulated system. There should be no variation between depots and the exact pay scheme and conditions should be written into the franchise contracts to prevent a race to the bottom on employment rights.</li>
<li>I think that all workers should be municipally employed to guarantee them a single employer and to prevent any risks to their employment status when franchise contracts change hands.</li>
<li>That the whole region, or as significant a proportion of services as possible, come under franchise service contracts at the same time. This avoids it being unfair that some areas are getting vastly improved services before the rest of the region.</li>
<li>That the date for franchising to start be brought forward by accelerating the timetable for implementation. This is a key political area of delivery for the Mayor and a key way for us to address the very urgent cost of living, high street health, and climate crises.</li>
<li>It is essential that we get a public body to oversee the South Yorkshire transport network that has direct participation for the public and workforce, as well as my political representatives and experts.</li>
</ul>
<div>I’m keen that the Mayor run a strong communication project take place to alert the public to what improvements the Mayor is aiming to deliver under franchising and when, e.g.</div>
<ul>
<li>Day 1 Benefits — improved and integrated ticketing, cheaper fares, better timetables, some new vehicles, new single point of contact.</li>
<li>Month 6 Benefits — improved reliability through better labour market conditions and a removal of driver shortages.</li>
<li>Year 2 Benefits — significantly expanded network.</li>
</ul>
<div>It’s important to know when to expect change so it isn’t a disappointment when things take time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>C01. How are you responding to this survey? Please tick one box only.</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am a member of the public, giving my views as an individual.</div>
</div>

To show you're an actual person, what is 5 + 2 ? *

Would you like to hear more about We Own It and our campaigns?

- Yes, sign me up!

- No thankyou - I’m already signed up, or I don’t want to be

We Own It will hold your data in accordance with our privacy policy and send you carefully chosen information about current and future campaigns, projects and appeals. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Data will be processed by Organic Campaigns: Privacy policy. Acknowledgements