Agenda item

6.1

It was moved by Councillor Rob Murphy, and seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, that this Council:-

(a)       believes that the Sheffield Bus Partnership has failed on its own terms, noting the loss of patronage of approximately 10% (5 million passenger journeys per year) since 2012 and a loss of capacity since 2015;

(b)       notes the commitments of the Sheffield City Region Mayor in his 2017 manifesto to:-

(i)         use regulatory powers, and eventually franchising, to improve bus services; and

(ii)        consult on re-regulating bus services;

(c)        notes that control of the bus service is one of the very few actual powers available to South Yorkshire's regional mayor;

(d)       notes that the regional mayor has been in post for 6 months but believes the public has seen no progress or action towards bus regulation;

(e)       believes a comprehensive, efficient, regular and low-carbon bus service is vital to a successful and sustainable city; and

(f)        calls on the regional mayor to begin moves towards greater public control of Sheffield's bus network, including an immediate review of current services and public consultation on future provision.

6.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Jack Scott, seconded by Councillor Neale Gibson, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that it is Labour Party policy to give greater freedom to empower local authorities to decide which bus service best suits local needs – by giving councils the power to form their own bus companies by removing the Government’s ban, and extending the powers to re-regulate local bus services - and require all new buses to meet stringent low-emission requirements;

(b)       recognises that when signing the Sheffield Bus Partnership agreement in 2012, it was the only realistic option on the table and was better than the alternative of doing nothing, however, acknowledges that the Bus Partnership does not give control over bus services in the same way that re-regulation does;

(c)        therefore welcomes the fact that the Council voted to support the Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal in 2016 which was necessary to secure bus re-regulation;

(d)       recognises that control of the bus service is one of the powers available to the Sheffield City Region Mayor, and recalls that the opportunity to re-regulate bus services in the city was one of the reasons why this Council agreed to support the devolution deal;

(e)       therefore calls on the Sheffield City Region Mayor to bring forward re-regulation of the bus service; and

(f)        notes, however, the success of the Partnership, even in the absence of re-regulation, including, but not limited to:-

(i)         the introduction of 117 greener and low emission buses;

(ii)        successful work on cross ticketing;

(iii)       the introduction of a new service to the advanced manufacturing park from the north of the city;

(iv)       the cost of city bus day and weekly tickets being lower today in 2018 than they were in 2015; and

(v)        investment in modern technology, such as contactless ticket technology, USB ports and Wi-Fi.

6.3

It was then moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, seconded by Councillor Penny Baker, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of new paragraphs (g) to (r) as follows:-

(g)       notes that the Sheffield Bus Partnership is a voluntary agreement between South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE), Sheffield City Council and the bus operators First South Yorkshire, Stagecoach Sheffield, TM Travel and Sheffield Community Transport;

(h)       notes it aims to provide a better coordinated network of buses and trams in Sheffield, making it easier to travel around the city;

(i)         notes that in the presentation to the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee in October 2018, SYPTE’s future steps do not include a commitment to increase passenger numbers;

(j)         notes the Partnership has failed in its central purpose to grow bus passenger numbers;

(k)        believes that the extent of cuts to concessionary travel and service support have proved to be un-necessary;

(l)         notes the recent Sheffield Bus Partnership report that stated that passenger numbers were down due to changes in employment patterns, reduced need to travel and an increase in online shopping;

(m)      believes that this is not the case and that passenger numbers are down due to:-

(i)         service cuts and the lack of services available to the general public;

(ii)        recent extortionate fare increases, which are forcing people to use their cars over public transport as a cheaper and more accessible option; and

(iii)       a lack of public confidence in the reliability of the bus service, which is also contributing to decreasing passenger numbers; noting that punctuality of bus services has reduced, down to 84% from 87% over the past three years;

(n)       is concerned that increased car use will add to air pollution in the city centre if fewer people are using more energy efficient bus services;

(o)       is also concerned that cuts to bus services are preventing people from getting to work, school, run errands and attend medical appointments;

(p)       is dismayed that elderly residents in Wincobank are being forced to climb up and down one of Sheffield’s steepest streets to get to their nearest bus stop after their usual accessible service was cut;

(q)       notes that under the Bus Services Act 2017, automatic access to bus franchising powers is given to the Sheffield City Region Mayor, as a directly elected mayor of a combined authority, and could be used to improve bus services; and

(r)        resolves to:-

(i)         support the introduction of a statutory bus quality contract in Sheffield;

(ii)        at the earliest practicable time, give notice to terminate Sheffield City Council’s membership of the Sheffield Bus Partnership; and

(iii)       send copies of this motion to all the other parties to the Bus Partnership Agreement.

6.4

It was then moved by Councillor John Booker, seconded by Councillor Jack Clarkson, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of new paragraphs (g) to (j) as follows:-

(g)       notes there are twelve local authority-run bus companies in the UK and they provide some of the best bus services in the country, with local authority-run bus companies, like Reading Buses and Nottingham City Transport, having won bus operator of the year many times over the last seven years, and believes that, looking at the stated objectives of the Bus Services Bill, of increasing passenger numbers and improving quality, it is clear that council-run bus companies are more than able to help achieve these objectives;

(h)       also notes that Nottingham and Reading have the second and third highest journey per head of population outside London;

(i)         contends that the Government has a commitment to localism and devolution, which is enshrined in the 2011 Localism Act which gave more power to councils to provide services; and

(j)         further contends that government legislation, which this Council believes to be obtuse and ideological, should not get in the way of effective service provision, and believes that a municipal bus service and integrated ticketing system that allows transfers between different transport modes with a single ticket valid for the complete journey would give Sheffield's commuters an efficient bus service they can be proud of.

6.5

After a contribution from one other Member, it was RESOLVED: On the motion of Councillor Peter Rippon, and seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.14, the question be now put.

6.6

Following a right of reply from Councillor Rob Murphy, the amendment moved by Councillor Jack Scott was put to the vote and was carried.

6.7

The amendment moved by Councillor Ian Auckland was then put to the vote and was negatived.

6.8

The amendment moved by Councillor John Booker was then put to the vote and was carried.

6.9

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)       notes that it is Labour Party policy to give greater freedom to empower local authorities to decide which bus service best suits local needs – by giving councils the power to form their own bus companies by removing the Government’s ban, and extending the powers to re-regulate local bus services - and require all new buses to meet stringent low-emission requirements;

(b)       recognises that when signing the Sheffield Bus Partnership agreement in 2012, it was the only realistic option on the table and was better than the alternative of doing nothing, however, acknowledges that the Bus Partnership does not give control over bus services in the same way that re-regulation does;

(c)        therefore welcomes the fact that the Council voted to support the Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal in 2016 which was necessary to secure bus re-regulation;

(d)       recognises that control of the bus service is one of the powers available to the Sheffield City Region Mayor, and recalls that the opportunity to re-regulate bus services in the city was one of the reasons why this Council agreed to support the devolution deal;

(e)       therefore calls on the Sheffield City Region Mayor to bring forward re-regulation of the bus service;

(f)        notes, however, the success of the Partnership, even in the absence of re-regulation, including, but not limited to:-

(i)         the introduction of 117 greener and low emission buses;

(ii)        successful work on cross ticketing;

(iii)       the introduction of a new service to the advanced manufacturing park from the north of the city;

(iv)       the cost of city bus day and weekly tickets being lower today in 2018 than they were in 2015; and

(v)        investment in modern technology, such as contactless ticket technology, USB ports and Wi-Fi;

(g)       notes there are twelve local authority-run bus companies in the UK and they provide some of the best bus services in the country, with local authority-run bus companies, like Reading Buses and Nottingham City Transport, having won bus operator of the year many times over the last seven years, and believes that, looking at the stated objectives of the Bus Services Bill, of increasing passenger numbers and improving quality, it is clear that council-run bus companies are more than able to help achieve these objectives;

(h)       also notes that Nottingham and Reading have the second and third highest journey per head of population outside London;

(i)         contends that the Government has a commitment to localism and devolution, which is enshrined in the 2011 Localism Act which gave more power to councils to provide services; and

(j)         further contends that government legislation, which this Council believes to be obtuse and ideological, should not get in the way of effective service provision, and believes that a municipal bus service and integrated ticketing system that allows transfers between different transport modes with a single ticket valid for the complete journey would give Sheffield's commuters an efficient bus service they can be proud of.

6.9.1

(NOTE: 1. Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Bob Pullin, Richard Shaw, Mohammed Mahroof, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Roger Davison, Shaffaq Mohammed, Paul Scriven, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Gail Smith, David Baker, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley and Mike Levery voted for paragraphs (c) to (e) and (g) to (j), against paragraphs (a) and (b), and abstained from voting on paragraph (f) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded; and

2. Councillors Kaltum Rivers, Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy, Martin Phipps and Alison Teal voted for paragraphs (e) and (g) to (j) and abstained from voting on paragraphs (a) to (d) and (f) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)