Agenda item

The Committee received a report on the progress and next steps for the integration of the MCA and PTE.

Members were reminded that following the publication of the Clive Betts Bus Review Report, the MCA agreed a 7-point plan.  The plan included the decision to fully integrate the PTE with the MCA to ensure the governance of operational transport in South Yorkshire was politically led via the governance structures of the MCA.

The legislative route to undertake the integration was under discussion with MHCLG but would require a Statutory Process and an Order of Parliament to formally merge the two bodies.

Since the decision to integrate, a high-level plan had been developed, detailing workstreams and work packages to be progressed.  An update by workstream was provided in section 2 of the report.

In addition to this, an independent Strategic Partner (PwC) had been appointed.  This partner, with expertise in corporate and public integrations, would advise on the efficacy of the planning and implementation to ensure that the MCA implemented an assured process.

Cllr Lodge asked how much confidence there was that the integration would deal with previous deficiencies in attitudes and approach to complaints in which the Bus Review Report had highlighted.

R Adams replied that although the details of policies and processes had not yet been decided a significant change to governance would be through the Transport and Environment Board. This Board was co-chaired by Cllr Chris Read and Peter Kennan, a LEP Board member.  Membership also included a Cabinet Member from each authority.  This meant that the proposed new governance structure would be politically led.

Concerns were expressed regarding the potential culture of the new organisation.  The Chair commented on the handling of a petition which had been received by the Mayor at the MCA meeting in January 2021 - after the criticisms contained within the Bus Review Report.  He requested that the Committee be provided with the steps taken in response to the petition so they could form an understanding of how the process worked and be satisfied that the concerns of the public were being treated seriously and a change in culture was already beginning to take shape.

ACTION:   C Marriott to request information regarding the above petition from SYPTE which will then be circulated to the Committee.

D Smith commented that he would only be confident in a change in culture when it was ‘live’, and differences could be seen.  The whole principle of the integration was that, as a new organisation, best practices were adopted in terms of customer care.

Cllr Lofts asked for details of the newly appointed Strategic Partner, what their expertise was, how long the contract was for and the cost.

R Adams replied that the Strategic Partner was PwC who had been engaged following a procurement process.  They would provide technical expertise, if required, on matters such as VAT issues or merging bank accounts.  The team also included a local government expert.  Timescales were tight to complete the initial planning and processes before the June deadline.  The exact cost would be determined and emailed to Members.

Action:  R Adams to determine the cost of the Strategic Partner and email to Committee members.

The Chair questioned how much confidence there was that the deadlines set out in the National Bus Strategy could be met.

D Smith commented that he was confident with regards to the deadline, but the other question was the decision-making itself.

The MCA would be asked to make a decision with regard to its agreement, or otherwise, on enhanced partnerships at its June meeting and commit to delivering the Improvement Plan by the October deadline.

The Chair questioned how this would impact on future developments towards franchising.

D Smith replied that it was impossible to say at this stage as it was not known if the MCA wished to pursue franchising.  All that was required at this stage was to commit to enhanced partnerships.  It was possible that the issue of franchising would be discussed at the June MCA meeting where they may decide to begin a process of exploring the opportunities, costs, challenges and benefits of franchising.

In response to a question from a Member, S Davenport explained that in a Mayoral Combined Authority, the Mayor had access to franchising powers but the statutory process to implement a franchise still had to be followed.

With regard to Enhanced Partnerships, government funding was dependant on the operators and local authorities coming to an agreement by June 2022.  Enhanced Partnerships went further than previous voluntary partnership arrangements in some areas, for example, restrictions around ticketing and control of some fares.

Cllr Baker asked what assurances could be given that the people of South Yorkshire would have access to the bus services that they needed.

D Smith replied that after integration, the new organisation would be politically led by the MCA, the Mayor, Leaders and the Transport Executive Board.

Transport services would be directly overseen by Members representing the interests of their constituents and would make the Executive accountable for any actions taken.

The committee was informed that following the easing of lockdown and the return to schools, capacity issues were being monitored on a day-to-day basis by PTE officers to try and mitigate problems as they arose.  The Mayor receives a weekly report.

The Chair commented that members of the OSC were keen to ensure that the shortcomings of SYPTE, as outlined in the Bus Review Report, were not transported into the new organisation.  Assurances were required that the new governance arrangements were much more responsive to the public’s legitimate concerns about the inadequacies of the bus operators across South Yorkshire.

D Smith commented that the whole point and objective of the integration was to create an organisation that had accountability to the political leadership of the Mayor, South Yorkshire Leaders and the local authorities thereby introducing a level pf accountability and responsibility that changed the dynamic in terms of how the needs of the public are met and represented.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report and future reporting requirements they had to ensure effective scrutiny of the implementation process.