Policy instruments (2) - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 215

The scale of this problem reduced once the turbulence of the initial post-
deregulation period died down. In essence however the problem is still present and
can be triggered for example by an operator's sudden decision to de-register particular
services or journeys. Not only do travel opportunities have to be maintained in a
physical sense but the public needs to be informed of forthcoming changes so that they
retain the confidence to continue using the service.
To alleviate these difficulties the Bus Partnership Forum published a Code of
Conduct on Service Stability in 2003 which encourages the practice of limiting the
number of dates in a year on which service changes can take place. It also sets out
model timetables for the exchange of information about changes in registrations and
tendered services between individual operators and a local transport authority on
an 'in confidence basis' well before the formal notice period (now extended to eight
weeks).
There is no statutory definition or official guidance as to what constitutes a 'socially
necessary service' and hence no minimum standard which any type of settlement or
neighbourhood can expect to receive. Authorities typically establish their own criteria
although these will only be expressed in fairly general terms or with added provisos in
order to retain a degree of political and financial flexibility.
In practical terms securing additional socially necessary services through separate
contracts works best in situations where there are either few gaps to be filled within a
particular time period or conversely where there are few, if any, commercial registrations
- i.e. typically at either end of the urban-rural spectrum. In the former case authorities
can utilise what are known as 'de minimis' provisions which allow them to negotiate
contracted services with individual operators (including alterations to commercially
registered services) without going through formal competitive tendering procedures.
Where a separate contracted service needs to be provided, the task of designing
these has also been eased by replacement of the previous constraint imposed under
the 1985 Act 'not to inhibit competition' by a broader public-interest criterion which
avoids tortuous routes having to be specified so as not to duplicate commercial services
at any point.
In rural areas the task of specifying contracted services is comparatively
straightforward where the local authority is starting with something approaching a
'clean slate'. (There are financial and other constraints in such places, but these are
separate issues.) Complications can arise nevertheless - for example if a commercial
service is registered along a main inter-urban route which the local authority would
like to see operated in a particular way to enable contracted services to connect
with it to and from surrounding villages and small towns. The Interconnect scheme
introduced by Lincolnshire County Council in the Lincoln-Skegness corridor is an
excellent example of the scope which exists for such an integrated operation. However
this was dependent on the voluntary participation of the commercial operator on the
main inter-urban route and the not-insignificant incentive of a special grant from DfT
worth £2.8m!
Another example of difficulty designing contracted services arises in areas which
can only support a limited bus service overall but where a few 'haphazard' journeys
are registered commercially at odd days and times (typically by small operators whose
main business lies in running school contract journeys). In this situation it may be
difficult for the local transport authority to identify a pattern of journeys which can be
operated cost-effectively as subsidised contracts and which, in combination with the
commercial journeys, offers a coherent set of travel opportunities overall. To overcome