Bad news for Pensioners, Commuters etc in South Yorkshire

[overthewater]

One of the main reasons for having a national scheme was to reduce the many anomalies with the local schemes. "Harpers Tate" has given prime examples of the problems.

In many case people were only able to travel 30 miles in one direction, but not the other.

For anyone that is interested, certain Scottish councils did provide free concessionary travel for well over 15 years prior to the Scottish government jumping on broad wagon.

 

[bb21]

Which attracts holidaymakers, which increases local trade, which boosts local employment, which benefits society generally.

Just a thought...

Do you think that the bus fare in the grand scheme of things would be an important factor people consider whether to holiday in a certain place? Compared to the cost of accommodation, food, etc, this is pretty small fry.

Considering that the technology is there to log usage of each pass, shouldn't the issuing authority be billed for their uses?

As far as I can see, there are several desirable objectives for the scheme. This includes

- to reduce car usage, particularly where the driver may be more prone to accidents
- to allow people with limited mobility and health conditions the ability to travel (whether that is to the hospital shops or for a holiday/break)
- to help prevent medical problems by encouraging qualifying persons to remain active and be able to socialise by utilising transport to get out and abput rather than be stuck indoors and prone to the likes of depression and loneliness.

While I agree with all these in the context of local travel, I don't think they are particularly relevant in the context of a weekend break or a holiday 300 miles away from home. If someone is capable of driving such a distance to a holiday resort, they are perfectly capable driving around at their destination. If they didn't drive, they would be using public transport anyway, and as I mentioned, cost of bus travel is hardly going to be the deciding factor in the grand scheme of things in those situations.

 

[Greenback]

While I agree with all these in the context of local travel, I don't think they are particularly relevant in the context of a weekend break or a holiday 300 miles away from home. If someone is capable of driving such a distance to a holiday resort, they are perfectly capable driving around at their destination. If they didn't drive, they would be using public transport anyway, and as I mentioned, cost of bus travel is hardly going to be the deciding factor in the grand scheme of things in those situations.

The difficulty is where the (boundary) line is drawn. Some people may go for a day out or a short break that is less than 300 miles (or some other abritary limit) that happens to cross an artifical boundary.

If we are to have a consistent scheme across England, then either there needs to be no distance limitations, or the same limitations across the board, that apply to everyone, everywhere. The difficulties with the latter are obvious!

I think that the best way to view this is not as a scheme funded by local council taxpayers (however true), but as a scheme funded out of general taxation. In my view there are enough postcode lotteries without adding concessionary public transport to the list!

 

[transmanche]

Do you think that the bus fare in the grand scheme of things would be an important factor people consider whether to holiday in a certain place?

Not in a particular place, no. But as mentioned by others, it might be the difference between getting out for a day or being stuck at home.

Personally I think the various national passes should be combined into one UK-wide scheme funded by the UK government.

It's amazing how things that are often targets for cutting expenditure; like museums, galleries, parks and a free bus ride, have unquantifiable (or hard to quantify) benefits; reducing the demands on health services and other social care.

 

[Greenback]

Not in a particular place, no. But as mentioned by others, it might be the difference between getting out for a day or being stuck at home.

I agree. Older people in Wales can use their travel to visit relatives for a few days, so it's not all about holidays. My neighbour, who was 94, used to use three buses to get to see her son, who was housebound due to an industrial accident. The journey involved one bus into Swansea, one to Carmarthen and then another one to Cardigan, and covering three local authority areas.

Personally I think the various national passes should be combined into one UK-wide scheme funded by the UK government.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I compeltely agree, but there will be problems due to the variances that there are now, depsite the idea of a national scheme being intended to eliminate them!

It's amazing how things that are often targets for cutting expenditure; like museums, galleries, parks and a free bus ride, have unquantifiable (or hard to quantify) benefits; reducing the demands on health services and other social care.

Absolutely. I agree with the frequently uttered statement that we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing...

 

[dggar]

As for the age old whinge that "I've paid tax my whole working life, therefore I should get free bus travel (even though I didn't before Gordon Brown bribed me for votes in 2008)", I've paid income tax all my working life too, and my working life will be a damn sight longer to boot.

I take it you are aware that pensions, like any other income, are subject to income tax at the same rate.

 

[cjp]

One thing I never quite understand about ENCTS is why a Tyne & Wear, Medway, London, etc, passholder should be given free travel in Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton, etc, funded by the respective local council-tax payers.

What is the real purpose of this pass? To allow people to engage in their local community and making essential travel easier, or to make it cheap for them to holiday at seaside resorts?

As I understand it people from Blackpool etal can come and use their ENCTS passes on London Buses. Equally as a Londoner I can go to places with trams but only be allowed to use my card on their buses.
It is a two way thing.

 

[Deerfold]

As I understand it people from Blackpool et al can come and use their ENCTS passes on London Buses. Equally as a Londoner I can go to places with trams but only be allowed to use my card on their buses.
It is a two way thing.

Unusually, any pass holder can use Blackpool's trams whereas in London any pass holder may use TfL buses at any time.

 

[Welshman]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that major holiday-coach companies have experienced a downturn in the sales of optional excursions at the chosen resort due to ENCTS pass-holders on the tour realising they can use the local buses to access the places the coach would have taken them, but for no extra charge!

So it could be argued that as a great majority of coach-holiday patrons seem to be holders of ENCTS passes [especially on the out-of-season tours], the scheme is benefitting the local environment by keeping some large vehicles off the narrow country lanes!

Of course this doesn't apply if you live in Wales or Scotland and wish to holiday in England, or vv!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I take it you are aware that pensions, like any other income, are subject to income tax at the same rate.

From the reading of the posting to which you have responded to, I fear that your hope that the writer of that posting is unaware of that fact is indeed correct.

 

[bb21]

The difficulty is where the (boundary) line is drawn. Some people may go for a day out or a short break that is less than 300 miles (or some other abritary limit) that happens to cross an artifical boundary.

Not in a particular place, no. But as mentioned by others, it might be the difference between getting out for a day or being stuck at home.

It all depends on what purposes these passes are supposed to serve. Are they supposed to be for essential travel around the local community, or are they supposed to be for things such as days out further afield?

If the purpose is to enable passholders to engage fully in their local community without the fear over funding their travel expenses, then a local decision should be made as to how large an area it needs to cover so that the needs of everyone in that local authority area can be met. If it happens to include destinations for days out then so be it. If the purpose is so that passholders can have a meaningful day out somewhere nice then an appropriate list of destinations can be drawn up which will not be hundreds of miles away.

I do not consider funding people's travels hundreds of miles away from home during a holiday or a weekend break the function of a social benefit system, but I doubt the added expense in the grand scheme of things is that much so I do not have any major objection against it, provided that it is funded accordingly.

If we are to have a consistent scheme across England, then either there needs to be no distance limitations, or the same limitations across the board, that apply to everyone, everywhere. The difficulties with the latter are obvious!

But why does there need to be a totally consistent scheme across the whole country? Local needs are all different, and should be assessed locally in my opinion.

I think that the best way to view this is not as a scheme funded by local council taxpayers (however true), but as a scheme funded out of general taxation. In my view there are enough postcode lotteries without adding concessionary public transport to the list!

Personally I think the various national passes should be combined into one UK-wide scheme funded by the UK government.

I have no objection in principle to a national scheme for the reason I stated above, if it is administered and funded properly. What I do object to is the current funding model for this scheme where the receiving authority is forced to fund all uses within their own area, whether they can afford it or not. With certain areas attracting thousands or even more visitors than others, they are affected far more severely by the funding shortfall.

In times of austerity, why should local authorities, and tax-payers, at tourist hotspots suffer because of the need to fund the travels of people from other areas? Something has to give in these places, either the bus operators receive less income, which means reduced profitability and withdrawn services, or that other council services suffer. It strikes me as grossly unfair that they should be burdened with the cost of decisions totally out of their hands.

It is only fair in my opinion that local authorities should be responsible for paying the bill incurred through the usage of passes they have issued. A passholder can then decide whether he/she would like his/her travels funded from the budget of his/her own local authority, from which other council services are also funded.

As I have already explained, technology is now there to record usage of each pass, so there should be no difficulty for the issuing authority to be billed for their uses. The burden should not be laiden with the receiving authority and the tax-payers there.

As I understand it people from Blackpool etal can come and use their ENCTS passes on London Buses. Equally as a Londoner I can go to places with trams but only be allowed to use my card on their buses.
It is a two way thing.

It is a two-way thing, in theory. In reality, certain local authority areas will always attract more visitors compared to others and are affected by funding shortfalls far more severely than others.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While I agree with all these in the context of local travel, I don't think they are particularly relevant in the context of a weekend break or a holiday 300 miles away from home. If someone is capable of driving such a distance to a holiday resort, they are perfectly capable driving around at their destination. If they didn't drive, they would be using public transport anyway, and as I mentioned, cost of bus travel is hardly going to be the deciding factor in the grand scheme of things in those situations.

Can I cite a case applicable to my wife and I (72 and 68 years) where we had taken an all-in coach holiday for 10 days and whilst there were no less than five full day excursions from the hotel that were run by the same coach that took us there, this left other days when we decided to use public transport and our ENCTS passes to visit some other places which were of interest to us.

One such day out was a visit to Petworth House, the National Trust property in West Sussex that holds their largest national collection of art and statuary. We set off, using our ENCTS passes, on the Stagecoach service 60 to Midhurst, via Chichester, and had intended to travel onwards from there by the normal service to Petworth. However, as it was a Tuesday, we found that that there was a Compass Travel service 96 from Midhurst to Petworth that only makes one journey on that route and only on Tuesdays and Fridays and whilst it takes far longer, it visits many small rural hamlets that we would never have been able to see and the driver was the best tour guide for pointing out all places of interest. This day out, including the subsequent visit to Petworth House, was the highlight of our holiday and was all down to the use of the ENCTS passes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I take it you are aware that pensions, like any other income, are subject to income tax at the same rate.

I am well aware of that fact. Job Seekers Allowance is also taxable income, for that matter. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

This day out, including the subsequent visit to Petworth House, was the highlight of our holiday and was all down to the use of the ENCTS passes.

This is precisely my point. The ENCTS is supposedly there to assist with local transport within your local area, for elderly or disabled people who otherwise cannot get about easily.

Using it on your holidays has a cost to the area where you are touring. These areas tend to be more rural. The costs of the ENCTS are passed on to the local council, who have to choose between funding ENCTS or funding local bus services for their residents. As we're seeing in Cornwall, North Yorkshire and Cumbria, the essential bus services are the ones getting the chop because of the unavoidable cost of ENCTS.

I don't blame you or anyone else for using the cards that you've been given. But what you've said doesn't prove that the system is sustainable or affordable.

I do not consider funding people's travels hundreds of miles away from home during a holiday or a weekend break the function of a social benefit system, but I doubt the added expense in the grand scheme of things is that much so I do not have any major objection against it, provided that it is funded accordingly.

I think the problem is the lack of central funding. The added expense tends to be placed upon local councils in tourist areas, and these local councils tend to be more rural in nature. Swathes of Cumbria and North Yorkshire no longer have a bus service because of the cost of ENCTS, among other things. It's the same story in Cornwall, where Western Greyhound have shut their Penzance depot purely because of the funding cuts caused by ENCTS.

 

[transmanche]

But why does there need to be a totally consistent scheme across the whole country? Local needs are all different, and should be assessed locally in my opinion.

Because those who feel that they 'lose out' will claim it is a 'postcode lottery'...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is precisely my point. The ENCTS is supposedly there to assist with local transport within your local area, for elderly or disabled people who otherwise cannot get about easily.

Can you be so kind as to inform me where the regulations that cover the use of the ENCTS pass is "supposedly there to assist with local transport within your local area". If that be the case, there would surely be a highlighted section of usage restriction from the areas that issue these cards to the effect that you state.

Can some forum member with full knowledge of the EXACT terms and conditions of use of the ENCTS card give the legal definition of any such ruling strictures that so apply.

 

[pemma]

One of the main reasons for having a national scheme was to reduce the many anomalies with the local schemes. "Harpers Tate" has given prime examples of the problems.

In many case people were only able to travel 30 miles in one direction, but not the other.

Or pass holders could do a journey like Macclesfield to Manchester on the 130 route on a Cheshire pass but if they alighted that service at Cheadle, they couldn't board a later Manchester bound bus from there without paying, or going south to Wilmslow then back north to Manchester.

 

[transmanche]

Can some forum member with full knowledge of the EXACT terms and conditions of use of the ENCTS card give the legal definition of any such ruling strictures that so apply.

There is no such ruling.

The Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 Section 1 (National Concession) defines an "eligible journey" as a journey on one public service vehicle (in one direction) which:

• is between places in England
• begins at a relevant time, and
• is not one to which section 242(8) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (journeys beginning on the London bus network) applies.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is no such ruling.

The Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 Section 1 (National Concession) defines an "eligible journey" as a journey on one public service vehicle (in one direction) which:

• is between places in England
• begins at a relevant time, and
• is not one to which section 242(8) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (journeys beginning on the London bus network) applies.

Now that you have been so kind as to clarify the query that I raised in the SECOND part of my posting, can you now kindly address the matter that I raised in the FIRST part of my posting, which was made in answer to a contention made in a posting by Arctic Troll about the use of the ENCTS pass being to assist with local transport "in your local area".

 

[transmanche]

Now that you have been so kind as to clarify the query that I raised in the SECOND part of my posting, can you now kindly address the matter that I raised in the FIRST part of my posting, which was made in answer to a contention made in a posting by Arctic Troll about the use of the ENCTS pass being to assist with local transport "in your local area".

It's almost impossible to prove a negative.

You'll have noticed that that the section of the Act I quoted was headed 'National Concession'. Which I think says it all.

 

[Greenback]

It all depends on what purposes these passes are supposed to serve. Are they supposed to be for essential travel around the local community, or are they supposed to be for things such as days out further afield?

I think it is for both, though the majority of usage will be for the former not the latter.

If the purpose is to enable passholders to engage fully in their local community without the fear over funding their travel expenses, then a local decision should be made as to how large an area it needs to cover so that the needs of everyone in that local authority area can be met. If it happens to include destinations for days out then so be it. If the purpose is so that passholders can have a meaningful day out somewhere nice then an appropriate list of destinations can be drawn up which will not be hundreds of miles away.

I don't disagree with that suggestion, but it overlooks the visiting relations side of things, and introduces further bureaucracy which can only increase the administrative costs involved in running any scheme.

I do not consider funding people's travels hundreds of miles away from home during a holiday or a weekend break the function of a social benefit system, but I doubt the added expense in the grand scheme of things is that much so I do not have any major objection against it, provided that it is funded accordingly.

Funding a scheme nationally would be the best solution, as in Wales.

But why does there need to be a totally consistent scheme across the whole country? Local needs are all different, and should be assessed locally in my opinion.

It doesn't need to be totally consistent, but it would prevent the arguments over why one set of users are restricted to using their pass after 0930, while others can use theirs after 0830.

Of course, people could always try and move to a different area!

I have no objection in principle to a national scheme for the reason I stated above, if it is administered and funded properly. What I do object to is the current funding model for this scheme where the receiving authority is forced to fund all uses within their own area, whether they can afford it or not. With certain areas attracting thousands or even more visitors than others, they are affected far more severely by the funding shortfall.

In times of austerity, why should local authorities, and tax-payers, at tourist hotspots suffer because of the need to fund the travels of people from other areas? Something has to give in these places, either the bus operators receive less income, which means reduced profitability and withdrawn services, or that other council services suffer. It strikes me as grossly unfair that they should be burdened with the cost of decisions totally out of their hands.

I agree. That is why I would prefer a national scheme, funded by central government, with same rules everywhere.

It is a two-way thing, in theory. In reality, certain local authority areas will always attract more visitors compared to others and are affected by funding shortfalls far more severely than others.

Another way of looking at things, which has been brought up here, is that areas with an influx of visitors will benefit from the money being spent there. Businesses will benefit, the local economy will be healthier, and the money spent on providing travel facilities (whether by national or local government) will be recouped in other ways, such as business rates.

 

[bb21]

Because those who feel that they 'lose out' will claim it is a 'postcode lottery'...

But that is neither here nor there. There is simply no way that all government policies should be exactly the same across board. I think it is probably more likely that administrative overheads would be more of a concern than cries of "postcode lottery".

Can you be so kind as to inform me where the regulations that cover the use of the ENCTS pass is "supposedly there to assist with local transport within your local area". If that be the case, there would surely be a highlighted section of usage restriction from the areas that issue these cards to the effect that you state.

Can some forum member with full knowledge of the EXACT terms and conditions of use of the ENCTS card give the legal definition of any such ruling strictures that so apply.

There is no such definition AFAIK, but that does not mean it is not a point worth considering. I believe the government should be clear as to what the real purpose of this scheme is, so that the scheme can be reformed appropriately.

The way things stand at the moment is not going to be sustainable, and many areas are now paying the price in the shape of service cuts or complete withdrawal, and more areas will follow if it carries on. Ultimately what such actions will hurt are the very people who concessionary travel schemes are supposed to help. What good will it do if you have a pass but no bus service to use it on?

One such day out was a visit to Petworth House

Would you have willingly paid a discounted price of, say, £5 per person for the day had your pass not been valid on it if the service is under threat of being withdrawn? What would you have done instead if you didn't go on that journey?

I don't disagree with that suggestion, but it overlooks the visiting relations side of things, and introduces further bureaucracy which can only increase the administrative costs involved in running any scheme.

I think in the case of the example you gave earlier, there is a distinct need for her to be allowed the additional flexibility and validity, which is why I think there needs to be the facility for decisions to be made at a local level based on affordability. Yes, I am aware that there will be administrative overheads associated with it, but that is no different to what happened before universal coverage was brought in. The problem we are facing at the moment is that the current scheme is simply not affordable, and places unfair strains on local finances in certain areas. It may have been affordable around eight years ago when it was first brought in, but it is no longer the case.

Another way of looking at things, which has been brought up here, is that areas with an influx of visitors will benefit from the money being spent there. Businesses will benefit, the local economy will be healthier, and the money spent on providing travel facilities (whether by national or local government) will be recouped in other ways, such as business rates.

Aye, I agree, however the problems I can see is that firstly central government receipts do not necessarily filter down to local level, and secondly these benefits are difficult to quantify as transmanche has already pointed out, so they will be difficult to forecast and cannot always be budgeted for, whereas money for ENCTS will have to be set aside and budgeted for in advance, from the same pot of money as other council services.

I have always been of the view that a national travel scheme should be centrally administered and centrally funded. Short of that, for the reasons I gave in earlier posts, be funded by the issuing authority. The way things are at the moment is not the way forward. Forcing an unaffordable cost onto the local authorities is irresponsible of the government to say the least.

I doubt anything will be done though, given that any mention of reforming ENCTS will likely attract vocal protests from a core group of voters whose support is too valuable for any party to lose. Meanwhile we lose more and more bus services across the country.

 

[Mojo]

Please desist from the use of "OAP" pass, as the correct definition is "ENCTS"..:roll:

To be fair, in some areas the restrictions for those holding disabled person passes are less restrictive than those holding passes for the elderly. As I understand it 'ENCTS' refers to both passes, but to call them one and the same would not be fair given the different restrictions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would you have willingly paid a discounted price of, say, £5 per person for the day had your pass not been valid on it if the service is under threat of being withdrawn? What would you have done instead if you didn't go on that journey?

Since both my wife and I are life-members of the National Trust, that we purchased at quite a considerable sum of money at the time of purchase, we would not have borne any admission cost at Petworth House. There were only three days in that ten day holiday when those days were free to ourself to use as we chose, two days in travelling to and from the resort and five days where full day trips were part and parcel of the holiday price that we paid.

I note the raison d'etre of your rhetorical query, but the fact is that the reality was that we made that trip because the ENCTS was indeed valid for use. I cannot answer your question to the opposite as that would only apply in the case of non-validity of the ENCTS pass, which was not the case.

I hesitate to add more to this posting for fear of being "transmanched" and all that this implies.

 

[transmanche]

But that is neither here nor there. There is simply no way that all government policies should be exactly the same across board. I think it is probably more likely that administrative overheads would be more of a concern than cries of "postcode lottery".

I agree entirely.

My comment was a bit of a rhetorical one, as the phrase came up earlier in the thread when used in an analogy with prescription payments. I made pretty much the same point as you in post #20.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hesitate to add more to this posting for fear of being "transmanched" and all that this implies.

I think that's a pretty unfair and undignified comment.

And I was just about to agree with your comment; that the ENCTS has value as it allows them to access places that people would otherwise be unable to reach. And in general this benefits the local economy - even if people only stop off for a cup of tea and a slice of cake.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To be fair, in some areas the restrictions for those holding disabled person passes are less restrictive than those holding passes for the elderly. As I understand it 'ENCTS' refers to both passes, but to call them one and the same would not be fair given the different restrictions.

As ever, your view is respected and understood. However, my posting was only made just to clarify that there is no such thing an an "OAP" pass and I sought to draw attention to the currently accepted terminology used.

 

[transmanche]

I have always been of the view that a national travel scheme should be centrally administered and centrally funded.

The type of 'austerity' budget cuts being forced upon local councils were not envisaged when the scheme was being drawn up eight years ago. Of course it's a matter of political debate whether the world's sixth largest economy needs such budget cuts or not.

But yes, I agree. The standard ENCTS benefits should be fully-funded by the UK government (and I would rather they applied UK-wide), with any local top-ups funded by local councils/PTEs.

 

[ECML180]

As ever, your view is respected and understood. However, my posting was only made just to clarify that there is no such thing an an "OAP" pass and I sought to draw attention to the currently accepted terminology used.

It may be the 'correct' terminology as defined by the laws and organisation, among bus drivers, passengers and the general public I have only heard it referred to as an OAP pass, it wouldn't surprise me if the average person was not aware that disabled people can be issued them.

 

[brompton rail]

On reading the Agenda for this week's South Yorkshire ITA Meeting (its in their website) it seems the recommended option is that South Yorkshire should withdraw rail travel from the concessionary scheme. Disabled and Senior Railcards would be advertised as alternatives for people affected (for their own purchase). Rail journey Doncaster to Sheffield is £4.10 for Off Peak (after 0930) Day Return with Senior Railcard. By withdrawing rail travel it is said that most support for buses can be maintained (not Freebus or the others listed at top of this topic though)

As a SY Pensioner that seems acceptable to me. though I gather some councillors are opposed. hopefully we shall know by the end of the week. The changes might mean that by leaving home around 9am and paying for my bus fare (£2.50 for nearly 5 miles) I might get a seat on our elderly First buses!

 

[ECML180]

As a SY Pensioner that seems acceptable to me. though I gather some councillors are opposed. hopefully we shall know by the end of the week. The changes might mean that by leaving home around 9am and paying for my bus fare (£2.50 for nearly 5 miles) I might get a seat on our elderly First buses!

Not on the 57 route are you? I caught that last week and it astonished me how busy it was for the first hour or so after passes were permitted!

I think it's a wise choice they're making, most rail routes are duplicated by buses and the core routes are well covered. I can't comment on FreeBee services as I don't know the routes but I imagine most passengers would be the mobility impaired(who would presumably have a pass anyway).

 

[Greenback]

The way things stand at the moment is not going to be sustainable, and many areas are now paying the price in the shape of service cuts or complete withdrawal, and more areas will follow if it carries on. Ultimately what such actions will hurt are the very people who concessionary travel schemes are supposed to help. What good will it do if you have a pass but no bus service to use it on?

It is an unfortunate fact that the UK has never had a transport policy that actually recognises the vital role that public transport plays.

It is regrettable that transport has often been a political football.

I think in the case of the example you gave earlier, there is a distinct need for her to be allowed the additional flexibility and validity, which is why I think there needs to be the facility for decisions to be made at a local level based on affordability. Yes, I am aware that there will be administrative overheads associated with it, but that is no different to what happened before universal coverage was brought in. The problem we are facing at the moment is that the current scheme is simply not affordable, and places unfair strains on local finances in certain areas. It may have been affordable around eight years ago when it was first brought in, but it is no longer the case.

Without wanting to go into a political debate as to whether it is right to cut transport while still paying out cast sums of money in overseas aid, military action in other parts of the world, and other types of expenditure, I can't answer those points!

Suffice to say that public transport should not be in the position as to eb described as unaffordable. As a civilised country, like most of our comparators in Europe, it should not even be questioned (in an ideal world)!

Aye, I agree, however the problems I can see is that firstly central government receipts do not necessarily filter down to local level, and secondly these benefits are difficult to quantify as transmanche has already pointed out, so they will be difficult to forecast and cannot always be budgeted for, whereas money for ENCTS will have to be set aside and budgeted for in advance, from the same pot of money as other council services.

I have always been of the view that a national travel scheme should be centrally administered and centrally funded. Short of that, for the reasons I gave in earlier posts, be funded by the issuing authority. The way things are at the moment is not the way forward. Forcing an unaffordable cost onto the local authorities is irresponsible of the government to say the least.

It is unfair that local authorities have to fund these schemes, at the same time as supporting uneconomic bus routes. I am glad I live in Wales.

I doubt anything will be done though, given that any mention of reforming ENCTS will likely attract vocal protests from a core group of voters whose support is too valuable for any party to lose. Meanwhile we lose more and more bus services across the country.

Sadly, I agree, but it should not be the case that it is either or. An enlightened government, of whatever colour should be able to see that. However all governments tend to have overlooked the importance of affordable, efficient public transport, unlike the majority of Europe, where it is regarded as a vital element of economic prosperity.

In the UK, the concept of public services was jettisoned a while ago. Now everything has to make a profit or risk being deemed unaffordable, regardless of how essential services in helping the wider economy. We have become such a nation of bean counters that everythign now has to be quantified to the nth degree before it can be shown as being worthwhile.

Meanwhile, no such scrutiny seems to exist on interfering with the affairs of other sovereign states.

The type of 'austerity' budget cuts being forced upon local councils were not envisaged when the scheme was being drawn up eight years ago. Of course it's a matter of political debate whether the world's sixth largest economy needs such budget cuts or not.

Exactly, and this is a debate that is best avoided if possible!

But yes, I agree. The standard ENCTS benefits should be fully-funded by the UK government (and I would rather they applied UK-wide), with any local top-ups funded by local councils/PTEs.

I agree with this.