Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome to the Committee Mr Ian Wilson, director of Down Armagh Rural Transport Partnership (DART); Mr Jason Donaghy, manager of Fermanagh Community Transport; Ms Frances Campbell, Northern Ireland director and head of research in the Community Transport Association (CTA); and Mr Michael McNulty, transport manager with Disability Action. You are very welcome to the Committee. Jason is no stranger to me as a Fermanagh person.

Mr Jason Donaghy (Fermanagh Community Transport): Hello, Deborah.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Jason, I am glad to see that you are not on Fermanagh time today and that you are here on time. [Laughter.]

Are members content that the evidence be reported by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have received substantial and really useful evidence on community transport. Thank you for providing hard copies of your document 'Driving Change'. We really appreciate that. I will give you five minutes or so to briefly outline your evidence to the Committee. Members are very keen to ask their questions. If you do not mind and agree, I will ask one or two of you to answer questions because of time constraints, but I am sure that it is all related anyway.

Mrs Frances Campbell (Community Transport Association): Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the issues with you today and for your ongoing support and recognition of community transport over the past number of years. I will briefly highlight some of the main areas that we outlined in our submission.

Community transport is about so much more than simply getting from A to B. Time and time again across Northern Ireland, we hear our passengers refer to it as a lifeline. I am sure that many of you will have heard the same, whether that be from constituents or from personal and family connections. It is often the only way that older adults, people with disabilities and those who live in rural or isolated areas can access their local towns to attend appointments, pick up groceries, take part in activities or simply see a friendly face from one week to the next.

As you know, we recently completed research to profile community transport across Northern Ireland. Its focus was very much on people; that is, those who use the service and those who make it possible. It is really clear from the research that community transport services are incredibly important today and that their importance and significance will only continue to grow as we look towards an ageing population with increasing health and mobility challenges.

Our research also strongly shows that the sector is under considerable strain and has been for a number of years. The managers who have joined me today can speak to the realities of delivering front-line community transport. Based on our research and discussions with operators, we found that unstable funding, recruitment and retention challenges, ageing fleets and rising costs are all putting our services and passengers at risk. The reality of that is that, each day, our operators are forced to make difficult decisions. They have to decide who can travel and whose needs take priority. Telling someone who has no other way to get about that they cannot be accommodated is a reality that no organisation should face on a daily basis.

The community transport sector has an absolutely remarkable network of staff and volunteers who consistently go over and above to support their local communities. Our research, however, revealed that there is a clear sense of fatigue in the sector. The effects of the funding crisis in 2023 are still being felt, and there is a growing fear among those who rely on us that the service may not be here in the near future. From our perspective, that is simply not acceptable. No one, least of all the most marginalised in our communities, should have to live with that uncertainty on a year-to-year basis.

That having been said, we welcome the opportunity to come here today. We have had really positive engagements with the Minister and her team of officials. We welcome yesterday's announcement by the Minister indicating her intention to increase funding to protect community transport services. We echo the Minister's commitment to put people at the heart of decision-making, because that is what community transport is all about. While we welcome that increased level of funding, we know that it will provide certainty only for the current financial year. We really need to be looking at multi-year funding that covers the full cost of service delivery so that we can ensure that we not only sustain the service but help to grow it.

Our sector's biggest challenge is unstable funding. To date, funding levels have remained largely static, which has resulted in service decline rather than the needs of our local communities being met. Our research clearly showed that service delivery is based on available budgets rather than on need. We rely on discretionary budgets from year to year, which does not give us the certainty for planning or growth. A fair funding-based model is essential. Those funding levels and the ongoing uncertainty are also directly impacting on pay and working conditions for our staff. It is really difficult to attract and retain staff, particularly drivers. Despite the fact that they deliver such a vital service across Northern Ireland, the level of remuneration that community transport offers is not reflected in that.

The absence of capital investment is also a major issue. We have ageing fleets, and not only are they harder to replace but the cost of keeping them on the road is getting higher. We need to look at how we can support community transport in a phased transition to lower-emission vehicles.

We strongly believe that community transport covers the gaps that other services leave and that it needs to be recognised as a core part of the overall transport system to improve not only coordination but, most importantly, outcomes for passengers. It cannot and should not be viewed in isolation, and that requires cross-departmental working, planning and looking at associated funding mechanisms. We also need to look at our permit structure and at revising our licence requirements in Northern Ireland to support a more flexible approach, particularly in rural and isolated areas. As a sector, we see the impact of our work every day. The managers here make that possible and remove barriers to ensure that people can have accessible transport. For those passengers, it is not just important, it is essential.

We know that the issues that we are highlighting are complex and that much more needs to be done. Equally, as a sector, we are absolutely committed and are ready to invest the time and energy that are needed, and we are determined to be part of the solution. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much. We really appreciate that, and thank you for the evidence that you submitted. It will come as no surprise to you to learn that the Committee understands the importance of community transport in our areas. Speaking for myself from a rural perspective, I know the importance of community transport for section 75 groups in particular.

The Committee has been looking at the phased review of community transport. I am interested to know what type of engagement the Community Transport Association has received from the Department in providing information for those reviews. How engaged is the Department now, and how regular are those discussions with you?

Mrs Campbell: I can start off, and the managers can then come in. I am on the working group for the phase 2 review board. We have regular meetings. Every six weeks, we look at the project plan and its outline. There have been one or two engagements, with managers getting feedback from phase 1, the evaluation report and looking towards how we progress phase 2. There is a call out to managers for information so that financial and performance data over the past number of years can be looked at.

The Department works with us in CTA, and we are absolutely committed to working with it. Our concern is with the completion of phase 2. Having been part of the working group on that and seen the plan, I know that it is vast. There is a lot to be done, and we are concerned about the time frame in which to do it. We are keen. Now that there is progress, we want to push that on and get it through to completion.

Do any of you want to come in on engagement?

Mr Donaghy: I am sorry for looking in again. Thank you all for letting us come up to present to you. We appreciate everything that you have done for us.

I will echo everything that Frances said. The engagement has certainly improved over the past four or five months. Before that, it was very much as though we were in the dark. I made a joke at one stage that we could have had three babies in the time that the review has been going on.

The review is important, but one of the concerns for us is the extent to which it will be completed in full and that it not be kicked down the road. It is important, and we have been calling for it for a long time. With everything else that is going on in the public transport ecosystem, it is important that that review be done now rather than separately, outside or outwith the wider public transport ecosystem.

We welcome it, and engagement has improved. One of the things, though, was that the report was launched but we had been told that, before that happened, we would have sight of it. It was a fait accompli when the stage 1 report was presented. We were promised sight of it, but that did not happen.

All too often, that is what happens with community transport. Whilst we are the transport provider by default for all sectors and individuals, we need to be there at the start line as well. It feels very much like a case of people doing unto us and that we are not in the ecosystem, when we are.

The engagement is welcome, and I commend the staff in the Department. Engagement has really improved.

We welcome that and want to build on it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Has it therefore improved since stage 1, and do you think that lessons have been learnt from stage 1, when you did not have that engagement or did not have enough engagement on the process and that it has got better?

Mr Donaghy: Yes.

Mrs Campbell: From my perspective, I have been in post only since December, but the team of Catherine, Leona, in particular, and Peter, who is leading the working group, have been really accommodating. The plan is good. The challenge is to look at that model and try to get that minimum viable community transport model for the costs. Our research shows that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, which is a concern, and that is going to be complex. It is about keeping people at the heart of it. The figures and the data are so important, but we have to look at how the service is regionally balanced and how it is effective on a rural and urban basis. The phase 2 challenge is quite complex. Our fear concerns the length of time that it will take to progress it to completion.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): On that point, we recognise that there will not be a one-size-fits-all approach to it, because there are different demographics, different areas, different journey times and all that. The approach will be very different across the board. To take account of that, what is the Community Transport Association's view on how service measurements or metrics could be tailored to balance service quality and delivery? It is important that we keep the quality, which we know is there, but we also have to have that with the delivery.

Mr Ian Wilson (Down Armagh Rural Transport Partnership): That is a very good question. The Department commissioned internal evidence around two years ago when it was conducting the review into the funding methodology. There are quite a lot of high-level statistics on contributing factors, such as life-limiting illness and multiple deprivation in specific partnership areas. That evidence and research are already there.

That, on its own, will not be sufficient, because there will need to be quite an accurate weighting in each of the areas for cost per trip and miles per trip, taking in the various geographical differences in each of the areas, but I think that it is possible. With all the data that is out there already, sometimes we get consumed with the weight and mass of data and sometimes we have difficulties getting to the nub of the matter. We have enough data already; it is just about pulling it apart and putting it into effect as part of phase 2 of the review. Obviously, we do not have a unifying principle yet or a single approach that will fit all parties, but there is some consensus that it should be put in place definitely before the end of the next financial year.

As part of the process, that has to be the number-one priority, and whatever we decide to do has to be evidence-backed and robust. We know enough already; we just have to have the courage to make decisions that are based on what we already know. We understand that, in some cases, there might be winners and losers, and we want to mitigate the risk of areas losing.

Ultimately, we have a real chance at this with the sea change in personnel at the Department. I echo everything that Jason and Frances said. It is very refreshing, based on what came in the previous two years when we knew absolutely nothing about the phase 1 approach and were constantly told at the managers' meetings that there were no updates. That impacted relationships, it must be said. There is no point in coming here and nodding and pooh-poohing what happened in the past. We are in a different place now, and that is fantastic. The new staff change will be a major boon for the process, along with the scrutiny that the Committee can provide. We look forward to trying to answer some of those difficult questions in the months ahead.

Mr Donaghy: At the Committee on 7 May, Andrew McGreevy, I think, mentioned the research that we have undertaken in Fermanagh and Omagh looking at transport poverty. We need to consider how we look at need and at demand in transport, full stop. We have to move beyond isochrons and hub-and-spoke models and at how fast the crow can fly. We know that urban-to-urban hub-and-spoke works superbly well, but, in the rural context, it is a different kettle of fish. We really need to question the assumptions that underpin that approach to transport planning and modelling. We are at a very exciting moment, because we have an opportunity to really think about how we future-proof and centre the service on the user's needs, be they rural or urban.

We commissioned a piece of research. I drew up a brief to look at transport poverty in Fermanagh and Omagh, and the council took it up and looked at it. That went so far, but, at a previous meeting, you were talking about being intelligence-led and about the three pillars and behavioural change. If you want behavioural change, you really need to understand people. You need to get with the people, if you like. We discovered that 87% of the population of Fermanagh cannot get to a local GP or a hospital within two hours by public transport but that 100% of the population of Belfast can get to the South West Acute Hospital within two hours by public transport. We also need to recognise that 70% of the population of Northern Ireland is urban but that 70% to 75% of Fermanagh is rural. Therefore, the assumptions that underpin thinking about urban areas cannot underpin the thinking about rural areas. We need to take a more intelligence-driven approach to transport poverty and make that data more available and visible on, for instance, transport infrastructure. We need to utilise geographical information systems to really build an intelligent integrated system.

The big frustration for us is that we have the regional transport strategy coming out. That will go up to 2035, but we have not been consulted on it. I found out that the local transport and local plans were happening through a friend who is a lecturer at Queen's and who said, "Jason, are you aware that this is taking place in your area?". We have to be in the tent, because we are providing critical lifeline journeys. At a regional level, we need to look at transport poverty and at how we plan and model for not just now but five, 10 and 15 years out.

We were able to map out with quite a degree of precision, overlaying Translink routes, where areas of transport poverty exist. We have also looked at the quality of our service. We have commissioned extensive research, particularly in our area, and I know that the others have done so in their areas, and the feedback has been incredible. In fact, if I may, I will cite an example. Sorry, I do not mean to take up so much time. The recent satisfaction stats for public transport were revealed about six or eight weeks ago. Everywhere was presented as showing how satisfied people were and what they were travelling on, but there was no mention of community transport. In two areas, no data was presented. Therefore, decisions are being taken on the basis of data that does not exist. In Fermanagh, Omagh and mid-Ulster, the data was suppressed. There is a sampling issue and an issue of representation with the data that is being used to inform how the planning is taking place. You are quite right to say that we need to balance the quantitative and the qualitative, but, if the qualitative is not being captured in some of the most peripheral rural areas, we have a problem.

If we go back to why community transport was first established, we find that it was because of market failure. The private sector could not do it, and Translink could not do it in the rural areas. We could. That was in 1998. The review says that the strategic context has changed. My question is this: how has it changed? Let us be really honest about how it has changed: the ageing nature of the population in rural areas. We are seeing that, as more people age, they move into immobility, disability and multi-morbidity. Therefore, our client base, the pressure and the need are growing and growing. For instance, we are having to increase the weight-bearing load of the lifts in our vehicles. Increasingly, we are having to deal with multiple very complex issues, which we were never set up to do. You are absolutely right, Deborah, to say that we really do need good data on transport poverty rather than a bit being done here, a bit being done there and a bit being done over there. We really need to take a systems perspective to this, because rural areas always feel as though they are waiting. It is so important, because, every year, we have people sitting worrying about whether they are going to be able to get into life.

People come to you and say, "Am I going to have transport? Am I going to have to give up my job? Will I have to put my loved one into care?". We are delivering a service on behalf of DFI because it cannot reach that cohort.

That leads on to other questions that we may look at. I will give you an example on transport poverty and inequality. Social return on investment is a big thing that I have talked about with the Department for Transport in England. I should qualify that that model is not specific to Northern Ireland. The data that underpins it is England-based. For every pound that is spent in Fermanagh, there is a —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Jason, I do not mean to cut you off, but I am conscious that there will be other questions that may draw out some of this evidence. If you do not mind, I will move on.

Mr Donaghy: Sure. No problem.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to touch on the funding announcement that the Minister made yesterday. The Committee has already agreed this morning to write to the Department to find out what that funding will look like across community transport associations here in Northern Ireland. You have sort of said that you welcome that but that you want to see multi-year budgets. It plays into the funding formula that will be coming out as part of this review. Can you give any indication to the Committee today about the funding that has been agreed or of how the Department has come to say, "We will give you extra funding"? What might that mean for this financial year? Are community transport associations across Northern Ireland happy with the Minister's funding announcement?

Mrs Campbell: I can start, and then you can come in. The overall announcement is absolutely welcome, because we have been calling for increased investment for years. However, what it means in real terms for people is not fully understood. We do not have that level of data at present. Based on an Assembly question that Cheryl Brownlee asked, if that is the request, it equates to about an additional £1·1 million for the sector. I do not have information on how that is broken down across the partnerships, but this is the question: what does it mean for people? Does the funding cover inflationary pressures and additional costs on employers? Does it maintain last year's level of service, or does it allow for expansion and growth? We need to establish all that and look at how it is regionally balanced across Northern Ireland. I am not involved in the operational nature of the CTA in the way that the managers are, but I am aware that there are trip restrictions in some areas that do not exist in others. We feel that people should have accessible transport regardless of their geography or circumstances. We are really keen to explore that as well.

Mr Michael McNulty (Disability Action): From an operational point of view, it is difficult until, as Frances said, we get the information. Does it just give us money to meet our rising costs? That has not happened in the past 10 years. In real terms, we have had a gradual reduction in funding and have had to tailor our service back. For example, in 2015, we were easily delivering 102,000 trips with very few refusals, whereas now, we are delivering only 78,000 trips because we just do not have the resources. In generic terms, last year, £2·1 million was the budget for the Disability Action transport scheme (DATS) service across Northern Ireland, but, just to stand still, it should have been £2·6 million. We do not make any money. In fact, as organisations, it is actually costing us money to run.

I will quote some research that Disability Action physically did on the importance of the DATS service. One in four people in Northern Ireland is disabled. Nine out of 10 disabled people cannot use mainstream transport, yet there is a lack of investment in community transport.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The figures are very stark. It also points to the importance of the service, which brings me on to my next question, after which I will go to other members. We are aware of the precarious situation that some community transport associations find themselves in, and that was raised with the Department in the previous evidence session that we had with it. The evidence that you provided to the Committee states:

You said today that you have to make decisions on who takes priority in the journeys that you make. What is your assessment of the number of community transport services that are already at that unsustainable level?

Mr Donaghy: We are all in that situation, because we are not working to a full cost-recovery model. I appreciate the ask that was made. It has been announced that community transport is fully funded, but there has been a misunderstanding about what was allowed to be submitted for consideration. For instance, we cannot include the depreciation of our vehicles, which is a huge cost, so we have not had resource to replace them. I know that the Committee has looked at issues on that.

This year, for instance, we will have £90,000. We were fortunate to get the money through the Motability Foundation, but we will not always get that, so those are effectively three new buses that we brought to the scheme at no cost to the Department. We cannot allocate a cost to those in our accounts, however. Legally, we are obliged to have redundancy and emergency operating costs, as well as vehicle replacement costs. We do not — we really do not.

Another practical example is that I need six and a half drivers, but the increase this year that I can put into the Department means that I am sitting at five and a half because I need to up the amount that they are paid. What our drivers get per hour is woeful — it is absolutely woeful — for what they do and the value that they create. I think that we are all in that situation.

Mr McNulty: Yes.

Mr Donaghy: None of us operates to a full cost-recovery model. Michael quite rightly said, and we work cheek by jowl through one another, that, in 2014-15, funding was for 250,000 trips that community transport was delivering at its peak. We are down now to about 170,000. We are told, "Base it on demand, but, hold on, there's only so much funding". We got a letter last year stating that the funding that we would get this year would not be the same as last year's. That is the basis on which a lot of us went.

Mr Wilson: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Donaghy: We could have expanded. We would love to expand to give our staff the incentive to stay with us, because I am losing staff. I have had three recruitment exercises. I am losing them to Translink, social services and the Education Authority (EA) because of the discrepancy, so we are all really pressed.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Ian, do you want to come in?

Mr Wilson: Yes. I just want to reiterate some of the points that have been made. Depreciation is an easy win that could be resolved quite quickly if the Department lessened the current demand. The Department is consuming an asset for its own service. Those assets belong to the rural community transport partnerships. They were not bought with departmental money. They were bought or were grant-funded by other funders, but those assets are being consumed regularly through the DATS service and Dial-a-Lift (DAL), yet we are not allowed to account for the very real cost of replacing vehicles that are at the end of their natural life. In no other accounting world does that happen.

I dare say that, in any other Department that funds community groups, depreciation is an allowable expense. The Committee could help us to resolve that with the Department. To be perfectly honest, and I will be very brief, Chair, with the sea change in personnel and new spirit in the Department, it is looking at that proactively. It could be brought forward in this financial year, however, and have a real impact on all rural community transport partnerships and Disability Action.

There are things that we can do whilst the review is ongoing that would really help. Being able to replace vehicles increases the sustainability of all the organisations, which means that we are in a much better place to continue delivering services for vulnerable people.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Lastly on that point, do you see any correlation between the unsustainability of community transport associations in rural versus urban settings? You said that all are unsustainable, but are there more pertinent problems in the rural versus the urban settings?

Mrs Campbell: I do not have the same operational knowledge as the managers, but, in general, one of the main challenges is that all organisations are struggling to cope with their current membership and demand. None of them has been able to advertise. They are struggling to maintain the service, not even to sustain it. When we went out to do the research, we found that people want to travel more but are being told that they can travel only less. There are restrictions all across Northern Ireland, and people are not getting out as much.

With regard to that rural/urban mix, the challenges are the same for people. Our research showed that almost 80% have mobility challenges that stop them from getting out, and that does not matter whether they are in a rural or urban context. People are in a hole.

The service that people are being offered is, in real terms, reducing year-on-year. That is why we are advocating for increased investment in the sector. We are doing some work on social value and are trying to build a business case to invest to save. There is a lot of talk in phase 2 of the review about efficiencies. From my perspective, that is quite an efficient model of what managers are able to do. It is about trying to see what we can do more of and about looking at economies of scale and at how we can use the resource more effectively.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. I will bring in other members now. Cathal.

Mr Boylan: Thanks, Chair. I did not think that I was in. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much for your presentation. To be fair, you have been ploughing this furrow for a long time. There was welcome news yesterday for you, but, to be honest, I think that you are in a good position. I say that because the most recent meeting that we had with officials was positive. I am not saying that it was a panacea, but there seems to be an openness now.

I represent a rural constituency, but there are challenges in rural areas and in urban areas. The dynamics have changed. There was a perception for years that, if you lived in a rural area, you relied on your own car or another form of transport and did your own thing, but people are living longer now, and a lot more things are happening. The model is changing. Demand and need are changing. You have been covering gaps that should be covered by somebody else. I am not going to single out anyone, but there is a need issue, and you are identifying and covering gaps that are others' responsibility. That is what community transport is all about. That is my opening point.

I agree about having multi-year Budgets, so I am not going to argue that point with you. I am fully supportive of them. We have seen the models. The other day, somebody in an urban area phoned me about an issue, and I phoned around a number of people to get them to try to address it. It was a difficult one to get resolved. You talked about gathering data and evidence. Is there a model out there across the isles, or across Europe, that anybody, even in the Department, is aware of that would fit here or that would be near enough the model to deliver? You are here for the future. That is the way in which to look at it. It is therefore not just about meeting demand now but about how you grow in order to have a fully viable, fully functioning operation.

Mr Donaghy: That is a great question, Cathal. What do we mean by "fully viable"? By its nature, community transport will never be viable. No public transport is. It all needs subvention. We exist because of market failure. There is an opportunity in the current review. I hope that the review of Ulsterbus services and the review of community transport will take place side by side. We keep talking about the need to have integrated transport systems. We need to see where we can add value, complement each other and work side by side.

The models are, by and large, the same the world over. You get different types of models. Some people will hire out cars or motorbikes at a cheap rate. Some places are run by volunteers exclusively, particularly in middle-class areas. We need to look at the integration of the strategy in totality. What is it going to look like in the future? You said that rural and urban areas are the same. If we look at them —.

Mr Boylan: I am not saying that they are the same. There are challenges in both.

Mr Donaghy: You are absolutely right, but the thing is that there is an ageing demographic, and we are seeing more and more people with particular issues. Michael, quite rightly, made a point about what Disability Action has found through its research. If we think about the traditional model and the people whom we serve, we find that, year-on-year, they are moving further away from the bus stop model, by virtue of the fact that they need demand-responsive door-to-door services. I can imagine what Disability Action is experiencing, because we deliver its transport scheme in Enniskillen. The funding situation means that we are not able to market or advertise, so we have gone from 1,800 trips to perhaps 1,200 trips. Refusals have gone through the roof, but folks cannot use their concessionary passes in the urban centre.

Places are very specific. They have unique geography, demography and economy. Some areas will be better equipped than others and have more transport opportunities. Community transport therefore needs to be dynamic, and we are certainly up for that. We are not saying that what we are doing now is absolutely right, but it is the only way in which it is being done at the moment. We want to work with others to develop a better system and help it evolve. What are being missed, however, are the intercommunity journeys, such as taking Mary or Willie to their GP, the hospital, the food bank, probation services or mental health services. Those journeys are not being picked up on. Rather, it is about everybody wanting to be run to Belfast. For the majority of our people, that is of no relevance to them.

There is learning to be done, but one of the things that I would also caution against, which seems to be an increasing assumption, is that community transport should be a volunteer-led model. Volunteers are really important. For instance, they make over 6,000 trips for us a year across the board. They are a massive help, but we cannot deliver a quality, reliable and compassionate service with volunteers alone. Our people deserve as much as the folk who can get conventional public transport. Whether people can get transport should not be at the will of someone being able to make a certain trip. There is a discussion to be had, and we would welcome that happening. From talking to people in England and Scotland, I know that, in many respects, we are leading.

Mr Boylan: I could talk about the subject all day, but this is my final comment. I understand that you are meeting the demand. You have all the stats to prove that. What I am saying is that, in the future, you are going to be delivering the model. People might say that it is the Government's responsibility to do so. Community transport may not be fully financially viable. I am not saying that you do not need a subsidy, but my point is that you have produced a good report. We now need to engage with the Department of Health and other Departments about the journeys that you are making and so on. You now have the opportunity to move to a different model instead of just meeting demand and need, because things have changed greatly. That is how I see it.

Mrs Campbell: I would argue that the current model of community transport has proven itself massively over time. It is just about investing in it. Equally, there are things that we could look at, such as our permit structure and the section 22 permit. Translink's recent equality impact assessment (EQIA) talked about community transport being socially important but commercially unviable. If we had flexibility in our permit structure, we could be covering the hotspots and dead spots in local towns, and that is really what we were advocating for. We are advocating not for massive change and reform but additional investment to allow for us to have that flexibility. [Inaudible.]

Mr Donaghy: It is about delivering greater value for money: more bang for our buck. At the minute, if there is an Ulsterbus going up the road with one person on it, yet we are putting 14 people on a demand-responsive door-to-door service, having one person on the bus for two and a half hours in order to get home is not great.

Mr Boylan: I have a final question, Chair.

Mr Wilson: May I add to that, Cathal? You seem to have a really good, unifying vision of what community transport should be. It is about connecting that last mile, however. We buy into that and are all for that vision, but we are also concerned about removing the barriers to realising it. As Frances said, let us take a look at what works in England, where there is a more liberal permit regime that allows community transport operators to run semi-scheduled routes into rural areas where there is a gap. That is something that could be addressed very easily with the Department through the current review of section 10B permits. Why do we not look at the areas of good practice that work well and at the schemes that connect disparate rural communities through a semi-scheduled service that is open to members of the public and run with a non-profit ethos? That is where we should be heading. I agree with you 100%, but why are we not looking at doing that?

Mr Boylan: That is the conversation to be had, and it is why you are in front of us today. There is an opportunity here.

Mr McNulty: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The Committee has been looking at how the pilot that was done in 2015 might be revisited.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along today. I have a couple of questions. Can someone give me an idiot's guide, in 30 seconds to one minute, to what your model is and from where your funding comes? We will then come to what you want. Tell me what is happening today, be that in Armagh or in time-trodden Fermanagh, as you have referred to it, Jason.

Mr McNulty: There are two separate models: the Disability Action transport scheme and the dial-a-lift service. The Disability Action transport scheme operates in any town in Northern Ireland with more than 10,000 people. There are 29 urban areas. Although Disability Action is responsible for the service, we deliver one section of it. The rest is delivered by our 10 community partners across the rest of Northern Ireland. Fermanagh Community Transport, for example, delivers for Enniskillen, while Ian's DART Partnership delivers for Craigavon, Portadown, Lurgan and Banbridge. Each of the partners delivers for a specific area.

Mr K Buchanan: From where is your money coming? Tell me about all your income.

Mr Donaghy: Some 54%, or thereabouts, comes from the Department. Let us look at our £550,000 broadly, which is not full cost recovery. About £321,000 comes from the Department. That does not account for this year's figure, whatever that might be. We also get £80,000 from the concessionary fares scheme, which used to come through DAERA's assisted rural travel scheme, and we lift about £50,000 in fares from those who do not hold the full pass or half-fare pass.

Mr K Buchanan: That is income from trips.

Mr Donaghy: Yes. That is it. We have very little group hire in Fermanagh, by virtue of the size of the population. We therefore generate about £20,000 from community and voluntary not-for-profit groups hiring our vehicles for self-drive.

Mr K Buchanan: You have £550,000 to deliver your model in Fermanagh. What does the figure need to be to enable you to deliver what you want to deliver?

Mr Donaghy: It needs to be £650,000.

Mr K Buchanan: That is £100,000 more. What is that? Is it 20%?

Mr Donaghy: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: Is that 20% needed across NI? Is there an argument to be made that you are 20% short across the board?

Mr Donaghy: That is a good ballpark figure. You also asked about how we operate, Keith. I will answer quickly. We have a voluntary, not-for-profit board. Volunteers run our organisations. Fermanagh Community Transport is a charitable company. We have 1,200 members and have delivered 27,500 trips this year. People phone us two days in advance and say, "I want to be lifted and dropped off". We do not work to time. Rather, we work within time. We have vehicles that cover certain areas, so we will say that a vehicle will be in an area from 8.00 am. It will start at the furthest point, work its way in, pick people up, bring them into Enniskillen and then bring them back out. We have tried to be efficient in batching people. We do not send out buses willy-nilly to lift one person. Our volunteers are tremendous at helping us with GP appointments. They give us agility and flexibility.

We also work with paid staff. We have 5·5 full-time drivers, but when I started, we had 11 drivers. We need two drivers for south-east Fermanagh, because are turning people away. In fact, we have declined 1,200 trips this year. We have not advertised in four or five years, and I am now there eight years. That gives you an idea of demand and response.

Mr K Buchanan: That 20% is my figure, not yours, but we are talking about 20%.

Mr Donaghy: Sure.

Mr K Buchanan: This is my final question. What would a 20% increase do to the numbers of users? You talked about funding for 250,000 trips. What would 20% more financial income mean for users? What percentage increase in the number of trips would that give you?

Mr Donaghy: I would hope that that would begin to help us build back towards making 250,000 trips. If you look at where we were at in 2014-15 and look at the internal departmental review, you will see that that year was the sweet spot, where the cost per trip was very low. Somebody needs to go back and take a look at that, because demand has since gone through the roof. As a result of the ageing demographic, a time bomb has gone off.

Mr K Buchanan: How many users do you have now across NI?

Mr Donaghy: In the region of —.

Mr McNulty: The DATS service provides roughly 78,000 trips a year.

Mr K Buchanan: What is the total, roughly?

Mrs Campbell: Over 170,000 trips.

Mr K Buchanan: You are talking about getting from roughly 170,000 back to 250,000.

Mrs Campbell: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: This is my last question, Chair. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: Chair, this is part B.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Part B of the last question.

Mr K Buchanan: Where are we at with the health service? Cathal touched on that. Is it putting its hand in its pocket?

Mrs Campbell: That very much speaks to your previous question. People are restricted in making trips. They are prioritising health appointments over social activities, so if they make one trip a week, they will use it to get to their appointment. As part of our submission, we are calling for more engagement and representation from the Department of Health on the cross-departmental working group. We talked about funding and looking at our structures. We know that if we are to engage with Health, we are going to need a different payment process from the grant process that we have with DFI. We are in very early discussions on that. At the minute, there is engagement at ministerial level, but we really feel that the managers here need to be represented. There will be a change to the service delivery model. They therefore need to be part of discussions from the start.

Mr Donaghy: Sorry, may I come in on that? At the minute, 58% of our work is health-related.

Mr K Buchanan: It is 58%.

Mr Donaghy: As a result of that, our older folks and other people are finding it increasingly difficult to book journeys, because a lot of them are for day care and day ops.

Mr McNulty: Most of our journeys are for day ops.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for the presentation. It has brought some of the issues into sharp focus. I have a couple of questions. One thing that struck me was how many different aspects you touch on. As well as the Department of Health, the Department for Infrastructure and DAERA, you even mentioned the Probation Board. How much cross-departmental help is therefore needed? Does departmental help need to be extended?

Mrs Campbell: At our recent meeting with DFI officials at Loughry campus, we requested that the Department for Communities revisit the membership. At the minute, the Department for Communities is not included. As Jason said, we run a lot of services to deliver people to places so that they can attend activities in the community. At present, Communities is not represented. We feel that that is a massive gap.

Mr Donaghy: What that is precipitating is that we are moving back to the medical model of health, with people's health being the only issue considered. We know that the majority of factors that affect a person's health do not occur in hospital and/or at the GP, but rather in their everyday life, through having agency and independence. At the minute, all the discussions are around transport to and from health services. Yes, that is important and needs to be respected, but we need a social model of transport that is socially just as well, because our folks are increasingly having to prioritise journeys being made for medical reasons — journeys to GP appointments and hospitals — particularly post-COVID.

Mr Wilson: The previous integrated transport pilot was referenced. It had to be abandoned way back in 2015 or 2016, purely because the Department of Health did not come to the table with any financial support to fund the model. My big problem with that model, having been involved in the pilot, was that it was very much health-driven and would have effectively subordinated the assets of community transport providers to deliver health service trips during peak times, so it was not really an integrated transport model. The losers from that model would have been the people whom Frances and Jason mentioned: older people and disabled people who are travelling not for health reasons but for social purposes. That is a timely reminder that, if we are moving towards an integrated transport model or looking at reactivating any of the projects, the model very much has to be community-driven. Even though the health priority is well referenced — people absolutely need to get to their GP and outpatient appointments — Health cannot be in the lead. With an integrated model, health journeys cannot be made at the expense of everything else that we do.

Mr McMurray: I have read through your submission. I have met you before. I am very appreciative of the service that you provide. I come from a rural area. I see your buses and drivers out and about quite regularly.

You made the point that yours is not a volunteer service. That is important to note. If we value something, that should be reflected in it. I go back to the main issue, which is that it is a transport service and therefore needs drivers. We have previously heard stuff about licensing and about the licences that drivers require. There is a call to action here about that. Is there anything being done to expand on that? What is your opinion on the current licensing system?

Mr Wilson: The current licensing system is fundamentally flawed in its application of EU law, Andrew. That is our starting point. DFI has misconstrued commerciality and driver licensing.

Its interpretation of the EU regulations has become overly restrictive and draconian, and that has had the impact of stifling the sector. We cannot move to having a more liberated licensing regime for scheduled routes, so the impact on us now is that our drivers have to have commercial driver licences for undertaking what are essentially non-profit services. We are not commercial transport entities. Rather than doing what the EU wanted us to do, which was to assess on a case-by-case basis, the Department has employed a blanket designation of commerciality across the entire community transport sector in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the EU ever conceived as possible voluntary-sector organisations and charities being dragged into the net of what is a commercial driving licence matter that is aimed at reinforcing driver licensing standards across the EU.

The licensing system is not fit for purpose. It stifles innovation, and it costs us money. We had to react very quickly when the new guidance was introduced. We had six months to get all our drivers up to standard or else our services would have ended. That precipitated a real cliff edge for the community transport sector. No account has been taken of the High Court judgement in 2019, which overruled the application of that blanket designation. I do not believe that the Department has revisited its guidance on foot of that High Court judgement. We want to know whether any sort of review of the current guidance has taken place. The Committee may be able to help us determine the answer to that question. We have asked repeatedly for clarification of the licensing regime. We have asked to see the legal advice, but we have been told that we cannot see it, because that advice is legally protected.

The CTA recently submitted a freedom of information request, which was declined. We are therefore at an impasse in trying to get some clarification on the reasons that the Department came to that legal understanding, because we are at a total loss when it comes to understanding its decision. As I said, the licensing system is not fit for purpose. It restricts and impedes the operation of community transport daily. It is totally disproportionate for the services that we run. We run professional not-for-profit services, not commercial for-profit services. The interpretation of the guidance is where the big problem lies.

Mr McNulty: I will butt in there. Take this example. I passed my driving test in 1985, and the licence had something like seven categories on it. I could therefore drive any vehicle up to 7·5 tons. I could also drive a minibus. After 15 years, the Department's interpretation of the guidance meant that I was told that I could not drive a minibus. In 2019, I therefore had to resit a driving test specifically to drive a minibus in order to be allowed to do the same job. Drivers who had worked for our organisation for 15 or 16 years had to do the same thing in order to be allowed to drive professionally. That is the change that was made. We paid approximately £2,500 a driver for them to resit driving tests. I had to resit a test for a category that I had previously had on my licence.

Mrs Campbell: Andrew, in simple terms, our permit structure places us in a non-commercial space, in which we absolutely want to be, but our licensing structure places us in a commercial space. We are therefore in a grey area, and we do not understand why we should be there. We feel that we are a not-for-profit and non-commercial organisation, but there is a disparity in the interpretation of the guidance.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Cathal, I know that you are looking to come back in on a point, but I see that Mark's hand is up.

Mr Boylan: Go on ahead.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I will go to Mark, if that is OK.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the panel for coming in and reaffirming the value of community transport, which the Committee gets. The focus of the discussion has understandably been on resources and on how this place can enable you to sustain and enhance your vital work so that, hopefully, services can expand and your potential and value can be realised even more. We are still unsure whether yesterday's announcement, as positive as it is, will do that. The sooner that we can get detail on that, the better. Even more so, the sooner you can get detail on it, the better, because for the sector not to have the full detail seems like a bizarre way of doing business.

One of your recommendations is for the reinstatement of capital investment programmes. Will you elaborate a bit on the state of the fleet — its age and the challenges that that presents — across the sector?

Mrs Campbell: There has not been capital investment across the sector since 2016. Our research to date shows that the Motability Foundation is typically the primary source of vehicle replacement other than organisations going into their reserves. Our research shows that over half of people said that they needed to replace a lot of their fleet. The average age — how long vehicles have been in service — is coming up to eight years. The managers can speak to the impacts, which are rising costs, reliability and the strain that is put on services.

Mr Donaghy: I can, because I was doing up the asset register for the accountant for this year. We had three new buses through Motability, and we had to get a fourth. The rest of our fleet dates back to 2014, however. There are 280,000 to 300,000 miles on each of the vehicles. I will give you a practical example. Last week, one of the vehicles broke down. To have that vehicle recovered costs us £600 a time. We have to move very vulnerable people on rural roads. Last week, I witnessed that at first hand with a vehicle on the Derrygonnelly Road. A broken-down vehicle is a threat to quality of service, to comfort, to reliability, to confidence and to health and safety. If we cannot offer all those things, folk will stay at home, which is not good for their health. Most of our fleet is therefore highly aged and well beyond needing replaced, Mark.

Mr Durkan: I am sure that the state of the roads does not help.

Mr Donaghy: We have got the odd pothole. [Laughter.]

Mr K Buchanan: The odd one?

Mr Boylan: It is a different subject today, Mark.

Mr Durkan: If you followed our evidence session with the Department, you will have seen that I raised the issue of how the Department and community transport organisations were stung when money was given out for capital investment in e-buses, but, because of the collapse of a company, some of the organisations had spent money but did not get the vehicle. Has there been any engagement with the Department on whether that situation can be rectified in some way, given that that shows that there was recognition of the need for organisations to have that type of vehicle?

Mr Donaghy: We were cautious about the scheme at the time. We were given a very narrow window of opportunity. The big lessons that must be learned from that are the need for proper procurement to be done and for us to be allowed to do due diligence. We appreciate that it was during COVID, when there was a lot of motivation to get an e-bus, but for those of us in rural regions, the technology certainly is not there yet. We wanted to be part of that, but the decision was made for us. The company went into administration, and we were unsecured creditors. There has been no real follow-up done. In order to acquire that e-bus, each of us had to take a bus from the old fleet off the road, so, in effect, we lost two vehicles.

There has not been any real discussion about that. An evaluation of the electric vehicle (EV) scheme is taking place. Those of us who did not receive a bus would welcome being involved in that. We can bring a lot of learning to the evaluation, because we invested a lot of time, effort and energy into trying to scope out what was possible and what was not possible. It is important for there to be learning across the board. I sit on a multi-governmental grouping that looks at vehicles, be they police vehicles, ambulances or other types of vehicles.

Mr McNulty: Disability Action is one of the organisations that was lucky enough to get a vehicle. Would I go down that road again? Probably not. Although the ethos of it is good, the technology is not quite there yet. At the moment, electric cars are probably on version 10, whereas minibuses are on version 1 or 2. We have a bus that can do only 70 miles a day because of the amount of kit that we have on it, such as tail lifts. Given the distances involved, it is not economically viable to run, so its use is restricted.

As I said, it would probably be better to have more input into the technology behind it and more due diligence.

Mr Durkan: Did you have to take a vehicle off the road?

Mr McNulty: We took a vehicle off the road in exchange for the electric vehicle.

Mr Durkan: Have you suffered a net loss in miles?

Mr McNulty: Yes. For example, most of our vehicles will run all day, from eight o'clock in the morning until six in the evening, but you could probably only run the electric vehicle until lunchtime. You would then have to come back to recharge it because the infrastructure is not there to recharge it out on the road. That takes time, so it does not work. If I were to do it again, I would look at a hybrid vehicle rather than an fully electric one.

Mr Durkan: That underlines the importance, if schemes come forward for capital investment, of you guys being involved in their design. I know that COVID was a different time — it was like 'Brewster's Millions' — when it appeared that money needed to be spent. Thank you, folks.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Cathal, you wanted to make a point — briefly, if you do not mind.

Mr Boylan: It is not about 'Brewster's Millions', anyway. I was interested in your answers to Keith's questions about the funding of the model. We tend to forget the missed trips, which all add up and have an impact on the Department. Do you know what I mean?

Mr Donaghy: Absolutely.

Mr Boylan: That has to be reflected as well.

Mr Donaghy: The review by the Department is welcome and aligns with the fantastic work that the CTA has done in collaboration with us, Disability Action and others, but, when we lay the current demographic data over that, you see why, when we are told, "Put this out on the basis of need", we have never been able to do that. Everything has been done within a fixed, declining envelope. When you previously heard evidence on this, the question was about how we could squeeze more value out of the current envelope of £1·2 million. The sponge is dry. The sponge is dry. The need has changed. Everything that Ian said about licensing and semi-scheduled routes is what we have been advocating for for donkey's years. We would welcome being included. We are a key component of the transport ecosystem — we cannot be outside it — and you cannot measure the merit or value of the overall public transport system without looking at the totality of the system. The approach of trying to do a wee bit over here and a wee bit over there and trying to make them meet will not suffice.

Mr Wilson: That feeds into Mark's point, Cathal. If we look at the totality of the costs of community transport, we see that replacing the vehicle asset is key because not doing so presents an existential threat to most operators: if we cannot replace buses, we are out of business, and that is the end of it. We try to build up reserve levels as much as we can so that we have a structured programme to replace vehicles at the end of their natural lives. The point about being able to add the cost of depreciation to our balance sheet for the Department is so important because we have gone out and secured non-departmental funding to bring vehicles on stream to replace our fleets, but we are not allowed to offset the cost of that through our submissions to the Department year on year. That is another area for a quick win: if we were to be allowed to do that in the months ahead, it would make a huge impact. Unfortunately, folks, there are a lot of demands on community transport, and there are a lot of stakeholders who want to milk the cow but do not want to feed it. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr Boylan: That is an excellent analogy.

Mr K Buchanan: You are speaking my language. [Laughter.]

I have a question about income from fares. Jason, you mentioned £50,000, which is roughly 10% of your £550,000. I added your three figures up and they came to £450,000, but we will not worry about the forensic accounting and the other £100,000 today. How does that £50,000, or 10% of income from fares, compare with Translink's income? What percentage of its income does Translink bring in from fares? I do not know the answer to that.

Mr Donaghy: I do not have a clue.

Mrs Campbell: We can look at that.

Mr K Buchanan: It is only to get a comparison.

Mr Donaghy: We would welcome that. For instance, at Open Data NI, the data, including the network data, should be publicly available. We had to go to England to get the network interrogated for the transport poverty piece. I talked about the public data on which service people have used; it was suppressed. We need more of that data.

Mr K Buchanan: It is just to get understanding of what Joe Public is paying. There is the 10%, plus the £80,000 that you talked about from DAERA, which, I presume, is classified as fares as well. That is £130,000 out of a total of £530,000. I am interested to know what that is like compared with the Translink model. It is just to get a comparison. You know where I am coming from.

Mrs Campbell: We can look at that as part of the phase-2 review. We can ask for that proportionality to be factored in.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thanks to our forensic accountant, Keith Buchanan. [Laughter.]

Mr Donaghy: Sorry, Keith. Maths was never my strong point.

Mr K Buchanan: I'd say you're right.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to check two points, if you do not mind. Obviously, we are also keen to see integration in how community transport plays its part in the overall transport strategy and plan, and we have been looking at that in the Committee. We are aware of that 2015 pilot, and, from my perspective, there is a bit of frustration that nothing seems to have moved forward from that. In the discussions that you are having on the phased review, is there much of an appetite to bring Translink to the table to have those discussions again? Whilst we are talking about cross-departmental working and looking at the review, Translink also needs to play its part by having those conversations with you about how you integrate into the system.

Mrs Campbell: On the connections with Translink, at the recent event at Stormont on accessible travel, I met a number of Translink colleagues at my table and scheduled some follow-up conversations. I am due to meet Graeme Smyth — I have seen Translink's EQIA — on how we can work together. We are actively trying to do that, and we recognise that we, as well as the Department, are responsible for the gap. It is the same with the regional transport strategy. I have a meeting scheduled for the end of this month about we can start to get involved in that. The engagement has been slightly reactive rather than proactive, and we hope to address that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Is facilitating those conversations not something that the Department should be playing a role in too?

Mr Donaghy: Given that the Department is the single shareholder in the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, that should be a given. Again, we have not been consulted on the 2035 strategy. We are a key stakeholder, we are funded by the Department and we are part of public transport. On some of the policy communication, we are noted as being "public transport", and on others we are noted as being "community transport". We are community transport that operates in a public transport space. We would welcome being involved. We would love that. It is not an us-versus-them situation: it is about how we can work side by side to achieve more, particularly within difficult budgetary environments. One of the frustrations goes back to licensing. We are dealing with the Department, which has all of those levers, so, when we come to the meetings with the officials and ask those questions, you would think that the Department could talk internally and say, "Can we affect this?" and "Can we get clarity on that?". That has been one of the main frustrations over the years.

Mr Wilson: I am old enough to remember a time when Translink depot managers attended the committee meetings of rural community transport partnerships, and doing so was a departmental requirement. That is going back maybe 15 or 16 years. It did not always used to be this way, where we have very limited contact with Translink. There is a huge job of work to be done here, not to repair relationships but to connect and get the them hooked in. The potential licensing changes around being able to offer semi-scheduled routes will not be able to happen without Translink telling us the areas in which routes have been removed so that we can go in and subvent them with a semi-scheduled service. It is a great and timely question. Translink should be at the table and be actively involved. Can we really talk about integrated transport without it?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Absolutely. Obviously, this is an important moment for community transport with the phased review. The second part of the review is looking at the funding and the funding formula and how that all comes to be. Whilst that is positive, is there concern that there will be a rigid funding formula for x years with no opportunity to feed into the process. We have talked about electric vehicles, changes in technology and all of that. What discussions are you having in the phased review about the flexibility of the funding formula in the context of things that may happen and a multi-year Budget?

Mr Donaghy: In fairness to the individual who is leading the review, engagement will happen over the next while, and we hope to convey some of our thoughts and issues on it then. The big issue is that we do not have a policy home. It is easy to say that we do not exist, but when we are needed, we are really needed and we exist. We can talk about moving the deckchairs, but we need to be part of the regional transport strategy. Community transport cannot be a convenient add-on that takes up the leftovers: our people are not leftovers. Whatever happens in this review, hopefully it will feed into the other ongoing reviews and community transport will be clearly demarcated within it. Hopefully, it will also recognise the cross-departmental work in this area, which involves DAERA, Health and DFI. We recognise that community transport brings value: we cross-cut the Programme for Government, so we need to be at the heart of the transport policy. If we look at the transport strategic landscape, who is best placed to do what?

There was a question about effecting behavioural change. For example, there was talk about putting on an Ulsterbus for the journey between Enniskillen and Altnagelvin for hospital appointments. That was done in the past, but it did not work. We know why it did not work because we have talked to the people and developed pilots to address that. It does not work for the very reasons that we have already talked about. There is value and merit in us sharing our expertise to develop and lead behavioural change. We can bring more than just community transport.

Mrs Campbell: The challenge posed by the phase 2 funding methodology is massively complex. We are in the early stages, and there is a call out for information, data and analysis, which is important. However, putting that together and contextualising it in terms of size, operation, locality and the people it serves is a massive piece of work. Whilst we have concerns, we hope that the process of engagement and co-design will continue throughout, so the model can be agreed upon by the managers who run the service, and we will push for that throughout.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you so much for your time at the Committee today. We appreciate it and will continue to look at the issue because this is not the end of it. Thank you for your time. We look forward to finding out the details of all the funding that is received.