Increasing the efficient use of transport so that more pupils can share transport should not have to be a problem in itself, although autistic children can find change and uncertainty very hard to cope with. But at the start of this term, disastrously bad implementation of new routes, with children arriving late or even, in some cases, not being picked up at all, was very distressing for them and for their parents.

There was an  ‘unacceptable failure by ATM [Atkins Transport Management] at Linden Bridge over the first two days of service’ at the start of this Autumn term. Ten new routes for school vehicles had been put together using the ’Trapeze’ software recently installed at Surrey’s Transport Co-ordination Centre, but very badly implemented.

The details were in a paper brought to the Children and Families Committee yesterday, and I don’t think I can do better than to quote from it:‘

‘It was apparent within the first hour of service i.e. by 08.30 on school day one that many ATM drivers had no idea of the route and had made no adjustments for the additional traffic found on day one of the new school term. One ATM driver resigned before 07.00 and by the time a replacement driver was found the route was 2 hours late. On a different route another driver failed to find the first pick up address after a 2.5 hour drive from Epsom to Blindley Heath at no time attempting to contact either ATM or the County Council. That driver decided unilaterally to move on to the next and subsequent children and deliver them to school. When informed by parents that no-one had arrived to collect their child, the TCC telephoned ATM to be informed that the driver had moved on ‘because there was no reply at the home address’. It was later admitted by ATM that the driver never found the address despite it being on the main A22 trunk road. It must be remembered that these routes do not just affect one child, and when a bus is late at the first pick up all parents become concerned and frustrated. 

‘Most routes arrived late at school on day one. Several routes were between 1 and 2 hours overdue. Neither Linden Bridge staff nor parents were contacted by ATM and advised of the late running. In most cases it was left to the TCC to inform parents and the school, once TCC became aware of the problems on the ground.

‘Parental hostility towards Atkins on the first morning of service was ferocious, the TCC having never experienced such a volume of calls from anxious, angry and frustrated parents in any preceding year. The call rate was such that there were not sufficient resources left to record the calls as the entire team was dealing with immediate issues, all officers being diverted from other duties to staff telephones. The ATM Linden Bridge operation carried some 60 students on school day one, and as every ATM route failed to operate on time, in some cases over 2 hours late, all 60 parents will have called at least once, many making multiple calls to the TCC and ATM in attempts to understand what was happening to the transport for their children. Each call to the TCC generated two more - one to ATM seeking an update, and another to the parent with the response. By lunchtime on school day one it is estimated that the 8 TCC Officers had taken / made over 300 telephone calls between them. ‘

The written reports to the Comittee were backed up by an unusually open and critical verbal acoount of Surrey’s seven-year contract with ATM (going back to the year 2,000 but with a 3-year extension in April 2006) given by Christopher Butler, the Transport Co-ordination Centre manager. (You can read the formal full account, quoted above on the SCC website here ; and there is also a paper on the implementation of SEN transport planning software here.)

Mr. Butler had been with Atkins when the contract started, and was one of the staff later transferred to the SCC. He said ‘Out-sourcing to Atkins’ had been ‘a very brave step’. If the company had enjoyed consistent management they ‘would have been leaders … we were at the cutting edge’ but later ‘managers couldn’t even see why we were doing this work’ and ‘the thrust to take this forward withered on the vine.’

On the situation with the Atkins contract now, he said: ‘ … there is no incentive for Atkins to do anything … we can’t do any more, they do what they like … it’s a ridiculous contract, whoever wrote it should be shot …’

 Contracts with other transport companies are now shorter and tighter: ‘no other authority is doing what Surrey did in 2,000 … [but] then was then, today is a different market place.’

He went on to explain that block arrangements, where only one company provides transport to any one school, can be helpful if they are well administered and allow close liaison with the school. Where this can be achieved, a 3 year contract with 2 additional years is possible - but the number of companies in Surrey willing and capable of taking on these relatively large and demanding contracts are limited. 

As a result only three schools are moving to this sort of arrangement: [we] ‘can only do three schools … with present Surrey contractors… it needs time to see how it actually moves forward … It is complicated, it is new, in this form we are the only local authority doing it.’ 

Mr. Butler was clear that in Surrey ‘we expect a first class service’ from contractors, and he and his staff are very aware of the needs of vulnerable children. He is intending to go and speak to the parents at Linden Bridge in person. One Councillor expressed what several of us may have thought, wishing him luck. I hope the parents will not eat him. 

An aside on Pegasus: 

A member of the Committee asked Mr. Butler whether he could say ‘anything about taking on [the] Pegasus idea’;  - Pegasus being the fleet of yellow school buses operating out of Guildford, often to be seen sitting idle in between times, although the intention has been that the Transport Co-ordination Centre would schedule community use during the daytime.

Mr. Butler said: ‘ … one of the options available [is that ] … Pegasus as a brand might go on [using an] MPV / taxi  style vehicle … and wouldn’t we love to do that? - yes, we would, but it depends on a drive from the Executive … on the back of accessibility proposals. … At the moment it has the dead hand of bureaucracy on it.’

Quote of the day came earlier in the meeting during item 7, ‘Interim service arrangements’  (ie, re-organisation of high-level management.) It came from Conservative Laurie Burrell:

‘Three years ago [we] went through BDR - and we’re back here today and we’re back to square one.’