Archived decisions

SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO THE SCRUTINY REVIEW: TRANSPORT IN THE COMMUNITY

In view of the recent announcement by Hampshire County Council of cuts in subsidies to bus companies and the resulting loss of certain bus routes, the Fareham & Gosport Network of the Hampshire Primary Care Patient & Public Involvement Forum would like make an additional response to the Scrutiny Review: Transport in the Community.

The Network would like to comment on the apparent lack of effective communication between the environment department (who are, it seems, the instigators of these cuts) and the public, as demonstrated by the widespread dissatisfaction shown at the recent announcements. The only information given seems to be through the press, which has its own agenda of alarm and despondency, and is therefore likely to emphasise the worst possible aspect of every event. There seems to have been no attempt at an independent explanation of the County Council's decisions, say in the form of a document which could be sent out to enquirers, or as an item on the Council's website - nor have comments or suggestions been invited. Indeed, complete lists of the cuts seem to have appeared only on a newspaper's website.

As a result, the logic of some of the decisions is not apparent. For example, Councillor Mel Kendal is reported as saying "We've prioritised access to work, education and training, health and food shopping", but the subsidy to the bus linking Gosport with Haslar Hospital on Sundays has been cut, thus causing access problems to patients going to the Accident Treatment Centre there, as well as those visiting inpatient friends and family over the weekend. (We have written to Councillor Kendal on this point.)

All this, though it may seem irrelevant to your enquiry, has a bearing on the first question

in your Issues and Questions Paper. How may we comment on "the process for assessing community needs" when the process itself is so far from transparent, as exemplified by the latest announcement? Is there no way for the public to be given more information about how these decisions are reached - apart from being told in the press "the cuts are needed to free up £500,000"?

The County Council has many resources at its command to connect with the public, and is obviously keen to do so - for example, the new HATs initiative, and the developing Hantsdirect system, as well as its exisitng website and the publication Hampshire Now, which had a useful article in the summer issue about recent library reorganisation. We would strongly encourage those responsible for transport services to make more use of such facilities, preferably in the run-up to decisions, to keep the public better informed of policies which will deeply affect them.