(30 Dec 2019, 6:54 pm)streetdeckfan wrote This isn't meant to be dig at you personally, but I don't see how you can think all fare paying services would be included, but not fares paid off-bus.
At the end of the day, money is changing hands for that service to be run, it doesn't matter when or where that money was paid, or who paid it. 

This is the issue with the way our government/legal system works. They prefer to leave things up to interpretation rather than setting things in stone, which in some cases is very helpful as not every situation is the same, but in this case has caused a plethora of issues

It could be cast in bronze never mind set in stone, and you'd still get someone trying to find a loophole in it. The DfT guidance could have been clearer from the start, but there has still been a lot of trying to find that loophole. The regulations would have had to come in at some point. It could have been 2030 and you'd still have people unhappy with it, that they're not ready, etc.

Some coach operators invest massively in their fleets, but still won't be able to operate the full demands of the school contracts they have. Others invest very little and won't be able to at all. In my opinion, a lot of this has been down to the way Public Sector procurement works, and that it is based on the most economically advantageous tender. I haven't seen many (if any!) local authorities making wheelchair accessible vehicles a requirement in their schools contracts. There's also the short (single academic year) length of contracts that some local authorities are using, which doesn't give a business any security to invest in their fleet. Especially if such a high percentage of their business is this type of work. Ultimately it has created a race for the bottom; a low frills service for bottom dollar. 

I'm pleased a short extension has been agreed, to avoid us nose-diving off a cliff. There needs to be some sensible discussions now, including around tendering, so that these important school services can continue.