Proposed Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill

Consultation response by Dr Janet Moxley, Stand Up for Our Buses campaign co-ordinator
The Stand Up for Our Buses campaign which started in June 2013 in response to the threat of cuts to
the 100 series Edinburgh to Dumfries routes, and has expanded to include other routes in and
around Clydesdale, although the 100 series has been the focus of the campaign. The campaign has a
mailing list of around 150, about 270 Facebook followers and got over 400 signatures on a petition
to maintain service on the 100 series routes.
Most routes in rural Clydesdale receive local authority subsidy as they are essential but not
commercially viable. The subsidy contracts impose a degree of regulation similar to that proposed by
the bill.
The recent history of the 100 series contract has been complex and raises some important issues
about the current role and powers of transport authorities and the Traffic Commissioner for
Scotland.
A five year contract for the route ended on 15/7/12. This contract was let to MacEwans Coach
Services of Dumfries. A tender for a replacement five year contract was put out in Dec 2011, the bid
received exceeded the available budget by 55%.
To allow time for retendering and consultation a 6 month temporary contract for MacEwans to
continue the route had been put in place.
At 15:00 on Friday 23/11/12 SPT circulated an email informing the public that the subsidy was to be
removed from MacEwans and given to Stagecoach Western Buses with effect from Monday
26/11/12 to run until 30/3/13. The sudden announcement of the change of operator, at the very
end of the week when SPT staff were leaving for the weekend caused considerable concern, with the
public unable to contact SPT to establish what the fares and timetable would be, and drivers not
knowing whether they would have a job on Monday morning.

Once Stagecoach took over the route there was chaos as drivers were unfamiliar with the route and
therefore missed stops and got lost; vehicles were used which were too small and left passengers
stranded on sub-zero conditions; and there were frequent breakdowns. Shortly after taking over the
route Stagecoach increased return fares by 25 30 %.

At the end of March 2014, without any tender having been advertised, and despite the issues with
their performance which SPT had been made aware of Stagecoachs contract was extended until
16/8/13
As a result of concerns raised by passengers, SPT, Stand Up for Our Buses and local MSPs the Traffic
Commissioner held Public Inquiry performance on the route which started on 17/4/13. A couple of
hours into the Inquiry SPTs witness was suddenly taken ill. As a result the Traffic Commissioner
adjourned hearing SPTs evidence until 24/6/13.
At the resumed Inquiry witness was accompanied by a solicitor for SPT, and SPTs CEO was also in
attendance in the public gallery. Following a morning of refusing to answer most of the questions
put to them SPT returned after the lunch break and stated that they did not intend to answer any
further questions. The Traffic Commissioner requested that they stayed to listen to the remaining
evidence but all SPT personnel including the CEO walked out of the Inquiry in a manner which was
disrespectful to both the Traffic Commissioner and the travelling public.

A new five year contract, now managed by SWESTRANS will finally take effect from 11/8/13.

1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate yes/no/undecided and
explain the reasons for your response.
Yes. Except on a few popular routes there is no real competition, so there no price benefit to
passengers from deregulation.

The problems caused by deregulation vary between urban and rural areas. In urban areas it has led
to over provision on some routes and congestion and air quality issues as a result. On less popular
routes it has led to cherry picking with operators dropping less profitable parts of routes.
In rural areas routes are less profitable and more likely to be subsidised. The subsidy contracts
regulate many of the things which this bill proposes to regulate e.g timetable, fares and reliability
and it is less clear whether the proposed Bill will bring any improvements to services.
2. What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What would be the
disadvantages?
Advantages
i) Avoidance of confusion on routes or parts of routes which are profitable where currently
there are different operators running different timetables with different fares. It would also
avoid the confusion which seems to be prevalent in some areas (especially Glasgow) where
there are variant versions of the same route number (although this could be address by the
Traffic Commissioner insisting that variant routes had different numbers when the routes
were registered).
ii) Ability to direct bus provision where it is most needed.
iii) A franchise system might bring in income from payments for profitable franchises.
Disadvantages
i) There would still be little incentive to run unprofitable routes in rural areas where most
routes are not commercially viable, so it would be difficult to arrange packages in a way
which made them attractive to bid for. Meaningful improvements in rural bus services need
proper funding.
ii) In Stand Up for Our Buses experience the transport authority (SPT) rather than the operators
themselves have been the main cause of sudden and disruptive changes of operators. By
suddenly removing subsidy from a well respected local operator without having had
recourse to the Traffic Commissioner or allowing the operator to appeal against alleged
failings SPT precipitated a situation where a short notice change of operator to one
unfamiliar with the route caused considerable disruption for passengers.
iii) The Bill would involve some increased bureaucracy, but this would be offset by income from
sale of franchises.
iv) The cost of paying for franchises might be reflected in increased fares
3. In what ways do you envisage reregulation being used to improve bus services?
Better coverage of less popular routes, and off peak hours. More control over fares. Income from
franchises used to improve infrastructure. Reduced congestion in city centres.
4. How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communities and particularly low
passenger volume routes?
Rural Dial a Bus services must serve all of the rural area. Parts of Clydesdale have been deemed too
rural by SPT for the My Bus Rural service to operate in them. This leaves them completely
inaccessible to non-car drivers.
There could be more scope for shared use of school bus services and possibly patient transport
services. Ideally I would like to see all publically owned vehicles in rural areas with spare seats
displaying destination boards (this would include all vehicles owned by councils, non-departmental
public bodies, Scottish Water, and Royal Mail (assuming that Scotland becomes independent and it is
not privatised!). There may be some barriers to this around things like disclosure, insurance and
Traffic Commissioner registration, but they do not seem insurmountable. This might seem a radical
approach, but if we are serious about tackling climate change, travel poverty and rural isolation
they are essential. Post Bus services seem to have declined to more or less nil, for reasons which are
not clear, but possibly include preparation for privatisation.
5. Do you agree that the Traffic Commissioner should be able to impose greater financial penalties
on operators who a) fail to meet the terms of the franchise or b) walk away from the franchise
altogether?
Up to a point, although measures such as restricting the number of operator discs or withdrawing
permission to operate routes may be sanctions which focus operators attention more than a cash
fine (although this does re-coup some of the costs involved). Operators should not be penalised if
they walk away from franchises for reasons beyond their control e.g withdrawal of subsidy.
Franchises must be realistic e.g not specify unachievable journey times and assessment of failures
must take account of unavoidable situations e.g road closures and adverse weather.
6. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your
organisation? What other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
None for my organisation. Financial implications would be
i) Increased public income via franchises. This could offset cost of managing franchises and possibly
be used to subsidise non-commercial routes and to provide facilities for bus users such as better
stops, real time information (I would generally favour phone apps over bus stop displays on cost
grounds, although phone coverage could be an issue in some rural areas).
ii) Increased public cost of managing franchises.
iii) Potential for cost of biding for franchises to be reflected in fares.
7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality?
If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
Better bus provision is likely to particularly benefit young people, elderly people and people with
disabilities which prevent them from driving.
No negative implications.
8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need for or detail of this
Bill?
i) It is essential that franchises are allocated in a way which allows smaller operators to bid for
them. These operators often have a better knowledge of local needs. In addition as they are
local businesses they tend to return more of their profit to local economies rather than to
remote shareholders. This is particularly important in rural areas. Franchises should be designed
to ensure that bids from SMEs are encouraged and considered favourably.
ii) The Bill does not address the governance of transport authorities. This may be less of an issue
when the transport authority is only answerable to one local authority (or a fairly small
number), but the governance of SPT where 12 local authorities are involved is much less
effective as no individual authority is able to exert much influence on it. Most seem more
interested in fighting the corner for better services in their particular area than in looking at the
overall performance of the organisation. SPT is a fossil of Strathclyde Region, a local
government structure which has now been defunct for nearly two decades. It is covers too big
an area to properly understand local needs and is overly focussed on Glasgow. Its staff appear
to have a poor understanding of rural transport needs e.g they seem convinced that everyone
in rural areas has a car. This is patently untrue. Many who do own cars, especially those with
bus passes would prefer not to have to use them. The assumption that rural residents all own
cars so dont need buses becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Transport Authorities should cover
a small enough area that staff can reasonably be expected to have a good familiarity with the
local geography and an understanding of where people need to travel and why. SPT does not
appear to have this understanding outwith Glasgow.
iii) In view of my experience of dealing with SPT who have displayed utterly an arrogant and
inconsiderate attitude to the travelling public I would strongly oppose the regulatory function
being carried out by the transport authorities. SPT have refused to engage with passenger
groups such as Stand Up for Our Buses, refused to consult the public directly on options for
change on routes, and displayed complete contempt for the Traffic Commissioner. I do not feel
that it has the integrity or competence to carry out a regulatory function. Transport Authorities
should advise on local transport requirements, and might be able to manage the franchising
process, but I have reservations about that given issues with the management of the 100 series
contract, which I am in the process of bringing to the attention of Audit Scotland and the Public
Sector Ombudsman. Deciding whether an operator has failed to meet requirements and what
should be done about it should be a function of the Traffic Commissioner who has appropriate
legal training to be able to properly and impartially investigate these matters. Giving regulatory
powers to Transport Authorities would undermine the authority of the Traffic Commissioner.
iv) The Traffic Commissioner for Scotland should be given the power to regulate and investigate
transport authorities, as is the case for Traffic Commissioners in England.
v) The Traffic Commissioner for Scotland should be given the power to compel witnesses at Public
Inquiry.
vi) Criteria for defining essential routes are needed. At present SPT admit that they have no current
criteria, and essential routes are designated arbitrarily.
vii) There is a need for public funding for buses to be streamlined. At present funding is via local
authority subsidy for essential routes; mileage subsidy from Scottish Government paid for all
journeys (whether or not more provision is needed on a particular route); and Bus Pass re-
imbursement from Scottish Government. The combination of local authority and government
funding enables funders to blame each other for short falls in funding. There is a need for much
greater funding for buses overall if a high quality bus network is to be provided. It may be that
this is only required in the short term as a pump priming measure, as bus usage would increase
as standards increased which should allow funding to be reduced again in the longer term. The
situation where the fund to reimburse operators for bus pass journeys routinely runs out at a
random point before the end of the financial year is unacceptable and has contributed to some
operators going bankrupt and having to walk away from routes.
viii) There should be greater incentives for low emission buses.
ix) There should be greater consideration of integrating bus and train travel. At present many
operators see trains as rivals and are not keen on running connections to them.
x) There should be a greater requirement for longer distance services to carry bikes. If there is no
suitable luggage compartment there should be incentives for operators to fit bike racks.
xi) Bus provision in rural areas should not only consider the needs to people living in those areas,
but should also consider the needs to urban dwellers wanting to visit rural areas for tourism or
recreation. These activities can be important sources of income for rural economies, and
allowing non-car owning city dwellers to access rural areas for recreation could improve
physical and mental health.