Available in other formats on request.

Sense Scotland, 43 Middlesex Street, Glasgow G41 1EE

Tel: +44 (0) 141 429 0294 Fax: +44 (0) 141 429 0295 Text: +44 (0) 141 418 7170
www.sensescotland.org.uk info@sensescotland.org.uk
Registered as a company limited by guarantee in Scotland 147570 Registered Scottish Charity Number SC022097











Regulation of Bus Services Bill
Public Consultation Document

Iain Gray MSP
Response deadline: 30
th
August 2013

Sense Scotland Response Page 2 of 6 Date 28
th
August 2013
1. Introduction
1.1. Sense Scotland is a leader in the field of complex communication support
needs and promotes the use of innovative services for people who are often
marginalised when traditional models of support are used. We offer a range
of services for children, young people and adults whose communication
support needs result from a range of impairments including deafblindness;
sensory impairment; physical or learning disabilities. Our services are
designed to provide continuity across age groups and we work closely with
families and with colleagues from health, education, social work and housing.
1.2. Sense Scotland agrees that the contents of this response and our name and
address can be made available to the public. We are also content for this
response to be made available to other Scottish Parliament working groups
and committees.
GENERAL COMMENTS
It is helpful that these important proposals should be led by a member with strong
links to Edinburgh City Council and East Lothian. High satisfaction rates from the
wide cross-section of the public who use bus services in both Edinburgh and East
Lothian is testament to the need for a balanced, integrated approach to public
transport that has passenger interests as its core purpose. It is not just that fares are,
compared to other authorities cheaper, but other factors make for a well-run system
including:
Systems approach to timetabling.
Integrated transport system.
Integrated and constantly updated web and mobile apps.
Downloadable effective resources.
QR coding.
Accessible transport.
Courteous drivers.
In contrast to an effectively run truly public transport bus system operated by Lothian
Buses, a company that has remained in public ownership with the major shareholder
being The City of Edinburgh Council, other deregulated systems are often a costly
and frustrating experience for many members of the public.
A recent example is perhaps the changing of certain Glasgow bus numbers to fit with
an image to be portrayed for the Commonwealth Games. A lack of evident
consultation with the travelling public was but one of the experiences to combine with
truncated services, unprofitable routes being axed with minimal consultation, certain
times of the day being awash with buses while at other times few buses travel the
route and post-6pm means an effective curfew to any form of public transport travel.
As timetabling is done by the publicly funded Strathclyde Passenger Transport the
timetabling process then played catch-up to accommodate this decision.
The example of bus number changes was particularly difficult for disabled people
many of whom were unaware of the change a leaflet on a bus might mean
something to a sighted person but not to a blind person. Curfews and axing of
services means no access to community resources. While free bus travel for
disabled people is a welcome benefit it is not much use if there is no bus to use it on.

Sense Scotland Response Page 3 of 6 Date 28
th
August 2013
Sense Scotland therefore welcomes the aim of the proposed Bill to introduce a
clearer framework that is more responsive to local community needs. Our comments
relate largely to proposals that address the transport requirements of disabled
people.
A 2009 consultation on improving bus travel through regulation set out a vision
based on extending Quality Partnerships (introduced by the Transport (Scotland) Bill
2001. The experience since then has not been one of improved quality and as
partnership approaches have had time to settle in even before 2009, we would
welcome a new regulatory framework. We agree that in some parts of Scotland,
deregulation of bus transport has not met the public's hope for improved bus
services and operating standards. As Quality Partnerships have already had
sufficient time in which to be set up and result in positive change, and this has not
happened, we believe that further regulation is required. We therefore welcome the
Regulation of Bus Services Bill.
We have some concern that the regulatory framework introduced will only be as
good as the local authoritys partnership working. If neither the authority nor the
provider services consult effectively with their passengers as customers then
improvements will not result. Any regulatory framework must therefore build in robust
requirements for consultation.
As the local authority is a public body it will be subject to Disability Equality Duties
which include representation by disabled people when planning policies.
The Scottish Governments own Bus policy Overview of 2006 stated that ...there
are areas notably in the West of Scotland where the quality of service in the
evenings and on Sundays is restricted. In addition in parts of rural Scotland, bus
services are too thin to provide the services which people seek. The fact that the Bill
is being proposed would suggest the situation has worsened just as the lack of
funding for some schemes means their services are more restricted.
We therefore welcome the opportunity to improve bus services for the people of
Scotland.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate
yes/no/undecided and explain the reasons for your response.
Yes. Despite the 2001 Transport (Scotland) Act introducing statutory Quality
Partnerships, no QPs existed in 2009 when proposals were made to introduce a
regulatory framework rather than to leave to partnership building.
Given that the interim period has shown further and more rapid cuts in services and
timetabling we have some concern that the proposals will need to eschew the rather
optimistic toolkit approach envisaged in the 2001 Act.
Whichever process is put in place, it must ensure by mandate that there is greater
involvement of the communities which the transport schemes are designed to serve.
Accountability should be to passengers and customers and mechanisms should be
in place to ensure that these are fully taken account of.
Given that local authorities as public bodies have Public Sector Equality Duties
introduced by the Equality Act 2010 it will be essential that effective consultation
takes place within the forum that is concerned with improvement to bus services.

Sense Scotland Response Page 4 of 6 Date 28
th
August 2013
2. What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed?
What would be the disadvantages?
It will be essential that any local authority led franchising or other scheme is takes full
account of the need for community transport services. Representations made by
community transport to Scottish Government about their direct grants being passed
to local authorities to disburse to them, went unheeded. The result has been for
many community schemes a frustrating process of grant applications in response to
which decisions seem to be made on an ad hoc basis. Many of these schemes
provide an essential lifeline to disabled and elderly groups and no grant means
people being unable to get out of the house to access community living.
3. In what ways do you envisage reregulation being used to improve bus
services?
The model represented by City of Edinburgh / Lothian Buses is a good one. They
have a wider and more democratic base of travellers - all of the public then have an
interest in making it work. The elements mentioned in our General Comments would
be a useful starter.
4. How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communities
and particularly low passenger volume routes?
It is essential that there is a requirement to really engage with, and listen to the
community to ensure that there is an expectation that strong links will be made
between the authority and community transport.
We recommend discouraging micromanagement by local authorities of community
transport. People doing this work are volunteers who are doing their community a
service. They are run by committees that speak to their user group of travellers.
Overly defensive, administratively complex bureaucratic systems keep people busy
but it is important to ensure improved outcomes for travellers. Community transport
schemes are an essential part of the fabric of quality public transport systems.
Community transport should be passported into existing concessionary travel
arrangements. We have experience of some excellent and responsive community
transport initiatives which would do their best to implement concessionary travel if it
were available.
Many such schemes involve hard-working volunteers who are active in supporting
community based transport initiatives. Their recent experience is of increased
difficulties and uncertainty over funding following the Scottish Governments
introduction of Concordat arrangements. Many were set up after seeking but
receiving no support from their local authority. We would be concerned that a
framework devolved to local authorities would result in even less support for these
often fragile but essential community based schemes. Community transport
representatives should be assured of full participation and membership of any local
authority based systems.
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?
This would not be that helpful. Financial penalties will be passed on as increased
fares which result in increased transfer of the public purse to private shareholders,
rather than improvements in transport arrangements. The most effective form of
redress would be
a) to introduce a ban on applying for any additional routes for a time period and

Sense Scotland Response Page 5 of 6 Date 28
th
August 2013
b) to ensure the terms of the franchise include careful consideration of the many
aspects in which sharp practices could operate:
Over-supply at peak periods to gain market share
Artificial price reduction to capture market
Extremely low fares operated only for these to rise sharply when a small
competitor has gone bust.
Also included should be route and fare setting.
We have experience of some local authority procurement exercises, where
inadequate attention is paid to evaluation of the cost of sustainable services.
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?
Finance should be considered in the round not just as a cost. The opportunity costs
lost in not doing this include less access to quality of life and associated health costs,
costs of not being able to attend work in shift patterns because of artificial transport
inflicted curfews, isolation of communities most of which have low incidence car
ownership and so no alternative to public transport. Recent welfare reforms have
added to the difficulties caused by poor public transport.
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?
Yes. Also see General Comments and our Specific Comments to Questions 1 and 8.
Sense Scotland operates a range of support services in several areas of Scotland,
rural and urban. In most cases the same problems come up and it would be helpful if
the Bill would address these consistency in accessibility of bus transport; reliability
and flexibility of timetables; consistency of policy on reduced fares for companion
travel so that cross-boundary travel can be planned; strategic planning to ensure
journeys can be predicted, planned and completed.
One less appreciated consequence of the far-reaching changes being made to
Welfare and Benefits is that many people on lower level Disability Living Allowance
will be one of the many groups that will lose out. It would be helpful if the bill helped
to identify particularly vulnerable groups who are likely to be adversely affected by
current changes under Welfare Reform. Many people with learning disability,
communication support needs or physical impairment, for whom travel is difficult and
for some unaffordable, receive DLA at the lower rate and should be included in the
concessionary travel scheme. For many years, people in this situation had enjoyed
such a concession under local rules and would benefit from its reinstatement.
8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need
for or detail of this Bill?
It is disappointing that the proposals do not explicitly advance the needs of disabled
people. We have concerns that any assumption that the Disability Discrimination Act
would deal with these without specific measures to spell out how, will lead to little or
no improvement for disabled people. Certainly an Equality Impact Assessment would
need to be considered. However, it would be helpful to include elements that the Bill
would intend to address. For example:

Sense Scotland Response Page 6 of 6 Date 28
th
August 2013

It will be important to ensure that, whichever process is put in place, greater
involvement of the communities which the transport schemes are designed to serve
should be a basic requirement, together with evidencing how this is done.
Accountability should be to passengers and customers and mechanisms should be
in place to ensure that their views are central to design and implementation of
services.
Discussions on equality should give careful consideration to ensuring that all buses
are accessibly by 2017. While this may seem ambitious it is important to recognise
the longstanding commitment involved:
Arrangements for full implementation of accessible buses by 2017 were
reiterated in the Disability Discrimination Act of 2006.
However, the legislative framework had been in place far longer. Part 5, the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 first set out requirements for buses and
other forms of land transport, with all new fleet to be accessible from 2002.
Other measures followed with the end point of 2017 repeatedly stated in
subsequent regulations. The year 2017 is therefore more than reasonable and
no further delay should be considered.
An introduction before 2017 would be helpful although we doubt that this will be
possible because timescale are already established through regulations.
The Bill represents an excellent opportunity to address an area of concern for
disabled passengers service delays and overruns, and lack of predictability
regarding bus design (can a disabled person reach their destination, only to find they
cant use the same bus type to get back home). These can also be an inconvenience
to non-disabled people. Their impact on disabled passengers can result not only in
journeys being terminated at significant cost to the individual but also in loss of
confidence in public transport as a viable option for future journeys.
An integrated transport strategy seems a long way off for many parts of Scotland but
is vital. For example, a new timetable introduced in Dumfries & Galloway, South
West Scotland in December 2008, actually worsened the situation, with many
connections missed and planning seemingly noticeable by its absence. Given that
the local authority was actively involved in securing the changed timetable, we are
not convinced that this supports the argument for regulation being managed by local
authorities. Full consultation and accountability to passengers and potential
passengers would help to ensure better integration.
Signed



Dr Stuart Aitken, Senior Consultant, Sense Scotland
Date 28
th
August 2013
Any enquiries to:
Megan Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs
mwilson@sensescotland.org.uk