Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill

CONSULTATION RESPONSE
NAME Gary Moyes
Please indicate whethe !ou es"onding as an indi#idual $e$%e o& the
"u%lic o on %ehal& o& an oganisation'
On behalf of an organisation
I& !ou ae es"onding on %ehal& o& an oganisation "lease gi#e details
%elow()
Na$e o& oganisation Fife Council
*ou Title Lead Officer (Network Planning & Inforation!
Addess "rans#ortation & $n%ironental &er%ices
Fife Council
'ankhead Central
'ankhead Park
Glenrothes
()* +G,
Tele"hone nu$%e -./01 00 00 00 e2t3 // // 45
E Mail addess gary3oyes6fife3go%3uk
Consultation $ethod 7##ro%ed by Fife Council8s $2ecuti%e Coittee (4- 7ugust 4-19!
+, -o !ou su""ot the geneal ai$ o& the "o"osed Bill' Please indicate
.!es/no/undecided0 and e1"lain the easons &o !ou es"onse,
)es3
Paragra#h 1 states: My proposed Bill aims to give transport authorities greater control over
bus services in their area by enabling authorities to regulate how they are delivered. 7s a
general ai: we would welcoe the ability to ha%e ore control o%er the bus ser%ices
o#erating in our area3 ;e do su##ort ore control for Local 7uthorities and the "raffic
Coissioner to ensure ser%ices are o#erated that suit counities8 needs3
"he 'ill entions the legislati%e setu# in London but sto#s short of recreating this in &cotland3
;e would therefore ask that further inforation is #ro%ided on how the #ro#osed franchising
differs fro the London franchising in order that we ha%e a clearer understanding of the
#owers a Local 7uthority would ha%e and how they could be used effecti%ely3 ;e would
welcoe ore detail on the #ro#osals and would ask that further engageent with Local
7uthorities: through the Association of Transport Co-ordinating ffers !ATC"# takes #lace3
2, 3hat would %e the $ain "actical ad#antages o& the legislation "o"osed' 3hat would
%e the disad#antages'
Main Advantage
"he ain ad%antage of the 'ill is the Minimum $evel of %ervice #ro#osal (&'ull (ay)
%ervices". 7s a eans of trying to address the <Monday to &aturday: .a=+#8 culture: which
#re%ails in any bus co#anies as the <#rofitable hours:8 consideration should be gi%en to
ensure that: if a co#any wants to run a daytie ser%ice on any chosen day then they ust
also run a (reduced! e%ening ser%ice3 "his could be on a 40> basis i3e3 if they run a 10
inute daytie fre?uency on a route then the e%ening ser%ice has to be a iniu of hourly@
9- inutes daytieA4 hourly e%ening and so on3 Councils could still enhance these e%ening
fre?uencies but ho#efully at a reduced cost fro what is #aid Bust now3 &undays could be
siilarly calculated3 "he 40> figure is si#ly an e2a#le: as a fine balance has to be struck
on what is %iable and what would lead a co#any to decide to withdraw daytie ser%ices
because the e%ening ser%ice would cost too uch3
Ce%elo#ing the abo%e idea further: there could be national iniu standards of bus ser%ice
#ro%ision established rather than the abo%e local iniu standard3 Dsing a %ariety of
#o#ulation: de#ri%ation: accessibility and urbanArural indicators: iniu fre?uencies could
be defined for e%ery #art of &cotland3 $ach urban and rural area can already be Eoned using
accessibility software to take account of these indicators3 For e2a#le: anyone running a bus
ser%ice within a city would ha%e to run defined iniu fre?uencies on daytie: e%enings
and &undays: whether Glasgow: Cundee or In%erness3 If the routes ser%ed areas of ulti#le
de#ri%ation: the fre?uencies would ha%e to be higher3 Fural %illages would ha%e a
safeguarded iniu ser%ice le%el to the nearest e#loyentAsho##ingAhealth facilities etc3
"hus: legislation would enshrine that siilar areas across &cotland ust ha%e the sae
iniu ser%ice le%el3
$%en if no other #art of this 'ill is taken forward: we would urge that at least the abo%e
#ro#osal is #rooted as an aendent to the "rans#ort (&cotland! 7ct 4--13
Main (isadvantages
;e see two ain disad%antages with the #ro#osals G funding and the o#tional nature of
the3
'unding
"he current legislati%e fraework has changed %ery little since the 15.0 "rans#ort 7ct
deregulated bus ser%ice #ro%ision3 'us co#anies recei%e incoe fro fares: Local 7uthority
contracts: 'us &er%ice O#erators Grant and the Concessionary Fares &chee3 If the 'ill
forces o#erators to run soe <un#rofitable8 Bourneys: what will be the resultH In order to
aintain their #rofit argins: fares could increase@ arginal: daytie routes could be
withdrawn or re?uests will be ade for additional funding3 It is not clear fro the 'ill #ro#osal
how #rofitableAun#rofitable routes will be defined o%er tie and how funding will be
addressed3
"he 15.0 7ct created the current conditions and is: ultiately: a financial e2ercise for both
bus co#anies and 7uthorities: rather than any serious atte#t to #ro%ide a ?uality bus
network3 7lthough an e2tree co#arison: #lanning bus ser%ices in this way is not dissiilar
to the %iews Cr 'eeching e2#ressed towards the railways in the 15+-s3 ;hilst it is true that
there are soe #rofitable routes: Go%ernent and society ust look beyond #ure #rofit and
loss if it e2#ects a good: fre?uent: affordable at #oint of use: accessible: stable: reliable #ublic
trans#ort network3 &oe kind of subsidy will always be re?uired but this should not be %iewed
in ters of waste or loss3 ;hat are the other benefits to society fro this subsidyH Feduced
congestion: reduced car ownershi#: reduced en%ironental #ollution: increased social
interaction: increased social inclusion and rural sustainability are but a few3 Local 7uthorities
and the &cottish Go%ernent will need work together for a better funding echanis if we
are to achie%e the ty#e of bus network we all wish to see3
ptional *egulation
"he 'ill #ro#osal is for <o#tional regulation38 Paragra#h 1 clearly states that this would be
enabling legislation for Local 7uthorities and not a andatory: nationwide change in the law
co%ering the whole of &cotland3 Paragra#h + continues this idea I +at the discretion of the
transport authority+ and Paragra#h 50 says: +to empower transport authorities to
consider+ "hus: no atter what is #ro#osed in the 'ill: it will be o#tional for Local
7uthorities and herein lies the sae #roble that the 'ill outlines with Juality Partnershi#s
(JPs! or Juality Contracts (JCs!3 It is not e%en clear fro the #ro#osals if a Local 7uthority
will ha%e control o%er e%ery ser%ice in its area G both coercial and subsidised3
Paragra#h 4 states that #owers would be #ro%ided to: %et a minimum level of service within
the franchise# agreed with the operator. ,owe%er: Paragra#h 41 contradicts this by stating
the 7uthorities would ha%e# +greater power to compel operators to provide a minimum
service level. Paragra#h 44 additionally states: Agreements could cover routes+. "he
Local 7uthority ust ha%e a clearly defined role and #owers for setting routes and tietables3
7 re?uireent to negotiate with bus co#anies will not create the o#tiu network to ser%e
counities as bus co#anies will ?uite rightly want to ensure the best financial #osition for
thesel%es3 In any case: negotiationAagreeent does not fit easily with #rocureent rules on
tendering3 'us co#anies will ha%e to bid for a franchise based on clearly defined
routesAtietablesAfaresA%ehicles3 "hey ha%e to know in ad%ance what they are bidding for3
"here can be no abiguity as co#anies are #ricing for soething s#ecific3
Pri%ate bus co#anies will seek to take ad%antage of a situation if: firstly: not all Local
7uthorities ha%e toAwant to i#leent the o#tional regulation #ro#osed and: secondly: where
agreeent has to be reached on what Bourneys ha%e to be o#erated3 "his is no different than
the bureaucracy and confrontation e2#erienced in i#leenting JCs and JPs3
)our consultation docuent highlights #robles throughout &cotland3 "here should therefore
be #arliaentary legislation a##lying to the whole of &cotland and not si#ly enabling
legislation for indi%idual Councils to take forward as they see fit or as they can afford3
It would be better to introduce legislation that was andatory: across the whole of &cotland3
4, In what wa!s do !ou en#isage eegulation %eing used to i$"o#e %us se#ices'
"he bundling of #rofitable and un#rofitable routes is an interesting conce#t but we would like
clarification on how this would work in #ractice3 "he 'ill does not #ro#ose i#leenting the
London legislation so we would ask for ore detail on how the #ro#osed <alternati%e
franchising8 would work3 'undling of #rofitable and un#rofitable routes is a #ositi%e ste# but
we would argue that it isn8t actually necessary if the Minimum $evel of %ervice,-ational
Minimum %tandards #ro#osals (entioned in 4: abo%e! are i#leented3
"he bundling #ro#osal leads to the ?uestion of what is #rofitableAun#rofitable and how this
changes o%er tie3 7t #resent: #rofitable K coercial and non=#rofitable K subsidised:
which ay work as a starting #oint: but how can this be reassessed a few years down the
lineH 7dditionally: different bus co#anies ha%e different o#erating argins so what ay be
un#rofitable for one co#any ay be #rofitable for another3 ;e belie%e this issue needs to be
addressed ore fully3
Paragra#h / states: The Bill would not be limited to the powers in paragraph 2
above, but would provide scope for transport authorities to run services how they
see ft. We would again ask for more detail on what exactly is proposed here.
Although not implicit, we infer that the Local Authority could have total control
over how all services (including commercial routes) are operated. Fife ouncil
would like to use such powers to de!ne routes and timeta"les for the "ene!t of
our residents. Whilst we have total control over our su"sidised routes, we cannot
in#uence commercial routes or timeta"les. $n essence, commercial "us operators
plan their own commercial network, in competition with other operators. Local
Authorities are expected to %!ll the gaps& at unpro!ta"le times or in unpro!ta"le
areas. We would like powers to coordinate the entire network ' including
commercial routes ( to ensure routes and times suit the needs of communities.
"his would be regulation3
5, How can community transport be better utilised to serve local
communities and particularly low passenger volume routes?
Firstly, many community transport operators operate under a %)ection *+& licence
(see Transport Act 1!"), which for"ids operating local "us services. A lass ,
)*+ licence does permit operation of a %"us service& for residents of a speci!c
community "ut the general pu"lic cannot use the service. $t is, in e-ect, a %closed&
service. .emoval of this restriction may encourage some kind of "us provision in
low volume areas "ut we would "e concerned over the /uality and suita"ility of
vehicles, especially as we head towards the implementation of the #$%
Accessibility &egulations 2'''. 0any community transport vehicles in this
category are standard mini"uses, not suited for step(free or wheelchair access. $f
)*+ legislation was amended to permit operation of local "us services, the 1ra2c
ommissioner should have a role in ensuring vehicle, maintenance and premises
standards are similar to those re/uired for %)ection 33& licence holders. A )33
licence does o-er the a"ility to operate registered local "us services.
1he di2culty for "oth )*+ 4 )33 licence holders is the %not for pro!t& clause
attached to "oth such licences. With a )33 licence, it is possi"le to tender for
Local Authority "us contracts "ut no pro!t is permitted. 1he operator must
therefore go through a complicated exercise to prove that they are not pro!ting
from the contract, which can "e a disincentive to many. 1o encourage )33 licence
holders to "id for Local Authority contracts, legislation could "e changed to permit
some level of pro!t for the operator&s organisation.
$f the a"ove proposals are taken together, it may "e prefera"le to merge )*+ 4
)33 licence legislation to create one single licence type.
Fundaentally: though: it ust be reebered that &15 & &44 o#erators e2ist at #resent to
#ro%ide ser%ices for s#ecific counity needs3 Few are interested in tendering for Local
7uthority contracts because it reduces their freedo to o#erate the counity ser%ices
which they were set u# to o#erate3 If &15 & &44 o#erators are to be encouraged: through
legislati%e changes: to run local bus ser%ices: it ay ha%e an ad%erse effect on the
counity ser%ices that they currently o#erate3 In addition: if they are now to be %iewed as
#ro%iders of local bus ser%ices: they should not be e2e#t fro any franchisingAroute
bundlingAiniu le%el of ser%ice legislation #roduced as a result of this 'ill3
;here Local 7uthorities ha%e fleets o#erated under &15 legislation: these are usually used to
#ro%ide Cial=a=FideAFing & Fide ty#e ser%ices for those with #ersonal obility difficulties3 Our
abo%e suggestions relate to #ri%ate &15A&44 o#erators but #erha#s the si#lest way to
#ro%ide soe bus ser%ices at non=#rofitable ties would be to allow a Local 7uthority=only
e2e#tion to allow use of e2isting Council %ehicles for the secondary #ur#ose of #ro%iding
local bus ser%ices3 "his could certainly reduce the costs of e%eningA&unday #ro%ision3 "he
%ehicles would still ha%e to be #urchased for their #riary #ur#ose but a legislation change
would #erit their use on any <downtie8 G often e%enings and weekends3 "his would work in
a siilar way as &ection /+ of the .ublic .assenger /ehicles Act 0120: which allows
7uthorities to buy and o#erate school buses but use the to #ro%ide local ser%ices outwith
school ties3
6, -o !ou agee that the Ta&&ic Co$$issione should %e a%le to i$"ose geate &inancial
"enalties on o"eatos who a) &ail to $eet the te$s o& the &anchise o %) wal7 awa!
&o$ the &anchise altogethe'
7 clear set of guidelines would need to be established for the circustances where a Local
7uthority could refer a failed franchisee to the "raffic Coissioner3 ;e ha%e no strong %iew
on whether the resultant #enalty should be financial or whether it could in%ol%e a
reductionAre%ocation of licences3 It should at least in%ol%e a ban on bidding for future
franchises for a #eriod of tie: #erha#s &cotland=wide as o##osed to within the 7uthority area
of the original default3
8, 3hat is !ou assess$ent o& the li7el! &inancial i$"lications o& the "o"osed Bill to !ou
o !ou oganisation' 3hat othe signi&icant &inancial i$"lications ae li7el! to aise'
5aragraphs **(*6 mention the di2culties faced "y Local Authorities in the current
!nancial climate and so we must not end up with an improvement that will cost
more unless there is some additional income stream.
Paragra#h 15 states I At present, authorities hand over cash to operators to run
unproftable services but with little say in how they are run. 1his is not the case
as Local Authorities specify the route7timeta"le7fares7vehicles for su"sidised
routes and put them out to tender. 1he winning tenderer is "ound to operate the
service as per speci!cation and onditions of ontract. 1he Local Authority has
*889 control of the su"sidised service it pays for.
;e ha%e already asked for further details on how the <route bundling8 #ro#osal would work (in
our res#onse to Juestion 9! in relation to #rofitableAnon=#rofitable routes o%er tie3 'us
o#erators will not gi%e out o#erating cost inforation readily3 7 financial odel needs to be
introduced to be clear to both 7uthorities and bus o#erators how #rofitableAnon=#rofitable will
be defined o%er tie3
;e ha%e suggested ha%ing <network control8 in our res#onse to Juestion 93 "his would not be
without additional cost for either the Local 7uthority or bus o#erator3 ,owe%er: the 'ill
recognises that there is: +appetite for change in the industry and better bus
services, not only e(hibited by e(isting passengers, but also by many )een to see
resurgence in services and encourage people out of their cars and on to public
transport.
"he 'ill states that London: +arguably en3oys the best bus service in the 45 and so the
?uestion needs to be asked as to how &cotland can achie%e the sae3
Local Authorities could "e handed the role of network design to suit the needs of
their communities and, in the case of cross("oundary routes, neigh"ouring
communities in con:unction with neigh"ouring Authorities. .outes7areas could "e
franchised on an exclusive "asis. 1his would do away with needless on(street
competition7duplication and a relia"le, sta"le, integrated network could "e
achieved. 1his is essentially the same legislative setup as in London. We cannot
o-er a funding solution to this proposal and recognise it will re/uire more funding
"ut it is one that Local Authorities and the )cottish ;overnment need to work
together on, taking into account current levels of "us su"sidies paid "y
Authorities and the levels of su"sidy7reim"ursement paid "y the ;overnment for
the oncessionary 1ravel )cheme and <us )ervice =perators ;rant.
9, Is the "o"osed Bill li7el! to ha#e an! su%stantial "ositi#e o negati#e i$"lications &o
e:ualit!' I& it is li7el! to ha#e a su%stantial negati#e i$"lication; how $ight this %e
$ini$ised o a#oided'
;e don8t belie%e the 'ill will ha%e any effect on e?uality: in ters of the #rotected
characteristics defined in the $?ualities 7ct 4-1-3 ,owe%er: we belie%e there would be a
general i#ro%eent in ser%ice #ro%ision for those li%ing in rural areas if a iniu le%el of
ser%ice was defined3
<, -o !ou ha#e an! othe co$$ent o suggestion that is ele#ant to the need &o o detail
o& this Bill'
;e su##ort the general ais of this 'ill but ask that further work is done G in conBunction with
the Association of Transport Co-ordinating ffers !ATC" - to fine tune the detail and fully
understand the i#lications for bus co#anies: Local 7uthorities and the &cottish
Go%ernent3
;e belie%e that aintaining the status ?uo is not an o#tion3 ;e would su##ort a o%e
towards full control of ser%ices using franchising but concede that both Local and &cottish
Go%ernent would need to work together on a #ro#er funding echanis to achie%e such a
?uality network3 Failing that: it would still be beneficial to #ursue the Minimum $evel of
%ervice or -ational Minimum %ervice %tandards #ro#osals# outlined in our res#onse to
Juestion 43