21 Sense Scotland

8/10/2019 21 Sense Scotland

1/6

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 [email protected]

Registered as a company limited by guarantee in Scotland 147570 Registered Scottish Charity Number SC022097

Regulation of Bus Services Bill

Public Consultation DocumentIain Gray MSPResponse deadline: 30thAugust 2013


2/6

Sense Scotland Response Page 2 of 6 Date 28thAugust 2013

1. Introduction

1.1. Sense Scotland is a leader in the field of complex communication supportneeds and promotes the use of innovative services for people who are oftenmarginalised when traditional models of support are used. We offer a rangeof services for children, young people and adults whose communicationsupport needs result from a range of impairments including deafblindness;

sensory impairment; physical or learning disabilities. Our services aredesigned to provide continuity across age groups and we work closely withfamilies and with colleagues from health, education, social work and housing.

1.2. Sense Scotland agrees that the contents of this response and our name andaddress can be made available to the public. We are also content for thisresponse to be made available to other Scottish Parliament working groupsand committees.

GENERAL COMMENTS

It is helpful that these important proposals should be led by a member with stronglinks to Edinburgh City Council and East Lothian. High satisfaction rates from thewide cross-section of the public who use bus services in both Edinburgh and EastLothian is testament to the need for a balanced, integrated approach to publictransport 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 systemincluding:

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 LothianBuses, a company that has remained in public ownership with the major shareholderbeing The City of Edinburgh Council, other deregulated systems are often a costlyand frustrating experience for many members of the public.

A recent example is perhaps the changing of certain Glasgow bus numbers to fit withan image to be portrayed for the Commonwealth Games. A lack of evidentconsultation with the travelling public was but one of the experiences to combine withtruncated services, unprofitable routes being axed with minimal consultation, certaintimes of the day being awash with buses while at other times few buses travel theroute 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 thetimetabling process then played catch-up to accommodate this decision.

The example of bus number changes was particularly difficult for disabled peoplemany of whom were unaware of the changea leaflet on a bus might meansomething to a sighted person but not to a blind person. Curfews and axing ofservices means no access to community resources. While free bus travel fordisabled people is a welcome benefit it is not much use if there is no bus to use it on.


3/6


Sense Scotland therefore welcomes the aim of the proposed Bill to introduce aclearer framework that is more responsive to local community needs. Our commentsrelate largely to proposals that address the transport requirements of disabledpeople.

A 2009 consultation on improving bus travel through regulation set out a visionbased on extending Quality Partnerships (introduced by the Transport (Scotland) Bill2001. 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 wouldwelcome 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 busservices and operating standards. As Quality Partnerships have already hadsufficient time in which to be set up and result in positive change, and this has nothappened, we believe that further regulation is required. We therefore welcome theRegulation of Bus Services Bill.

We have some concern that the regulatory framework introduced will only be asgood as the local authoritys partnership working. If neither the authority nor theprovider services consult effectively with their passengers as customers thenimprovements will not result. Any regulatory framework must therefore build in robustrequirements for consultation.

As the local authority is a public body it will be subject to Disability Equality Dutieswhich include representation by disabled people when planning policies.

The Scottish Governmentsown Bus policy Overview of 2006 stated that ...thereare areasnotably in the West of Scotlandwhere the quality of service in theevenings and on Sundays is restricted. In addition in parts of rural Scotland, busservices are too thin to provide the services which people seek. The fact that the Billis being proposed would suggest the situation has worsened just as the lack offunding for some schemes means their services are more restricted.

We therefore welcome the opportunity to improve bus services for the people ofScotland.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicateyes/no/undecided and explainthe reasons for your response.

Yes. Despite the 2001 Transport (Scotland) Act introducing statutory QualityPartnerships, 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 andtimetabling we have some concern that the proposals will need to eschew the ratheroptimistic toolkit approach envisaged in the 2001 Act.

Whichever process is put in place, it must ensure by mandate that there is greaterinvolvement of the communities which the transport schemes are designed to serve.Accountability should be to passengers and customers and mechanisms should bein 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 consultationtakes place within the forum that is concerned with improvement to bus services.


4/6


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 fullaccount of the need for community transport services. Representations made bycommunity transport to Scottish Government about their direct grants being passedto local authorities to disburse to them, went unheeded. The result has been formany 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 schemesprovide an essential lifeline to disabled and elderly groups and no grant meanspeople being unable to get out of the house to access community living.

3. In what ways do you envisage reregulation being used to improve busservices?

The model represented by City of Edinburgh / Lothian Buses is a good one. Theyhave a wider and more democratic base of travellers - all of the public then have aninterest in making it work. The elements mentioned in our General Comments wouldbe a useful starter.

4. How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communitiesand particularly low passenger volume routes?

It is essential that there is a requirement to really engage with, and listen to thecommunityto ensure that there is an expectation that strong links will be madebetween the authority and community transport.

We recommend discouraging micromanagement by local authorities of communitytransport. People doing this work are volunteers who are doing their community aservice. They are run by committees that speak to their user group of travellers.Overly defensive, administratively complex bureaucratic systems keep people busybut 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 travelarrangements. We have experience of some excellent and responsive communitytransport initiatives which would do their best to implement concessionary travel if itwere available.

Many such schemes involve hard-working volunteers who are active in supportingcommunity based transport initiatives. Their recent experience is of increaseddifficulties and uncertainty over funding following the Scottish Governmentsintroduction of Concordat arrangements. Many were set up after seeking butreceiving no support from their local authority. We would be concerned that aframework devolved to local authorities would result in even less support for theseoften fragile but essential community based schemes. Community transportrepresentatives should be assured of full participation and membership of any localauthority based systems.

5. Do you agree that the Traffic Commissioner should be able to imposegreater financial penalties on operators who a) fail to meet the terms of thefranchise or b) walk away from the franchise altogether?

This would not be that helpful. Financial penalties will be passed on as increasedfares which result in increased transfer of the public purse to private shareholders,

rather than improvements in transport arrangements. The most effective form ofredress would be

a) to introduce a ban on applying for any additional routes for a time period and


5/6


b) to ensure the terms of the franchise include careful consideration of the manyaspects 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 smallcompetitor has gone bust.

Also included should be route and fare setting.

We have experience of some local authority procurement exercises, whereinadequate attention is paid to evaluation of the cost of sustainable services.

6. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposedBill to you or your organisation? What other significant financial implicationsare likely to arise?

Finance should be considered in the round not just as a cost. The opportunity costslost 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 carownership and so no alternative to public transport. Recent welfare reforms haveadded to the difficulties caused by poor public transport.

7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negativeimplications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negativeimplication, 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 theseconsistency in accessibility of bus transport; reliabilityand flexibility of timetables; consistency of policy on reduced fares for companiontravel so that cross-boundary travel can be planned; strategic planning to ensurejourneys can be predicted, planned and completed.

One less appreciated consequence of the far-reaching changes being made toWelfare and Benefits is that many people on lower level Disability Living Allowancewill be one of the many groups that will lose out. It would be helpful if the bill helpedto identify particularly vulnerable groups who are likely to be adversely affected bycurrent 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 theconcessionary travel scheme. For many years, people in this situation had enjoyedsuch 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 needfor or detail of this Bill?

It is disappointing that the proposals do not explicitly advance the needs of disabledpeople. We have concerns that any assumption that the Disability Discrimination Actwould deal with these without specific measures to spell out how, will lead to little orno improvement for disabled people. Certainly an Equality Impact Assessment wouldneed to be considered. However, it would be helpful to include elements that the Billwould intend to address. For example:


6/6


It will be important to ensure that, whichever process is put in place, greaterinvolvement of the communities which the transport schemes are designed to serveshould be a basic requirement, together with evidencing how this is done.Accountability should be to passengers and customers and mechanisms should bein place to ensure that their views are central to design and implementation ofservices.

Discussions on equality should give careful consideration to ensuring that allbuses

are accessibly by 2017. While this may seem ambitious it is important to recognisethe longstanding commitment involved:

Arrangements for full implementation of accessible buses by 2017 werereiterated in the Disability Discrimination Act of 2006.

However, the legislative framework had been in place far longer. Part 5, theDisability Discrimination Act 1995 first set out requirements for buses andother forms of land transport, with all new fleet to be accessible from 2002.

Other measures followed with the end point of 2017 repeatedly stated insubsequent regulations. The year 2017 is therefore more than reasonable andno further delay should be considered.

An introduction before 2017 would be helpful although we doubt that this will bepossible because timescale are already established through regulations.

The Bill represents an excellent opportunity to address an area of concern fordisabled passengersservice delays and overruns, and lack of predictabilityregarding bus design (can a disabled person reach their destination, only to find theycant use the same bus type to get back home). These can also be an inconvenienceto non-disabled people. Their impact on disabled passengers can result not only injourneys being terminated at significant cost to the individual but also in loss ofconfidence in public transport as a viable option for future journeys.

An integrated transport strategy seems a long way off for many parts of Scotland butis vital. For example, a new timetable introduced in Dumfries & Galloway, SouthWest Scotland in December 2008, actually worsened the situation, with manyconnections missed and planning seemingly noticeable by its absence. Given thatthe local authority was actively involved in securing the changed timetable, we arenot convinced that this supports the argument for regulation being managed by localauthorities. Full consultation and accountability to passengers and potentialpassengers would help to ensure better integration.

Signed

Dr Stuart Aitken, Senior Consultant, Sense Scotland

Date 28thAugust 2013

Any enquiries to:

Megan Wilson, Head of Policy and Public [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

21 Sense Scotland