Executive Summary
Background
Across most of Scotland (as well as the United Kingdom), bus service patronage has been in decline since the 1960s whilst use of the private car has risen to become the dominant mode of transport. Part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 develops and refines the existing regulatory framework with a range of options designed to give Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) the powers and flexibility they need to improve bus services and reverse the decline in bus usage in their area.
On 14 July 2021, Transport Scotland published a consultation on ‘Implementing Part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019: Bus Services’ in order to gather stakeholder and public views. Findings from this consultation will help to create the regulations and supporting guidance for implementing the new bus provisions.
Respondent Profile
Table 1 below shows that in total, there were 67 responses to the consultation, of which 42 were from organisations and 25 from individuals. In addition, responses to a campaign were received and findings from this have been incorporated into the report where relevant.
| Respondent Group Type | Number |
|---|---|
| Equalities | 2 |
| Local authority/Organisation Representing Local Authorities | 12 |
| Operator | 2 |
| Political party/regional party groups | 5 |
| Regional Transport Partnership | 6 |
| Representative body | 3 |
| Third sector | 5 |
| Trade Union / campaigning | 7 |
| Total organisations | 42 |
| Individuals | 25 |
| Total | 67 |
Key Themes
A number of key themes were evident across consultation questions as well as across respondent groups. A number of these were out with the scope of the consultation and were general comments on the models being discussed. However, these themes were cited throughout the consultation and are mentioned where they were raised by respondents. These key themes are summarised below.
- Throughout consultation responses, a number of respondents – primarily trade unions / campaigning organisations, third sector organisations, political parties and individuals – noted their opposition to Bus Service Improvement Partnerships (BSIPs) and voiced their support for a return to publicly owned bus services.
- There were a number of instances where further detail or clarity was requested in relation to specific proposals being put forward.
- There were a number of suggestions of a need to refine some of the definitions included in the consultation paper.
- There were a number of requests for good practice and case studies to be included in any guidance.
- While there were some comments about a need for consistency in bus service provision across Scotland, there were also some comments about a need for flexibility to accommodate local and regional circumstances.
Consultation Questions
The following paragraphs summarise the main findings from each of the consultation questions.
Local Transport Authority Bus Services
In terms of anything which should be set out in guidance that Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) must have regard to in exercising their new functions for running their own bus services (Q1), key areas of focus were legislative requirements, financial implications, competition impacts and bus service business models and how to assess them.
A range of additional information and resources were cited as being useful for an LTA in considering the provision of providing local bus services (Q2). These included the sharing and generation of data and information for planning public transport networks, examples of best practice and case studies and funding for LTAs.
Bus Service Improvement Partnerships (BSIPs) (Q3)z
A large minority of respondents generally welcomed the form and content of plans and schemes and the broad range of provisions which can be included in a BSIP, although some respondents highlighted the need for flexibility in order to accommodate local and regional circumstances. There were also requests for comprehensive consultation across the community in relation to putting together partnership plans and schemes. The suggestion that an LTA should consider all the options available before taking a decision to proceed with a BSIP was regarded as an unnecessary and costly exercise by some respondents. A significant number of respondents – particularly trade unions/campaigning organisations – viewed BSIPs in a negative light, taking the view that they would maintain the perceived failed policy of bus deregulation and will not address issues such as high fares and lack of services to underserved areas.
Preparation, variation and revocation of plans and schemes
A key theme was of a need for flexibility in the procedures (Q4).
Views on whether any conditions are necessary for the variation or revocation of a scheme (where a scheme itself makes bespoke provision for this) (Q5), were relatively split, with slightly more respondents disagreeing than agreeing. Among those who considered what conditions, if any, should be specified, only small numbers of respondents made any suggestions.
Notices
Very few respondents made any comments in response to this question; very small numbers approved of consistency in the process or desired guidance as to publishing formats for notices. (Q6).
Facilities and measures
A majority of respondents agreed with the given definition of facilities (Q7); almost all respondents who made any comment suggested expanding the definition or suggested additional examples of facilities; these included more generic investments in infrastructure and bus station provisioning.
More respondents disagreed than agreed with the definition of measures (Q8), with some support for the broadening of the definition and suggestions made of examples of measures that could be included.
A majority of respondents felt that existing facilities should form part of a partnership plan or scheme (Q9); with the dominant viewpoint being that there should be no time restriction. A significant minority of respondents felt that it is more important that the facility is relevant and meets the scheme’s aims for it to be included. There was also a perspective that it would be inappropriate to exclude facilities given the award of BPF grants.
Exempt Services
A majority of respondents did not consider that any further services might or must be exempted from the service standards of the scheme (beyond services under section 22 of the 1985 Act) (Q10). However, a number of local authorities and regional transport partnerships felt that provision should remain and be at the discretion of the partnership. There were also suggestions there should be more specific reference to community transport in the guidance.
Voting mechanism
More respondents disagreed than agreed with the definition of qualifying local service (Q11); the key issue being that the definition combines ‘a qualifying local service’ with ‘an operator of a local service’, and an operator is not a service and a local service cannot vote. There was a suggestion that ‘an operator of’ should be removed from the definition. There were also a few calls for discretion for the partners of each plan/scheme.
When considering whether any services should be excluded from voting (Q12), a majority agreed with this and offered broad agreement with the proposed exclusions. A few respondents felt interurban should be included if they operate as a registered local service stopping at all bus stops.
Views were relatively split on the definition of ‘qualifying time’ (Q13). Those who agreed primarily felt this would ensure that all current operators providing – or those due to provide – a registered local bus service would be included. Among those who disagreed, the key theme was a perception of an error in the definition; these suggested the word ‘objection’ should be replaced by ‘variation’ or ‘revocation’.
Sufficient number of persons in relation to the voting mechanism
The highest number of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed voting mechanism (Q14); the key reason being that while both proposed options might provide a suitable model in most situations, where a single operator has a large share of the market, it will be difficult to provide for a mechanism which protects a minority operator from always being overridden but which also ensures that the same operator cannot overrule any proposal.
Multi-operators travel card definition
There was broad agreement with the proposed definition of a multi-operators travel card (Q15). Key reasons were that this is a legally recognised and accepted definition and adopting a different definition would cause confusion.
Reviewing and reporting
There was broad agreement with the proposed content of reviews and reports on the operation of a plan or scheme to be outlined in guidance (Q16), although there were some comments on the need for consistency across LTAs and requests for LTAs and partnerships to have flexibility to include additional reporting requirements. There were some requests for a report template within the guidance.
Scrutiny of Bus Service Improvement Partnerships
When asked what type of information should be excluded from the definition of relevant information (Q17), a significant minority of respondents felt that no information should be excluded. There was also a perception that information provision should be mandatory, although some concerns over commercial confidentiality were expressed.
When asked whether there are any circumstances in which it should not be possible for the LTA to require relevant information, most respondents felt there were none, although again the issue of commercial confidentiality was a concern for a few respondents.
Further comments on the provision of information within Bus Service Improvement Partnerships included the need for data to be shared. There were a few requests for LTAs to provide information that might impact on the provision of bus services.
Accessibility of services
When asked to say what further guidance is required on how a partnership scheme and plan may consider the accessibility of bus services for disabled people and people who may have limited mobility (Q18), key themes were of a need for disability awareness training for drivers, consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, accessible information in a range of different formats and all bus stops to be accessible.
Additional comments highlighted a need to consider vehicle type allocated to particular services.
Guidance
When asked to say what information, beyond the processes and considerations outlined in the consultation, any guidance on BSIPs should contain (Q19), the key theme was that the LTA roads network team and trunk road authority should be involved in a BSIP to allow for early and robust planning and consultation on roadworks and road closures that will affect services.
Local Services Franchises
When asked to say what the guidance to LTAs on preparing a franchising assessment should contain (Q20), key comments were for detailed case studies or best practice. Further information and clarity were also requested on a number of different elements of franchising.
Provision of information for preparing and assessing proposed franchising frameworks
Relevant information respondents felt LTAs should be able to require from bus operators for the purposes of preparing and assessing a proposed franchising network (Q21) included any information deemed relevant by the LTA, although operators and representative bodies felt information requests should be limited. Specific types of information suggested included financial data, types of vehicles used, passenger numbers, ticket sales data and fare structure.
Most respondents felt there should be no circumstances where an LTA should not be able to require relevant information, although the issue of confidentiality was raised.
The audit process
A wide range of suggestions were made as to information that should be included in the guidance for auditors (Q22). Key mentions were for social, environmental and economic benefits.
Guidance to LTAs for making a new franchise assessment
A wide range of suggestions were made as to what should be included in guidance to LTAs in relation to the circumstances in which the LTA must prepare a new assessment of a proposed framework (Q23), the key comment being for a clear and concise explanation of what is specifically required in a new assessment. There were some comments that this would be very onerous and require significant resources.
Independent panel appointed by the Traffic Commissioner
When considering the constitution of the panel (Q24), a key comment was for members to be committed to undertaking a balanced, objective, evidence-based and transparent perspective. There were also some requests for financial expertise and transport expertise. Suggestions were made for a wide range of specific types of individual who could be appointed to a panel. These included transport, financial and legal professionals, passenger representative organisations and bus users, and community groups,
When asked whether respondents had any views in relation to the appointing, removing or replacing of members to the panel, a key comment was of a need to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
Functions of the panel
Respondents felt that all decisions made by the panel must be fully justified, transparent and accountable (Q25), with a specified process to follow, encompassing robust and detailed criteria.
When asked whether there are any matters that should be prescribed in regulations that the panel must be required to consider, a key theme was of a need to consider the LTA’s general policies. Additionally, there is a need to give appropriate weight to the cost of moving to a franchising model and the impact this could have on the existing network or the local economy.
Information relating to services
Opinions were split on the length of time an LTA should be given to require the provision of service information (Q26), although the most common perception was that there should be no specific timescale or time limit.
When asked how long an operator should be given to provide information (Q27), the vast majority of respondents recommended short time periods of two weeks or less. However, a large minority of respondents felt that all information should be provided either on the day or within one working day of the variation or revocation service change notice being submitted.
Service Information Operators Must Provide
When asked what considerations might need to be taken into account when determining what revenue and patronage information an operator should be required to provide to an LTS under new section 6ZA(2) of the 1985 Act (Q28), a majority of respondents listed various information types purported to enable an LTA to determine appropriate actions in response to variations and cancellations of services. A wide range of suggestions were made for types of information that would enable an LTA to analyse travel patterns and conduct trend analyses.
A wide range of specific types of information that should be prescribed (Q29) was cited by respondents; including time-categorised information, route information and origin and destination data.
When considering what specific information should not be prescribed (Q30), opinions were split between all information being prescribed including commercially sensitive information, and all information being prescribed except for commercially confidential or sensitive information.
Extent of permissible disclosure
When asked what other person’s patronage information should be disclosed (Q31), the key comment was that patronage information should be publicly available and accessible, although there were some suggestions that information could be made available in generic format to protect commercial sensitivities and confidentiality.
Further provision and consultation
Circumstances under which the application of new section 6ZA of the 1985 Act might require to be excluded or modified (Q32) included exceptional circumstances where legal proceedings would be a factor or exceptional circumstances relating to financial or commercial considerations.
There was a general view that operators should be required to keep records of information (Q33); key types of information were all prescribed patronage and revenue information or all information required by LTAs. Suggestions for specific types of information were wide and varying.
In considering the form and content of the information operators may be required to provide under new section 6ZA of the 1985 Act (Q34), it was felt that information should be in a format agreed by bus operators and LTAs, or in a form as requested by the LTA or in a standardised and consistent format.
Impact Assessments
Very few respondents commented on the contexts of the impact assessments (Q35); the key comment related to safety on buses, particularly the impact of this on women.
Very few respondents commented on the information contained in the partial BRIA.
Additional comments and campaign responses
A number of additional key themes emerged, including the suggestion that Scottish Ministers and Transport Scotland should provide additional financial and practical support to local authorities. There were concerns that BSIPs are being prioritised through financial incentives more than the other two models of franchising or local authority run services, with some respondents noting a preference for public ownership through the latter.
There were also some comments that the current bus system in Scotland is run for private gain and has not provided the sustainable, integrated services that communities need. While many of these respondents were critical of existing bus services across Scotland, there were a number of positive references to Lothian Buses, which is seen to be a good example of a municipal bus company offering a high quality service.