Exempt services

The consultation paper explained that the new BSIP provisions outline the service standards which may be imposed as part of a partnership scheme. Service standards are effective in relation to all operators of local services that have one or more stopping places in that area, and are not exempted from the scheme.

Section 3C(4) provides that a scheme may not impose a standard in relation to the use of vehicles under permits granted under section 22 of the 1985 Act. Section 3B(4) provides that a partnership scheme may provide for the exemption of certain descriptions of local services and can include conditions as to when such exemptions apply. Section 3M(2)(b) gives a power to Scottish Ministers to make regulations about the descriptions of local services that may or must be exempted from a scheme.

Question 10: Do you consider any further services may or must be exempted from the service standard of the scheme (beyond services under section 22 of the 1985 Act as detailed above?

As shown in table seven, of those respondents who answered this question, a greater number (20) felt that no further services may or must be exempted from the service standards of the scheme than those who felt they should (11). The highest level of support came from local authorities with seven responding ‘yes’.

Table 7: Whether any further services may or must be exempted from the service standards of the scheme (beyond services under section 22 of the 1985 Act)
Respondent Group Type	No. Groups	Yes	No	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	7	3	2
Operator	2	1	1	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	5
Representative body	3	1	-	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	1	3	2
Third sector	5	1	1	3
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	1	6
Total organisations	42	11	9	22
Individuals	25	-	11	14
Total	67	11	20	36

Question 10a: If yes, please comment on what services should be exempt?

A total of twenty-one respondents provided further comment, six of whom had answered ‘no’ at question 10.

The key theme emerging in response to this question came from local authorities and regional transport partnerships who noted that further service types should not be exempted from service standards but that provision should remain and be at the discretion of the partnership. One local authority noted:

We do not consider that any further service types must be exempted from the service standards. However, the provision, already enacted, that some services may be exempted is important, and this should be at the discretion of the Partnership. Guidance should state that the Partnership should explain the reasons for any exemptions, and that these should not discriminate between operators of similar types of service. A robust process should be agreed in regard to exemptions so this is not to the detriment of the travelling public and merely for the commercial convenience of any operator.”

A third sector organisation felt it is important to recognise the specifics of each situation and service.

A few respondents offered qualifying statements alongside their initial response, with regional transport partnerships and local authorities noting that there should be more specific reference to community transport in the guidance. Other issues raised by single respondents included:

There is a need to future-proof public transport systems, and guidance should allow flexibility over other types of public transport operators that may form part of the overall public transport in the future.
The Partnership should have a fair way of dealing with service levels in different areas of the BSIP, with more weight given to operators or LTAs with a higher level of involvement in the scheme.
The flexibility given to LTAs should be sufficient to deal with any other matters that arise.
There is a need for flexibility for services that cross local authorities or scheme boundaries.
Guidance should ensure that once a BSIP is established, bus operators are not able to veto any decision to transition towards local services franchises and that LTAs must be able to revoke a partnership scheme if making a franchising scheme.

Services which should be exempted from the service standards of the scheme were mentioned by a small number of respondents; these included services passing through the BSIP where a majority of the journey takes place out with the area. A representative body queried “if a BSIP is targeting investment in a particular area of a local authority or region should there be exemptions for operators within the region who do not serve the particular area receiving investment?” A small number of respondents commented that LTAs should have the ability to exempt services such as home to school transport services.

Voting mechanism

Paragraph 26 of schedule A1 provides a power for Scottish Ministers to define descriptions of qualifying local services for the purposes of the schedule and what constitutes a sufficient number of persons for the purpose of the voting mechanism and how the qualifying time is to be determined.

Qualifying local services and qualifying time

There is a power to define the descriptions of qualifying local services for the purposes of the voting procedure, which will determine which operators of local services can take part in the voting mechanism. Transport Scotland proposed that ‘qualifying local services’ should be defined as:

A qualifying local service is an operator of a local service which has one or more stopping places in the relevant areas and is not an excluded service.

In general, this means that if an operator runs a local service in the area, they should be permitted to take part in the voting mechanism. The proposed approach in the consultation paper distinguishes the scheme exemptions from the voting mechanism and ensures that all operators of local services would retain the entitlement to vote, even if exempted from the scheme requirements. The only services that are proposed to be excluded from the vote are those which are excursions or tours as well as interurban or long-distance services not used for local journeys.

Question 11: Do you agree or disagree with the above definition of qualifying local service?

As shown in table eight, more respondents disagreed (16) than agreed (11); the sub-groups with the highest numbers of respondents who disagreed with this definition were local authorities (8) and regional transport partnerships (3).

Table 8: Agreement with the definition of ‘qualifying local service’
Respondent Group Type	No. Groups	Agree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	2	8	-	2
Operator	2	1	1	-	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	-	5
Representative body	3	-	-	1	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	1	3	-	2
Third sector	5	1	-	1	3
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	-	1	6
Total organisations	42	5	12	3	22
Individuals	25	6	4	4	11
Total	67	11	16	7	33

Respondents who disagreed with the definition were then asked:

Question 11a: If you disagree, how should this be amended / what should this contain?

A total of twenty-eight respondents commented in response to this question, seven of whom agreed with the definition but also provided additional commentary.

Those who agreed with the definition made general comments such as agreement that excursions and tours and long distance journeys should be excluded if no more than 10% of their mileage is within a scheme area. Two respondents - a local authority and a regional transport partnership – noted that there could be circumstances where there could be very few operators in a LTA area which could result in one large operator effectively dictating service standards and imposing these on others but that the voting mechanism set out broadly encompasses this situation and helps to mitigate this risk.

A problem identified by a number of local authorities and regional transport partnerships who disagreed with this definition, was that the definition combines ‘a qualifying local service’ with ‘an operator of a local service’, and pointed out that an operator is not a service and a local service cannot vote. These respondents suggested that ‘an operator of’ should be removed from the definition of a qualifying service.

The need for discretion for the partners of each plan / scheme was identified by a few respondents, again local authorities and regional transport partnerships. As noted by a regional transport partnership:

[We] agree that excursions and tours should be excluded. Other exemptions may apply to some other services and perhaps long-distance services where they may have only a single or set number of stops within the scheme area. There should be discretion available for the partners of each plan / scheme to exempt other services beyond those referenced subject to the agreement of the partnership board.”

A small number of local authorities commented that operators of gross / minimum cost local bus service contracts should be excluded from gaining voting rights as they will bear no financial consequence of complying with the specified scheme standards.

A dislike of voting partnerships was outlined by a small number of individuals who felt that services should be controlled by local authorities and the communities they serve; and a similar number of trade union / campaigning organisations noted their opposition to BSIP statutory partnership proposals. One of these also noted that community and voluntary services provided by the voluntary sector currently fill a need that should be part of a statutory right to transport provided by the local authority and that cross-subsidies should be used to bring about these services rather than having a reliance on community and voluntary services.

Other issues raised by single respondents included:

The definition should include the term ‘registered’ to show it only applies to local bus services that are regulated as such.
The proposal to provide a vote for operators who are not affected by BSIP proposals is not appropriate and it is not logical that this will protect smaller operators; the operators affected by the BSIP should be the ones who can influence the BSIP.
A request for clarification that private hire will be out with the scope of the BSIP.

Question 12: Do you consider any services should be excluded from voting (for example, excursions or interurban services)?

As shown in table nine, a large majority of those who commented considered there were service(s) that should be excluded from voting (21 compared to seven). Of those who answered this question, only one organisation – a trade union / campaigning organisation – considered that any services should not be excluded from voting.

Table 9: Whether any services should be excluded from voting (for example excursions or interurban services)
Respondent Group	No. Groups	Yes	No	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	7	-	5
Operator	2	2	-	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	5
Representative body	3	1	-	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	4	-	2
Third sector	5	1	-	4
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	1	6
Total organisations	42	15	1	26
Individuals	25	6	6	13
Total	67	21	7	39

Twenty-seven respondents then went onto answer question 12A which asked respondents to explain their initial answer.

There was broad agreement from a number of respondents with the proposed exclusions, for example, that excursions and interurban services should be excluded or that those eligible to vote should be core services operating frequently within the region and not just passing through or that a set up similar to English Enhanced Partnerships would be sensible. A few local authorities and regional transport partnerships noted that excursions and visitors coaches should be excluded as they do not fall under the definition of a local service; if they were included, it would result in an unfair distribution of voting rights.

However, there were a few comments that interurban should be included if they operate as registered local services stopping at all bus stops, and that interurban services are a key link from rural to city mobility and will interconnect with other forms of transport and help to reduce the number of cars on the road. That said, a small number of local authorities and regional transport partnerships also noted that excursions and interurban services may need to be excluded if they do not fall within the definition of a local bus service.

Other issues raised by single respondents included:

Commercial services should have a higher weighting in the voting process, compared to tendered services that do not carry any commercial risk.
Local authorities need flexibility in agreeing which services should be excluded from voting or that local authorities – rather than profit-driven bus service operators – should vote as they serve local communities.
Any service that does not actively support the transport of passengers within a local community should be excluded from voting.
Operators of gross / minimum costs local bus contracts should be excluded as they bear no direct financial consequence of complying with a specific scheme standards.
It is important to include all providers and ensure they adhere to the same guidelines, terms and conditions.
Dislike of BSIPs.

The consultation paper noted that the power to determine the qualifying time allows flexibility via regulations to set the time period over which certain procedures should apply; the procedures are those relating to which local services should be notified about certain aspects of the process. In the consultation paper, Transport Scotland proposed that for the purposes of the regulations, the qualifying time is defined as:

The working day immediately before the day on which a notice of objection is given.

This is similar to the definition set out in relation to Enhanced Partnerships in England.

Question 13: Do you agree or disagree with the definition of ‘qualifying time’ as set out above?

As shown in table 10, of those who answered this question and either agreed or disagreed, views were relatively split, with 15 noting their agreement with this definition, and 12 noting their disagreement. Among organisations in particular, highest levels of disagreement came from local authorities (7) and highest levels of agreement came from regional transport partnerships (4).

Table 10: Agreement with the definition of ‘qualifying time’
Respondent Group Type	No. Groups	Agree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	3	7	-	2
Operator	2	2	-	-	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	-	5
Representative body	3	1	-	-	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	4	1	-	1
Third sector	5	-	-	2	3
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	-	1	6
Total organisations	42	10	8	3	21
Individuals	25	5	4	4	12
Total	67	15	12	7	33

Regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed, respondents were then asked to explain their answer, with twenty three doing so.

A few respondents who agreed with this definition made general comments about this being a fair approach, or is consistent with existing systems in England. The key theme emerging was that this would ensure that all current operators providing, or those due to provide a registered local bus service, would be included or that no operator currently providing an eligible service should be excluded; this comment came from local authorities and regional transport partnerships.

Among respondents who disagreed with this definition, the key theme (mostly from local authorities), was a perception of an error in the proposed definition and that the word ‘objection’ should be replaced by ‘variation’ or ’revocation’; if this change is made, the qualifying date is the relevant one. A few local authorities also noted:

While the definition should ensure relevant operators are invited to take part, we believe the definition should be expanded to include operators who at that date have a bus service registration accepted by the Traffic Commissioner, irrespective of whether the service operation has commenced, to ensure fully relevant inclusion.”

Other comments made by single respondents included:

The consultation refers to ‘no evidence as to how partnerships might operate’ in respect of qualifying time, so there is a need to gather evidence in order to justify the definition.
Passengers affected by revocation should be provided with sufficient information in an accessible format and an alternative means of transport provided.
One year should be the qualifying time, to make companies more keen to work together.
The time period is not long enough.

Sufficient number of persons in relation to the voting mechanism

The consultation paper noted that various options for accommodating the voting rights of operators in each LTA have been considered, in order to help inform the development of a suitable voting mechanism and ensure that no single operator has a disproportionate voting power and that the metric chosen is indicative of an operator’s presence in an area. The consultation paper then outlined a number of methods to determine the voting system, including the allocation of votes by share of patronage in each LTS, bus kilometres by operator, the number of operators and the number of services provided by LTAs. After deliberation of these alternatives, Transport Scotland is proposing a model based on register service distance to be used to determine what constitutes a ‘sufficient number of persons’. Again, this is similar to the voting system used in Enhanced Partnerships, which have similarities with BSIPs.

Question 14: Do you agree or disagree with voting mechanism as proposed above? (either of the options within the model can be adopted by the BSIP)

As shown in table 11, of those who answered this question, the highest numbers of organisations and individuals neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed voting mechanism. Across organisation sub-groups, the highest level of disagreement came from local authorities (5).

Table 11: Agreement with the voting mechanism as proposed.
Respondent Group Type	No. Groups	Agree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	2	5	3	2
Operator	2	1	-	1	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	-	5
Representative body	3	-	-	1	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	1	-	4	1
Third sector	5	-	-	2	3
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	1	-	6
Total organisations	42	4	6	11	21
Individuals	25	3	3	8	11
Total	67	7	9	19	32

A total of twenty seven respondents then provided additional commentary in support of their initial response.

Agreement with the proposed voting mechanism

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposed voting mechanism, comments included that this approach was reasonable and reflective of the bus market in Scotland, or that it is fair and equitable. That said, a small number of these respondents highlighted issues. These included that there are risks in having such low total operator thresholds under the first criterion as two operators could prevent a BSIP from proceeding. An operator felt that the first definition was confusing in that under bullet two (is less than three, all of those operators are objectors), if all operators object then the qualifying distance must be 100%, so bullet three (the registered distance of all qualifying local services operated by the objectors in the relevant area is at least 20% of the registered distance of all such services operated by all operators in that area) is not needed.

Disagreement with the proposed voting mechanism

In terms of those respondents who disagreed with the proposed voting mechanism, local authorities highlighted two themes. The first related to the first model proposed. The concern was that regardless of the total number of operators, objections of one of them are overridden, regardless of size. In contrast, it was noted that where there is a large number of operators, two of them with a relatively small market share could obstruct the proposal. These respondents also felt it was not clear in the wording if the threshold of 20% of the registered distance applies to a situation where there are three or more operators.

The second theme related to the second model proposed which was felt to be a better approach but does not take account of a situation where one relatively large operator has significant objections to a proposal. Additionally, they felt there is an overlap between ‘exempt’ and ‘excluded’; with a possibility that an operator in a scheme area may only operate exempt services and these operators should not have a vote, particularly as under some scenarios this could amount to a power of veto.

There were also a few comments, mostly from individuals, that private operators should not be dictating the terms of a bus service; there were a small number of comments of the need for public control of bus services.

Views of respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the voting mechanism

The most comments came from respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed voting mechanism, although each comment was made by very small numbers of respondents.

A key comment was that while both of the 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 that protects a minority operator from always being overridden but that also ensures that that same operator cannot overrule any proposal (local authority and regional transport partnership).

The need for clarification was raised by a small number of respondents, for example, how voting would be weighted and the area to be covered; or whether there will be subsets of groups voting on different areas within a region; or how data can be checked or challenged and the process for making a final decision (a local authority).

The need to ensure that bus services across all areas are inclusive and meet community needs was highlighted by a small number of respondents.

A small number of respondents felt the second option was more appropriate to most scenarios (regional transport partnerships and a local authority).

Other comments included:

LTAs should have flexibility to define measurement to allow them to reflect local circumstances; or discretion to reject an objector if they have reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle kilometres have been increased to meet the threshold and obtain a vote.
There is a need for guidance as to what good practice in governance terms should be.
There is usually one major operator in each area who will have too much power.

Multi-operator travel card definition

The consultation paper noted that the 2019 Act gives Scottish Ministers a power to define the term ‘multi-operator travel cards’ by regulations. In order to ensure multi-operator travel cards are competition law compliant in the context of BSIP, it is proposed to simply adopt the definition set out in the Block Exemption Order.

Question 15: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition of a multi-operator travel card?

As shown in table 12, of those who answered this question, a large majority (21) of respondents agreed with the proposed definition of a multi-operator travel card. Six respondents – mostly individuals – disagreed with the definition.

Table 12: Agreement with the proposed definition of a multi-operator travel card.
Respondent Group Type	No. Groups	Agree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	9	-	1	2
Operator	2	1	-	1	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	-	5
Representative body	3	1	-	-	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	4	-	1	1
Third sector	5	1	-	2	2
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	1	-	6
Total organisations	42	16	1	5	20
Individuals	35	5	5	3	12
Total	67	21	6	8	32

A total of 29 respondents then provided further comments in support of their initial response.

Agreement with the definition of a multi-operator travel card

Of those who agreed with the definition of a multi-operator travel card, two key themes were cited, primarily by local authorities and regional transport partnerships. It was noted by a significant minority of respondents that it is logical to match the definition in the Block Exemption Order as this is a legally recognised and accepted definition and would be consistent not only with existing legislation but all industry understanding. The second key theme was that to adopt a different definition would cause confusion, although a few local authorities noted reservations about the restrictions imposed by the definition on use as a through ticket.

A few individuals noted this would make it more straightforward, easier or cheaper to travel.

Clarification was requested by two organisations. A representative body noted that the Government must also accept the Competitions and Market Authority (CMA) guidelines that accompany the exemption; an operator requested clarification that this definition covers multi-modal ticketing.

Disagreement with the definition of a multi-operator travel card

Few respondents who disagreed offered further comment. However, there were comments from individuals that cards need to be valid across the network, with one suggesting that fares should be time-based as in London. There was some criticism of the zone card in Glasgow which was seen to be too complicated and expensive. A local authority who had neither agreed nor disagreed with the definition also noted that there needs to be maximum flexibility in the use of multi-operator travel cards and as few restrictions as possible within the context of competition law. A trade union / campaigning organisation commented:

Under BSIPs, there will be no chance to achieve the integrated multi-operator ticketing we see in London. The Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) Order 2001 relies on voluntary agreements between the bus operators themselves, and can impose only ‘indispensable’ restrictions on the timing and frequency of services; subject to operator agreement. The multi-operator ticket cannot in any way prevent competition on the variety or number of routes, nor competition on single-operator pricing and zonal structures (which must be promoted alongside the multi-operator product). The pricing of the multi-operator travel card is subject to ongoing operator approval while only the ‘indispensable’ sharing of information is permitted. Powers for LTAs to set prices, cross-subsidise, or provide any general subsidy to lower fares are also explicitly banned by competition law.”

Other comments, each noted by single respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the definition, included:

The definition is confusing and needs to be read in conjunction with CMA guidelines.
Tickets should not be digital by default as this would not be inclusive to individuals who do not use smart technology.
The benefits of multi-operator travel cards need to be promoted across a range of formats.

Reviewing and reporting

The consultation paper noted that a BSIP scheme must specify how its operation is to be reviewed and the dates by which such reviews will be completed under section 3B(9). Section 3J sets a requirement for the LTA to publish a report in each 12 month period of the effectiveness of the operation of a scheme. It is not considered necessary to introduce a reporting format through regulations so as to ensure flexibility to accommodate varying bus market contexts.

Question 16: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed content of reviews and reports on the operation of a plan or scheme to be outlined in guidance?

As shown in table 13, of those who answered this question, a higher number of organisations (18) and individuals (5) agreed than disagreed with the proposed content of reviews and reports on the operation of a plan or scheme to be outlined in guidance. Five respondents – mostly individuals – disagreed with the definition.

Table 13: Agreement with the proposed content of reviews and reports on the operation of a plan or scheme to be outlined in guidance.
Respondent Group Type	No. Groups	Agree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Not answered
Equalities	2	-	-	-	2
Local authority / Organisation Representing Local Authorities	12	11	-	-	1
Operator	2	2	-	-	-
Political party/regional party groups	5	-	-	-	5
Representative body	3	-	-	1	2
Regional Transport Partnership	6	5	-	-	1
Third sector	5	-	-	2	3
Trade Union / campaigning organisation	7	-	1	-	6
Total organisations	42	18	1	3	20
Individuals	25	5	4	4	12
Total	67	23	5	7	32

A total of twenty-six respondents then provided further comments in support of their initial response.

Agreement with the proposed content of reviews and reports

Key themes emerging at this question primarily related to this approach being reasonable with an appropriate level of reporting. However, there were also comments on the need for some consistency across LTAs and requests for LTAs and partnerships to have flexibility to include additional reporting requirements they may wish to see. These included indicators of increases in passenger numbers, details of any modal shifts, satisfaction levels, accessibility standards, indications of wider community and societal benefits; and the need to capture high quality data to support any evaluation. Alongside this, there were some requests for guidance to include a report template so as to ensure consistency and a capacity to measure any accumulated benefits across Scotland.

A few local authorities commented that the provision of an annual report for a BSIP could be too burdensome and there were suggestions for a full report every two or three years, with annual summary reports or interim reports every year. A regional transport partnership also requested a clear definition of what constitutes ‘general policies’ in reporting as these should reflect wider local, regional and national policies.

Disagreement with the proposed content of reviews and reports

Of the small number of respondents who disagreed with this proposal, it was felt that it would be necessary to have a reporting format as the flexibility being suggested would benefit operators but not necessarily the wider general public; alongside this, there was a request for increased accountability on the part of BSIPs. A trade union / campaigning organisation suggested that the yearly review should be the point at which is it mandatory for local authorities to assess arrangements in line with their longer term plans for bus services.

Scrutiny of Bus Service Improvement Partnerships

The consultation paper explained that the 2019 Act inserts a new section 6N into the 1985 Act which sets out powers for the Traffic Commissioner to intervene where a BSIP scheme is in operation and it appears that the LTA may not be complying with their obligations under a partnership scheme. They can carry out investigations and request the provision of specific information; and then publish a report on the investigation.

Provision of information

Section 3K of the 2001 Act as inserted by the 2019 Act outlines the provision of information requirements in BSIPs where LTAs can request relevant information from operators for the purposes of the preparation and making of a partnership plan or scheme. It may also be requested for the purposes of reviewing the effectiveness of a plan or scheme or determining whether and how to vary or revoke a plan or scheme. The consultation paper set out what constitutes ‘relevant information’ for these purposes.

Question 17: What type of information should be excluded from the definition of relevant information and why?

A total of thirty-two respondents answered this question, with some respondents simply noting that the list is comprehensive and should be adopted.

A significant minority of respondents across most sub-groups, with the exception of those within the equalities sector and political parties noted that no information should be excluded from the definition of relevant information, with key reasoning being that LTAs have a right to see all information and use it in their planning and strategy development, or that all information held by bus companies is of public interest and should be fully transparent as this is essential to the formation of transport policy. One regional transport partnership commented:

No information should be excluded. BSIPs will only function as true partnerships if the issues they are designed to resolve are based on full and unfiltered datasets. Any restrictions on such data will potentially undermine success. The categories listed are relevant but perhaps unhelpful as any list can be taken as ‘the list’ no matter how well caveated. The level of data required will vary across each BSIP but LTAs should have the power to mandate the appropriate release of data at a granularity that suits the BSIP circumstance.”

A local authority also commented:

No information should be excluded. To make a BSIP, LTAs will be required to invest in facilities and/or measures. It is essential that this investment is focused on specific problems with an identifiable solution, and that the benefits of the investment can be measured and monitored. This requires sufficiently comprehensive data to ensure problems are understood at network and route levels and that the objectives and outcomes of the BSIP can be measured and monitored at both operational (e.g. journey times) and strategic levels (e.g. modal shift).”

Alongside the perception that no information should be excluded, some respondents also noted that information provision should be mandatory rather than optional.

A number of respondents offered caveats as part of their response. There was recognition – primarily from local authorities - that commercial confidentiality concerns need to be addressed, with some noting that confidentiality should be restricted to information which is commercially sensitive, although others also felt that any issues should be able to be overcome with appropriate confidentiality caveats.

There were a small number of suggestions for a central repository of data to allow for accessible and consistent information on bus services. Allied to this, there were also a small number of comments that the provision of high quality information will lead to more effective partnerships.

The need for clear guidance was referred to by a small number of respondents, with one example being given as to what is meant by ’how and when a local service operated by an operator is used by passengers’. One of these respondents noted that guidance should not be vague or open to interpretation.

Other comments made by one or two respondents included:

There is a need to be able to use information from bus operators on the performance of bus services for other purposes than just the BSIP, for example, for strategy development, scheme appraisal, monitoring of progress and so on; and that this should be considered in regulations.
The information requested should include some measure of social impact.
More information should be requested.
BSIPs should only be established under conditions of full transparency.
This approach is in line with information provision in England; in England, LTAs have the power to require comprehensive information to be provided.
Responsibility should also be placed on public partners at local, regional and national levels to provide information and datasets for which they are responsible.
There should not be a requirement to provide information that is already in the public domain.

Only a few respondents identified types of information that should be excluded, and these were:

Information which is commercially sensitive.
Information which has GDPR implications.
Types of tickets (as these are commercially sensitive and / or not relevant).
Types of passengers (as these are commercially sensitive and / or not relevant).
Provision of revenue, operating costs and other financial information, pertaining to commercial bus services that operate within and to / from the area of the plan or scheme.

Question 17a: Are there any circumstance in which it should not be possible for the Local Transport Authority to require relevant information?

Thirty respondents provided comments, although many of these – across most sub-groups – simply answered ‘no’ or ‘none’

A key theme cited by a few respondents was that it should not be possible for the LTA to require relevant information where this would breach commercial confidentiality. That said, most of these respondents also commented that concerns over commercial confidentiality can be overcome, for example, by non-disclosure agreements or other appropriate mechanisms.

One area where it was felt to be inappropriate to require information was in instances where LTAs are asking for commercially sensitive data when setting up a service which may compete with an existing commercial service.

A few respondents simply echoed themes from the previous question. These included the need for all information to be provided, information should be stipulated as mandatory, and guidance needs to be clear.

Question 17b: Do you have any further comments on the provision of information within Bus Service Improvement Partnerships?

A total of twenty respondents provided comments, some of which reiterated points made at the two previous questions. New themes which emerged included the need for data to be shared with user groups or others considering franchising or the public provision of bus services.

There were also a small number of requests from operators or representative bodies for LTAs to provide information that might impact on the provision of bus services, in order to assist them in planning. Other support identified that would be useful to operators was the provision of a template Data Sharing Agreement. There was also one mention that information requests from LTAs to operators should reflect their systems for record keeping rather than impose specific LTA formats on operators; and another that guidance should specify a maximum time period for which data are required.

A few local authorities noted that guidance should indicate that within any annual review and report, a section might include analysis of datasets being collected.

Other issues raised by single respondents included:

A need to consult with the public on all planned changes that may impact on them.
Consideration of emissions and global warming should be prioritised.
The need for arrangements to be put in place to support the verification of data and ensure it is of good quality.
References to the need to improve services, such as investment in new infrastructure or timetables at bus stops; the need to provide adequate services at times when they are needed to meet the needs of communities.

Accessibility of services

The consultation paper explained that the current operational services standard at section 3C(3) provides that requirements can be imposed about ‘the vehicles that are to be used to provide services’ in a BSIP. This is a very general power for LTAs to propose operational service standards that would include a range of accessibility requirements. There are also existing duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2000.

Question 18: 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 have limited mobility?

A total of 28 respondents answered this question and a number of key themes emerged.

The need for disability awareness training for drivers was highlighted by a significant number of local authorities and regional transport partnerships, with some of these referring to Driver CPC (Certificate of Professional Competence) or existing training schemes such as MiDAS (Minibus Driver Awareness Scheme), PATS (Passenger Assistant Training Scheme) or the Thistle Assistance Card.

Consultation was also highlighted by a number of respondents, across most sub-groups, with references to building relationships with local disability organisations, local access forums and representative groups, as well as consulting with disabled people themselves. Allied to this, there were a small number of suggestions for any partnership to include representatives of disability groups. One third sector organisation suggested that there should be a formalised process of consultation integrated into any guidance; another suggested that there is a need to consider the requirements of the 2010 Equality Act.

There were also a small number of calls to ensure that the full range of disabilities is considered, including physical and learning disabilities.

Calls for accessible information in a range of different formats were made by a significant number of respondents within local authorities, third sector organisations, regional transport partnerships and individuals. Suggestions included verbal or speaker-based information / acoustic announcements and visual displays; as well as information for those with hidden disabilities or for parents / carers with pushchairs. There were also requests from a few local authorities for information on the accessibility of services in order to help individuals plan for their journeys.

A third sector organisation suggested that targets should be developed around accessibility to ensure there are equitable services for everyone; that this could also link to the vision and ambitions of the Accessible Transport Framework.

A large number of respondents also referred to the need for all bus stops to be accessible; suggested measures included the enforcement of parking restrictions at bus stops and accessible kerb heights. There were a few comments that this might not be possible in all areas, with specific reference to rural areas. Allied to this, a small number of respondents felt there is a need for funding mechanisms in place to enable improvement of these aspects.

Other comments made by only one or two respondents included:

Accessibility on all vehicles has been met in Scotland.
There is no need to expand on existing duties unless there is something area-specific to be included in a scheme.
Guidance should consider integration with other modes of travel.
There is a need for further information or clarity, for example, specifying the steepness of a ramp.
A new Public Sector Value Test in line with Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) & Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) should be introduced.
There is a need to ensure that infrastructure changes that benefit sustainable and active travel are introduced in a way that considers and safeguards access for all.
A suggestion for user testing of transport apps with disabled individuals, using a range of assisted technology.
Bus services need to be affordable and meet the needs of communities in both rural and urban areas.

Question 18a: Do you have any further comments in relation to accessibility of bus services in the context of the Bus Service Improvement Partnerships?

A total of eleven respondents responded to this question. Only two comments were made by more than a single respondent. The first, provided by local authorities, was of a need to consider vehicle type allocated to particular services, with an example provided of a need to ensure that any services serving hospitals need to ensure disability access such as wheelchair boarding, to all users.

The other key comment – made by an operator and a representative body – was that the BSIP process is not the correct tool to introduce duties above and beyond those already set out in existing legislation.

Guidance

The consultation paper noted that Scottish Ministers have general powers to issue guidance relating to any of the options within the toolkit, including BSIPs, to LTAs.

Question 19: What information, beyond the processes and consideration outlines in this chapter, should any guidance on Bus Service Improvement Partnerships contain?

A total of twenty-seven respondents answered this question; and a wide range of comments were made.

The key theme, mentioned by a few local authorities, 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. A regional transport partnership also noted that the government should mandate authorities and operators responsible for the road network to engage and prioritise active and sustainable travel provision during any planned network disruption.

A small number of local authorities and regional transport partnerships also requested clear advice on how multiple schemes with different timescales can be incorporated within the overall plan for the area, particularly as they can encompass more than one LTA.

Reference to the need for integration across all modes of travel was made by a small number of local authorities, with suggestions for a greater emphasis on the need to promote the bus network that integrates with other transport modes. This would help to identify funding requirements to provide services that meet the needs of communities as a whole, rather than simply focusing on individual routes. Linked to this, there were also a small number of calls for more obligations on operators to work alongside each other, and with other travel modes to provide a more integrated network. An operator and a representative body highlighted improvements that can be made through good partnership working and provided some examples of these.

Other elements outlined by respondents that should be included in guidance, but only cited by single respondents, included:

How Transport Scotland will participate and or engage with any partnership in relation to bus service operations on a trunk network where there is any impact on a BSIP.
The range of options available to LTAs to improve local bus services, including BSIPs, and the formation of municipal bus companies; this will help support informed decision making by LTAs based on local circumstances.
Reference to anti-social behaviour, overcrowding, cleanliness and timekeeping.
Simplified bus timetables in different languages.
Consider the infrastructure needed for any new residential / industrial developments so they are BSIP compliant at the design stage.
Best practice for improving bus service efficiency and attractiveness.
The sharing of facilities between operators where more than one service serves an area.
The need to work with passenger groups to understand what factors are holding back bus patronage and growth.

Other comments included:

Reference to research undertaken in Glasgow and Bristol.
Transport Scotland should set up a Bus Centre of Excellence.
There is a need to consider shared identity or branding in relation to bus / transport services to promote cohesiveness and simplify information for passengers.

< Previous | Contents | Next >