Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Official Report 553KB pdf

---

Transport (Passenger Representatives)

Agenda item 2 is a session with transport passenger representatives. Before I introduce the panel, do any members of the committee want to declare any relevant interests?

I am honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport and honorary vice-president of Railfuture UK. I should also say that I have a senior rail card and a senior bus pass.

I remind the committee that I am a member of the cross-party group on rail and a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group.

I am not sure whether members need to declare membership of cross-party groups, but I thank you for that.

I am honorary vice-president of Friends of the Far North Line.

As cross-party groups have been mentioned, I am co-convener of the cross-party group on rail.

I am not sure whether we need to worry about declaring membership of cross-party groups in the future, but I thank you for doing so.

We will take evidence on transport issues from passenger representatives. I will introduce the panel. Sheila Fletcher and Hussein Patwa are members of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland; Robert Samson is a senior stakeholder manager for Transport Focus; and Gavin Booth is director of Bus Users Scotland.

I give a special welcome to anyone who is watching this transport session on Facebook Live.

Each committee member has questions for the witnesses. The witnesses do not need to push any of the buttons on their panels, as that will be done for them. If you would like to answer a particular question, you should raise your hand, and I will pick the appropriate moment to bring you in. I ask you to keep your answers as brief as possible. That will save me from trying to interrupt you if I am worried about the time.

Good morning, panel. My line of questioning focuses on bus transport. The number of bus passenger journeys per year has fallen below 400 million, which is the first time that that has happened since records began. The Scottish Government is reviewing free bus passes for the over-60s. Given that we are trying to get more people out of their cars and using buses, why has the number of bus journeys fallen under the 400 million mark? What should we do about that?

That is not just a Scottish phenomenon; it is happening across the United Kingdom. People’s buying and travel habits are changing. A lot of passengers who would normally commute, for example, are working at home, and that has an impact on passenger numbers. We see online shopping in particular as one of the problems that lead to a reduction in numbers. We have seen the result of people choosing to shop online rather than go to the high streets. Those are the two most obvious explanations for the fall in numbers.

What can we do to increase bus transport? Considering that almost half the revenue is public money, how can we increase bus use across Scotland?

There are ways to do that. There are examples throughout Scotland of partnerships between bus companies and between bus companies and local authorities having resulted in stabilising passenger loss and increasing passenger numbers in particular areas. The pattern is different. In the east of Scotland, the fall in passenger numbers is much less than that in the west of Scotland and other parts of Scotland. To a degree, that is because of the work that was done when one of the major bus operators withdrew from the Borders and East Lothian. Large and small local independent bus operators sat down together with the local authorities and planned what should happen. The result is that good services are being provided and new buses are being bought. If partnership of that kind can be replicated throughout Scotland, that is the way forward.

We did a piece of research in rural and urban areas in England. One reason why bus patronage was falling was that buses were not running at times that suited passengers for going to work or for nights out. There were also issues relating to the length of journey times.

We did another piece of research on buses with young people—14 to 19-year-olds. There was a fear of not knowing the system. If a person is using a bus for the first time, how do they go about it? A lot of people ask their parents, but a generation of parents does not have experience of using a bus service either. There are a lot of barriers to overcome.

The research showed that, if services improved, 28 per cent of infrequent or non-users in the areas in England that we surveyed would support or consider using a bus service. I think that that would be paralleled in Scotland.

Whatever structure is established by the transport bill that will go through Parliament later this year—as a consumer organisation, we are not really interested in structures; we are interested in outcomes for passengers—there should be a strategy, whether for a franchise, an alliance, or a partnership with local authorities and bus operators, on how to grow the market and get non-users and first-time users on to bus services. Looking at ways of redressing the balance and getting back up to more than 400 million passengers should be an integral part of the transport bill.

I want to pick up on what Gavin Booth said about home working and online shopping as contributors to reducing patronage. I can see the logic of what was said, but why do those factors not appear to have the same effect on the numbers of rail journeys, which continue to rise quite steeply?

I will make another suggestion, to which I invite a response. I never used the bus until I got a bus pass. The reason for that was that I did not know what the exact fare was. Therefore, when I got on a bus on occasion, I found that I did not have the right money. I have always thought that that is an immense disincentive for starting to use buses. Once a person is an experienced user, it is not a disincentive, but, to be blunt, it is almost a “No Entry” sign to an inexperienced and infrequent user. Is that fair comment? Is the point on rail fair comment, too?

Robert Samson may be better able to comment on the rail point.

There are barriers to bus use that have to be broken down. I totally understand what Stewart Stevenson said. I have jumped up and down on the fares point for years. Going on a bus is one of the few things that people do without knowing exactly what it will cost them. When a person goes into Marks and Spencer to buy something, they will know what it will cost before they hand their money over. Very often, people do not know the cost on buses. Bus companies are not very good at publicising fares, particularly where there is a complex series of fares, depending on where the person is going to. I have bashed my head against the bus companies to persuade them to include fares information to make it easier for all passengers to know whether they need £2 or £5, for example, to make a journey.

09:15  

That ties in with the issue of information. The great unknown about bus travel is information. People have electronic access to lots of information, but bus companies are not always very good at publicising their bus services and giving times at bus stops. Many bus stops in Scotland have no information whatsoever. A potential new passenger can turn up at a bus stop, not find any information, think, “I don’t want to know,” and decide to get a taxi, catch a train, walk or take the car. There is a lot to be done on removing barriers, on fares, and on information to attract more people to use buses.

I am here speaking on behalf of disabled people, because I am on the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland. A large number of elderly and older people, who are the traditional bus users, also have mobility problems.

I accept that the change to homeworking and people not commuting any longer are having quite an effect on bus usage. People in the categories that I have mentioned travel only occasionally; they do not travel every day. I am from a Highland community, and we have seen reductions in the bus service. That is partly because the local authority budget for bus services has completely collapsed and school buses are being registered. Generally, school buses are coaches that have steps, and anybody with a mobility problem will have a big problem getting on and off one of those vehicles. They also operate at times that are not really convenient. I will give an example. The Tain bus leaves at 8 o’clock. We have had issues with people having to stand around in Tain for a considerable length of time in the cold waiting for the dentist or the doctor’s surgery to open or for the connection to get the bus to the hospital in Inverness.

We seem to have lost track of integration of services. I am a frequent bus user. Generally, people who travel like to be confident that the bus service will be there in time and that they will make their connection. The biggest issue for a lot of people is whether they will be able to get back home again after whatever they have done.

There has been a focus on digital. I am afraid that the people whom I am speaking for today do not have access to digital communication. A number of factors contribute to that.

Gavin Booth mentioned that information is often available electronically. That is true but, very often, that information is not produced with disabled access in mind. Timetables are still very complicated; they very often use obscure codes and are very often formatted in a way that does not work for people who use access technology.

Leaving bus stops aside for a moment, bus stations are quite often very inaccessible places. In particular, it is often difficult to find members of staff—it is difficult to identify people who work for bus companies to get information in person. For many disabled people, person-to-person contact really matters and gives them the confidence, information and ability to use bus transport.

A balanced approach is required, and it is clear that there gaps in connectivity and gaps in the way in which we communicate with passengers that contribute to that.

We will come on to accessibility towards the end of the session, because that is a key issue. Thank you very much for highlighting those points.

I have a question that builds on the questions from Mike Rumbles and Stewart Stevenson on why numbers are falling. Do you think that there is a status thing around how people travel? For many people, their ideal is to have their own car and go where they want; if they cannot manage that, their second choice is probably the train; and the bus is only a third choice, if they are really stuck. I wonder whether that would be particularly the case in Strathclyde, where people may have a bit more choice and can get the train?

Sheila, you shook your head there.

I think that there is a misunderstanding about the way that people use buses. Older people generally use bus trips to meet up with friends, although they do not arrange to do that; they go to the bus stop, meet friends and then travel with them, and they have a great time on the bus having conversations about everything. People say that buses are a means to an end, but I do not think that they are. The social aspect of bus travel is important and it enables people in local communities to bond with one another and know what is going on.

To keep that going, we need a lot of the traditional means of knowing about the buses that are running. For example, in my village, we have liners coming into Invergordon, and on days when they are in, we often cannot get on the buses. Cleverly, someone has put a list of the liner dates on the bus stop so that we are aware that we might not be able to travel on those days. It is little things like that, and probably not national things, that need to be done. A lot of bus travel is very local.

I have struggled to use the buses in Strathclyde, because the system is not as good as it is in Lothian. In Lothian there is a little map that shows you exactly where the route is going, and it is really helpful to have information like that.

Thanks—that is helpful.

Mr Booth, you talked about partnerships. In theory, Strathclyde partnership for transport should be a good model. However, in Edinburgh the fares are on the bus shelters or bus stops, and there is a diagram of where the bus is going—that was Ms Fletcher’s point—but that information is not provided in Strathclyde. Are there other differences? We are seeing bus usage falling in Glasgow and Strathclyde while it is increasing in Edinburgh.

There certainly are differences. Edinburgh is always held up as a good example. It has an advantage in that there are very few fares. There is a flat fare throughout Edinburgh, so it is easy to explain and sell to people, whereas in Glasgow and other places there are a series of fares depending on where you are going to. Selling the fares is a lot easier in Edinburgh.

I am sorry—I have forgotten the rest of your question.

It was just about any other differences that there might be between Edinburgh and Glasgow. For example, in Glasgow the buses have to do incredibly round-about routes to get round the pedestrian precincts; they are a good thing, but they make bus journeys a lot slower and longer.

They do. I think that bus operators view pedestrian precincts with mixed feelings. There are arguments for allowing buses but nothing else into certain areas, because pedestrian precincts tend to be where people want to be, but if they have a considerable walk to get from the bus to the shop, that will perhaps discourage them.

I think that there is also a social difference between Edinburgh and Glasgow. There has been a lot of investment in the Lothian Buses fleet in Edinburgh, and buses are used by everybody from the poorest people to the richest people in the city, which is unusual around the country. It happens in London, in Edinburgh and maybe in one or two other places. There is no social stigma about travelling by bus and it is something that everybody does. We are lucky in Edinburgh to have a very good bus service.

The SPT area is much bigger and it is a much more difficult area to manage. I would like to see the same commitment to investment in vehicles and partnerships between the bus operators and the local authority to produce what we have here in Edinburgh.

On Monday afternoon, I had a meeting with First Glasgow, at which we discussed the results of our latest bus passenger survey. Passengers are telling us that one of the things that they dislike about bus travel in Glasgow, and one of the problems, is road congestion. That is the main barrier to punctuality.

On value for money, although weekly tickets and longer passes represent better value, the passenger rating is higher for single tickets, which are less expensive, at £2 for a single journey. There is a link between level of income and the up-front cost of £17 or £14 for a weekly ticket. Although such tickets are better value for money, there is a distinction in the passengers’ minds. There is also a link between value for money and road congestion, specifically in Glasgow.

Good morning, panel. As ever, there are plenty of statistics. Bus fares in Scotland have increased by 5 per cent in real terms in the past five years, which compares to an increase of 3 per cent in Great Britain. In price terms—viewing fares in the way that a consumer would—fares have risen by 18 per cent in the past five years. What impact have increased bus fares had on bus passengers and bus use more generally?

That figure is an all-Scotland figure. Sadly, as we know, there are huge variations. There is no common standard throughout Scotland for the fares that are charged or the distance that you can travel for a particular amount of money. I am sorry to keep coming back to the example of Edinburgh, but Edinburgh people know that they can travel fairly far for a very reasonable fare. In other cities in Scotland, such as Aberdeen, I believe, the fares are proportionately that bit higher, which must have contributed to the overall rise.

Bus companies will tell you that they have to invest in new vehicles and that fuel costs and maintenance costs are increasing all the time, which means that they have to increase fares. I accept that that is a practical reason for increasing fares, but bus companies could probably do more to simplify fares and to make them more attractive in order to get more passengers on board.

Gavin Booth touched on ticketing options. How could they be improved and is there a role for the Scottish Government in ensuring that there is improvement?

Bus companies have been moving pretty fast on contactless ticketing, whereby passengers use their bank card to tap in their fare. It is spreading throughout Scotland and, within a year or so, it should be pretty well universal. It is making bus travel that bit easier for a lot of people.

A lot of people, such as Stewart Stevenson and me, have senior citizen bus cards, so fares do not go through our minds quite as much as they go through the minds of a lot of other passengers. Our age group makes up a large proportion of bus passengers in Scotland. Bus companies are reimbursed for every journey that I make and every journey that Stewart Stevenson makes. However, the amount of reimbursement has been cut over the years and, therefore, bus companies are now receiving less reimbursement for my journeys than they did a year, two years or three years ago, which is having an impact on their costings. I imagine that they are having to increase fares to make up for that difference.

If I remember rightly, the budget for concessionary travel has gone up each year and it has never all been completely used. That is the evidence that we have heard. In the light of that, your comment is interesting.

I have two points to make. We asked our question on value for money only of fare-paying passengers, not those with concessionary passes. There is a 65 per cent rating for passenger satisfaction overall in that regard, which is higher than the figure for the rail sector.

We have found from other pieces of research that there needs to be an improvement in fares and ticketing in order that the system is easy to understand. Often when people first come to the bus network, their knowledge of the fares and ticketing system is not there; they get that knowledge through word of mouth or by engaging with the bus driver. As part of the proposed transport bill, there has to be some kind of central source that looks after all passengers’ needs to tell people about the fares and ticketing systems that are available in an easy-to-understand format that attracts people to that mode of transport. It can be done.

09:30  

Could you outline, on behalf of Transport Focus, the key Scottish results from the 2017 bus passenger survey? After that, I invite the rest of the panel to talk about the regional drivers for satisfaction or dissatisfaction in rural and urban areas.

Across Scotland, there was an overall passenger satisfaction level of 89 per cent. There are different survey methodologies. We ask passengers to rate the journey that they took that day—we do that on the Glasgow subway and on rail, too. We do not ask, “What do you think of bus journeys overall?” We carry out a snapshot survey of passengers’ experience of a particular journey, from start to finish.

There are regional differences. In the most recent survey that we did on Lothian Buses, which I think we carried out in 2015, its value-for-money rating of 80 per cent was the highest in Great Britain. The lowest rating for value for money is in Aberdeen.

When we ask passengers about the value-for-money ratings that they give, whether positive or negative, they say that they compare bus travel with rail and with the cost of a car journey. They also compare it with the cost of everyday items. They give the value-for-money ratings that they do on the basis of the cost of bus travel relative to the distance travelled and the cost of everyday items in their general spend.

So cost is key. Do other panel members echo that?

I do not think that cost is key for members of the disabled community, because they generally have a bus pass. The problem is access to that transport. We will come on to access later on, so I do not want to say too much about it now.

Information is another issue. There is confusion about how to pay. I am thinking, in particular, of when schoolchildren become adults who commute. They will always have got on a bus without having to pay a fare, so they will not be very bus-wise. We need to improve the information that we provide to youngsters if we want them to travel by bus in the future.

I am mindful of the time, because we have a lot of issues to cover, so after we have heard from Gavin Booth, we will move on to Gail Ross’s question.

Bus Users Scotland helps to resolve complaints. We have bus compliance people out in the field throughout Scotland, who travel incognito on buses. We measure things in all sorts of ways. For example, we hold events at which passengers come to us. However, we decided not to get involved with fares, because what bus companies charge is a commercial decision for them. We tend to step back from getting involved in complaints about fares. We refer people with such complaints to the bus company.

In my experience of travelling around, there is too much variance between different parts of Scotland. It would be good if people were paying the sort of fares that they expect to pay to travel around, but because, in general, most people travel only in their own area, they might not understand the differences in the way that we do.

That was useful.

Good morning, panel. I want to move on to mobility and the problems that disabled people have on public transport. Sheila Fletcher has touched on the need for integrated timetables and the lack of access to information. Access to the buses themselves might also be an issue.

How can we make it easier for people to access bus services and the buses themselves? I know that there are some new buses coming in on various routes, although perhaps not in our area. Could you comment on the new buses and the difficulties that people have with the buses that are already in use? Are there difficulties in switching between modes of transport? You mentioned the possibility of integrating timetables a little bit better.

Two types of vehicle are used. There are buses, which generally have to be low floor now, and there are coaches. For a lot of our rural areas, coaches are the local transport, and they have a series of steps. They are wheelchair accessible, but the bus companies have been quite slow in accepting that some people cannot climb the steps. For example, we have somebody on the committee who can transfer from her chair on to a seat, but the bus companies want people just to sit in the wheelchair space in their wheelchairs for the entire journey, and they will not load people in a wheelchair on to a bus using a lift and then store the wheelchair underneath.

There are a few things that would help. The biggest issue for disabled people is that they do not want to feel different from other people. They want to have services that enable them to travel easily and not to be flagged up as taking extra time to do things. I have not seen it in action yet, but Gavin Booth and I have been to see a new type of coach that will have a wheelchair space and several seats on a low-floor level, and it is about to be introduced in Fife in a few weeks’ time. It will take a considerable length of time for that to reach all the parts of the transport system that we are involved in, but it is a big move towards improvement.

Integration is hugely important, because if you are disabled, you might not be able to walk very far. Rail services have the passenger assist scheme, but there is nothing similar for buses. You have to ask specifically for help. I travel by Megabus quite a lot, and the message has not got from the head office to the bus that there is going to be somebody in a wheelchair, so it can happen that, when a passenger turns up, there is a crisis in how to deal with them. We are moving forward, but not far enough or fast enough. The other issue is the distance that people have to walk between modes of transport. Although active travel is being promoted, quite a lot of disabled people can walk only very short distances, so we have to bear that in mind as well.

On a positive note, we met Xplore Dundee in 2017 to go over the bus passenger survey results, and only 80 per cent of passengers with a disability had overall satisfaction. Working with those results, the drivers had a period of disability awareness training, and this year when we went back we found that 94 per cent of passengers with a disability were satisfied overall with the service provided, representing quite a significant uplift of 12 or 13 per cent. There are areas where bus companies can work proactively with drivers. Bus travel is different from the rail network, because the only contact that a passenger will have with the bus company, nine times out of 10, will be with the driver, so specific training can help in that regard. It is not the be all and end all, but if it improves the satisfaction of people with disabilities who are using the network, it is a good thing.

Does Hussein Patwa have any comment on accessing bus and rail transport?

Absolutely. A large part of the issues involved with accessing buses is down to awareness on the part of drivers and bus company staff. It appears that in different areas there are different levels of training and of any kind of certification or checks and balance to ensure that the training that drivers are receiving is cognisant of the different disabilities and issues that people may have, particularly with regard to hidden disabilities, where a person may have access challenges that are not immediately visible.

Sheila Fletcher mentioned integration, which is a valid point. One thing that is not always taken into account is the length of time it takes to transfer between services. Even if the distance between transit points may be relatively short, it might take a passenger a significant amount of time to get there.

The final point concerns communication between bus companies. My colleague Sheila Fletcher mentioned the passenger assist scheme, which provides people with assistance from their original point of departure to their final point of arrival, including any changes en route, by train. No such system exists for buses and, often, passengers are left to fend for themselves. If the transit point is in a remote area—for example, an out-of-town bus park or lay-by—it might be difficult. There might be nobody there and no immediate ways of contacting the bus company for help or getting in touch with the driver if that becomes necessary.

That is helpful. Thank you.

Robert Samson said that he was interested in outcomes rather than structures, so I will disappoint him by asking about structures. However, there are structural options that can contribute negatively or positively to outcomes. Does anyone have any suggestions for particular changes to regulatory frameworks or ways that we approach matters that, based on experience and feedback, it seems would deliver?

That could be an open-ended question that could allow the witnesses to completely rewrite the regulations. I am afraid that they will not have time for that, so I ask them to keep their answers to succinct points. That would be helpful.

We do a lot of work on bus services thanks to funding from the bus companies, regional transport partnerships and Transport Scotland, but we do not have a statutory remit. In England, where we have a statutory remit, when the Bus Services Act 2017 went through the Westminster Parliament, we asked passengers what structures they wanted and how bus services should be operated. We found that 75 per cent of passengers did not know how services were operated and, to be frank, did not really care. When we asked the passengers, they said that the bus companies and all levels of Government—be it national or local—should work together and deliver the service that they want regardless of the structure.

We have prepared 10 action points, which I have sent to the committee and all MSPs. They would fit the existing system, reregulation, franchising, partnerships, alliances and quality contracts and would put passengers at the heart of the system. They are based on our research and address what customers actually want. They include boosting the role of the driver, which would drive training; customer care and satisfaction; improving fares and ticketing; and ensuring frequency and stability of service. They also address timetable changes. Timetables can change at a moment’s notice in the bus industry. Passengers want to be consulted on timetable changes, because they affect their lives. I used to live in a village and I could no longer get to my job because the bus service had been changed.

The action points will put passengers at the heart of the system regardless of the structure. I ask the committee to ensure that those 10 points are addressed so that passengers get the service that they deserve. That would drive up passenger numbers to more than 400 million.

When the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive legislated for transport, it introduced voluntary and statutory bus partnerships. There have been virtually no statutory bus partnerships and comparatively few voluntary ones. That would seem to be a structure in which public policy would more directly control how bus services are provided and could tick a lot of the boxes. Do you have any views, Mr Samson, on why bus partnerships have not been used, apart from the fact that they create administrative burdens for local authorities, which is probably the reason?

That was a very long question but I will let you come back with a shorter answer, Robert.

I will give a very brief answer. We sit on a number of partnerships and alliances in English metropolitan areas to which the passenger voice is central. Whatever structure you devise, you must ensure that passengers have a seat at the table and can influence the structure. That is the key point.

09:45  

I have a quick point about bus registration. Local authorities are notified of bus service changes and withdrawals 70 days before they happen. I think that they then have a four-week period in which they can talk to the bus companies. That period is also an opportunity for them to talk to local people. We want equality impact assessments to be done on any bus service change or withdrawal; we also want disabled people to be included in the discussion before a change is made.

At the moment, council officers and councillors are reluctant to tell local people that their bus service is changing, because they will be under pressure to go back to the bus company and offer it some money to try to keep the service going. As Robert Samson rightly said, a lot of services facilitate commuter journeys and, without them, people would not be able to continue in their jobs, or even to get to their doctor. Therefore, we need to have a more robust system of informing people of what is happening.

Thank you. I—

I have a second question.

I know. It would be useful if you could make it brief.

I will. My question is about the concessionary travel scheme—a couple of us here are members of the scheme—which is being looked at. Are there any things that must not happen to the scheme? Is there anything that should happen to it?

As a beneficiary of the scheme, I would hate to see it change in any way. I would be sorry to see the lower age range rising, as it has in England. I understand the sums that are involved in providing the scheme, but it is tremendously useful for older people. It gives us mobility, it helps our health and I applaud the Scottish Government for introducing it and maintaining it at the current level.

Your vested interest is noted.

I, too, have a vested interest. I would really struggle with any changes, because the system is excellent. It enables people to get out and about, and it combats loneliness and isolation. It is important that we try to keep the scheme as it is.

Over the past four years, we have surveyed more than 20,000 passengers. We do not ask free passholders questions about value for money, but their overall satisfaction rates are far higher than those for fare payers, as you would expect. In addition, about 49 per cent of concessionary travel scheme passholders say that they travel by bus because they do not have any other option. In many ways, it is still a lifeline service. Some people make leisure journeys, but for about 50 per cent of those whom we survey who are entitled to concessionary travel, it is the only option that they have to travel.

That is a valid point.

We have been speaking mainly about bus travel, and I will move the discussion on to rail travel. The ScotRail Alliance announced on 30 March 2018 that it had commissioned an independent rail expert to produce an improvement plan. Are you satisfied with how the alliance communicates with passengers about planned and unexpected service disruption? If not, what changes would you want to be introduced? What impact does the bus replacement of rail services have on passengers, particularly those with limited mobility? In particular, I am thinking of situations in which there is suddenly no train service and people unexpectedly have to travel by bus.

Communication is pivotal for everyone, but particularly for disabled folk, who need to have information not only about what is happening, but about the additional steps that may be necessary to allow them to complete their journey.

If we take as an example the recent adverse weather and the major disruption that that caused across the country, ScotRail, to be fair, did a lot to communicate using electronic means through social media, email and text messaging for those who subscribe to that service. However, we must bear in mind that a sizeable proportion of the population is not digitally connected. There are also people who might be digitally connected but who cannot access the channels through which information is provided.

I have always said that I would like greater use to be made of mass media—terrestrial television and radio—to communicate messages about what is happening. Passenger assist, which uses the plain and simple telephone, is extremely beneficial to passengers. In MACS’s experience, we have yet to find a single instance in which ScotRail has used a telephone—a lot of people have mobile phones these days—to advise somebody who has booked assistance that their service has been cancelled, disrupted or curtailed and that there is bus replacement transport.

In many places, the accessibility of bus transport is not taken into account at all, which leads to very long taxi journeys and additional stress and anxiety for passengers. It is not always clear where the stopping places are for bus services—sometimes they are not outside the station—and communication is generally quite patchy. Very often, it is left to the passengers to try to work out where their bus is and which bus is going where. Sometimes buses skip intermediate stops, so people do not know which bus to get on or how the whole system works.

Things have improved slightly. Generally, stations that are accessible are used for rail services that use bus replacements. In the past, I have needed to get off the train at Pitlochry to use the bus. In the Highlands, it is quite common for people to need to use the steps to cross over the railway, but many people cannot do that. In some stations, there is no access to the other platform.

There has been awareness that people who travel might not disclose that they are disabled, but they might have mobility problems. As Hussein Patwa mentioned earlier, people might have hidden disabilities that mean that they need to be told quite clearly what is happening. We need to improve on that.

We met Nick Donovan, who compiled a report on improving performance, and we went through the passenger issues. The report details 20 action points to work on. However, there is no magic bullet to improve performance. We need to focus on getting the assets and the day job right in order to improve the main driver of passenger satisfaction, which is train reliability.

Are you not confident that the piece of work from Nick Donovan will help?

It will help and give a focus. However, there might be overall satisfaction in the national rail passenger survey but, if we break down the survey, we know that young passengers under the age of 25 in Strathclyde were satisfied with ticket-buying facilities, the station environment, interaction with staff and train cleanliness. However, overall, they were fairly dissatisfied because, for example, a person’s train was five minutes late getting into Glasgow Central. Performance has a major impact.

The ScotRail Alliance knows that it has to focus on performance in order for there to be overall satisfaction, because there is a clear correlation. Everything else can be right, but if someone’s train is late, they might be late for work and their boss might not be understanding. The report focuses on the day tasks and the management attention that are needed to improve performance so that it goes back up to more than 90-plus per cent.

I have a brief question for Sheila Fletcher, who talked about the difficulties for people with mobility issues on trains. Are you of the view, as I am, that the safety-critical second person on the train—the guard—has a vital role?

Absolutely. They are very important. I found out recently that quite a lot of guards are much more customer focused than they used to be; they are very good at sussing out whether someone needs a little bit of help. That is a plus point for ScotRail and it is really good that it has done that. I would definitely hate to see the loss of the second person on the train.

There have been incidents when people from our committee have gone to places to view things. Fortunately, at Waverley, when one of them was in a wheelchair, they were told not to get on the train because there was no assistant on the train to use the ramp to get them off at the station where they wanted to get off. That is a key issue with one-man trains as, especially at unmanned stations, there might not be somebody there to deploy the ramp.

The consumer group Which? recently raised concerns about how ScotRail deals with passenger compensation claims during periods of disruption. Do you share those concerns? If so, what changes would you like to be made to compensation arrangements?

Who would like to respond? I ask you all to be as brief as possible.

The new franchise agreement includes the delay repay scheme, for which there is a threshold. We researched that with passengers and about 50 per cent of them do not claim the compensation that they are entitled to. It is about building up trust between ScotRail and the passenger and improving the customer experience. When a train is late, why not make an announcement telling passengers that they are entitled to compensation and reminding them to put in a form or use various other mechanisms—it does not matter what—to get that compensation? Staff at the barriers could engage with passengers and tell them that they are entitled to compensation, which would improve trust between the operator and the passenger. There has to be better communication on what passengers are entitled to; that applies equally to ScotRail and the cross-border train operators.

I notice panel members all nodding in agreement.

I have a short operational point with regard to the threshold for delay repay. How do people know what time their train has arrived at the station? Is it the time at which the train physically stops, or is it when they get on to the platform? That has never been made clear to me as a passenger in the past seven years of travelling. The potential is there for many people to make claims that are not valid, or the opposite—for them not to make claims that would be valid. The issue of communication and passengers knowing what to do, when to do it, how to do it and what happens once they have submitted a claim really needs to be looked into to ensure that people are doing things correctly and getting what they deserve.

Hopefully, ScotRail is listening to our broadcast, and will read the Official Report, and will come up with an answer to that. It is a valid point.

I will move on to some of the other issues that the Donovan report flagged and which seemed to be of concern to commuters. One of those issues is overcrowding on trains, which is probably better in some areas and worse in others, especially those areas in which there have delays in the delivery of new services or a reduction in the number of carriages. Is it your impression that overcrowding has got better or worse, or has it stayed the same?

One of the problems is that, although there will be more capacity on the rail network with the introduction of class 385s and the new high-speed trains, that was announced in 2014 when the franchise changed. It is a bugbear for passengers that, four years later, we are still sitting here waiting for those new trains. When we do research with passengers, we find that one of their top priorities is always being able to get a seat on the train and, on particular routes, particularly at commuter times—the morning and evening peaks—that is a problem. There will be an uplift in capacity of between 25 and 50 per cent more seats on some routes, if not more, which will alleviate those problems. However, we want those trains as soon as possible to be able to do that and to generate passenger growth.

Another issue that comes up frequently is stop-skipping on services. One of Donovan’s key recommendations was that that practice should be stopped unless absolutely necessary, and a promise was made by ScotRail to that effect. Is that improving? How much confidence do you have in the promises that the practice will be eliminated, and do you have any other views on it?

10:00  

We have had meetings with ScotRail about stop-skipping, and we are confident that the situation will get better and, hopefully, that the practice will stop entirely. Passengers want the timetable to be delivered in its entirety. One of the problems with stop-skipping is that, while people who are advised of stop-skipping in advance when they are standing on the platform may find that frustrating, they can cope with it, but passengers who are already on the train when there is an announcement that it will miss their stop are incandescent, and rightly so. It is up to the rail industry to deliver the entire timetable, so that all stations are served.

That leads nicely into my final question, which is about the performance improvement programme that is based on the 20 key recommendations from Donovan’s review. Robert Samson said that those are all very welcome improvements, but that the programme is not a magic bullet. What is the magic bullet? If the improvement programme will not do it and the previous 249-point plan did not do it, where is the industry heading on improving the service to passengers? What is the magic solution?

I encourage Robert Samson to respond briefly.

The magic bullet is that the plan that has been agreed and implemented is watching the monthly reporting figures and the moving annual average to look for improvement. We have to give the plan six to nine months to bear fruit and show improvement through each period, so that the performance percentage goes back up into the mid-90s. There is no magic bullet really—what is needed is hard work on the day job to deliver the 20-point plan in its entirety.

Perfect. The next question is from Colin Smyth, and I suspect that Sheila Fletcher and Hussein Patwa will be the main respondents.

Thank you, convener; they will be, because my questions are about some of the recommendations in the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland’s annual report for 2016-17. The report highlighted a number of concerns about accessibility to and from some of the recently remodelled stations, such as at Haymarket and the taxi ranks at Waverley. How might those issues have been avoided and what lessons can be learned for future projects?

A key concept that the committee is now pushing where it can is that accessibility should be a consideration at the conceptual stage for any project, before any work commences and before the plan is even signed off. Especially with some of the retrofits that are now going on, we are finding that a lot of investment is having to go into remodelling and redoing things to make them compliant and accessible, because accessibility has been an afterthought or something on which stakeholders have not been fully consulted. That is causing additional disruption, anxiety and stress for passengers. Accessibility should be integral to every project, starting at day 1, rather than being included only when the plan is implemented.

Haymarket is a good example, because MACS was very involved with that. We have moved away from being involved in specific station developments now, because we simply do not have the time for that. The big issue at Haymarket is the position of the taxi ranks—that will be an issue at all stations—and it arises from a misunderstanding about how easy it is for blind people or those with a mobility issue to get from the station to the taxi rank. If it is any distance, it is a very big barrier for those people. Passenger assist staff help people to the door of the station, but they are not, technically, allowed to go beyond that. Some of the staff are very good at helping people to get to a taxi rank, but at Haymarket they are not allowed to cross the road and take people down to the taxi rank. That is a big issue because of the distance of the rank from the station.

Ideally, everyone would work together to ensure that that happens, but perhaps there are other issues for the local authority or people who are involved with the roads network. At a new station such as Forres, do you feel that the necessary consultation took place and that provision was put in place? It certainly seemed to me that that was the case.

I agree. I was involved in the consultation on Forres through another panel that I was on, rather than through MACS. It is crucial that local people are involved all the way through.

We have talked about the accessibility of the stations, but does MACS have any other issues relating to rail travel and accessibility? The report talked about issues with concessionary travel and on-train assistance. Do you have any particular concerns?

A number of very specific issues have come up recently, one of which is the plus ones for blind people and the difficulty of booking tickets. The person with the card can go up to the barrier and get through, but if they need to have a companion with them, a ticket has to be bought for that person. The scheme is very much based on local authority concessionary fare schemes and there is variation across the country. Nationwide standardisation of that would be very useful.

Thank you. Unless there are any other points on that issue, it forms a natural conclusion. Representatives of ScotRail are due to come in front of the committee on 9 May—how appropriate is that?—and the minister is due on 16 May. I am sure that a lot of the points that have been raised today will be picked up by committee members at those meetings. It has been an extremely useful meeting for us, and I thank the witnesses for their evidence. I also thank the viewers on Facebook for their attendance.

10:06 Meeting suspended.  

10:11 On resuming—