Local Government and Transport Committee, 30 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Official Report 171KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Bus Services<br />(PE420, PE567, PE569 and PE642)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of petitions, some of which have been in the system since before the election. We have three papers before us, the first of which considers four petitions: PE420, which was submitted by Councillor Sam Campbell; PE567, from Mr Rab Amos on behalf of the Roslin bus action group; PE569, from William Cox; and PE642, from Christine Grahame MSP. The four petitions overlap in that they relate to bus services; in particular, they raise the question whether the legislative framework for bus services is sufficient to enable local authorities and communities properly to influence the bus industry. The Public Petitions Committee has asked this committee to consider the petitions and to decide whether to take further action on them, to refer them back to the Public Petitions Committee or to agree that they do not merit further consideration.

When we considered our work programme, we decided to undertake an inquiry into the impact of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and, in particular, the implementation of the aspects of the 2001 act that relate to quality partnerships and quality contract schemes. That post-legislative review will give us an opportunity to examine in close detail the operation of the bus industry in relation to the 2001 act and the opportunities for local government to influence that. Therefore, we could cover the issues that are raised by the four petitions as part of the inquiry. The paper from the clerks suggests—and I certainly recommend to members—that we respond to the petitioners, indicating that we intend to hold an inquiry, during which we will cover the issues that the petitions raise and examine their merit. I open up the meeting to members who would like to comment on the course of action that we should take.

I agree largely with what you said, convener. It strikes me that the petitions are not really about whether bus services should be deregulated, but about the budget decisions and priorities of individual local authorities and the subsidies that they give to bus services. It is for the local authorities to address the specific issues that are raised in the petitions. The wider issue of whether the revised legislative framework is working is something for our later inquiry to consider.

First, I record apologies from Christine Grahame, who submitted petition PE642. She had hoped to be here, but she is convening the Health Committee this afternoon.

Iain Smith said that the petitions are about particular issues with local authorities. There has been a temporary reprieve for the Meigle Street service, which is the case mentioned in PE642; the service has been taken over by another operator and runs with a different schedule. Scottish Borders Council will report on a review of bus services at the end of September. However, petition PE642 involves more than just the straightforward question of the reregulation of one specific service. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to

"take the necessary steps to ensure that local authorities, when developing policies of social inclusion of the elderly, ensure provision of an adequate bus service for essential lifeline services in the areas for which they are responsible."

If we want to promote social inclusion, it would seem strange not to look at the basic problem that people face, not only in rural areas but in other areas of the country, in accessing bus services either at any time of day or outwith peak periods. Petition PE642 raises an issue that should be considered by the committee and we should take it on board for further action.

The Scottish Executive talks about joined-up thinking, but it is pointless for it to say that it promotes healthy lifestyles, community integration and the use of services while people—many of whom are at the bottom of the pile and rely on buses because they do not have the income to buy a car to get around—are denied access to those services simply because no bus service runs through or near the area where they live.

I do not know the time scale for your proposal, convener, but I would say that the issue merits further action by the committee and that we should intimate our intention to accept the petition and to carry out further investigation. It may be that the results dovetail neatly with the question of quality bus partnerships and quality bus contracts, but I suggest that there is another aspect to the petition that the committee should consider.

Do you propose that we conduct a specific investigation into petition PE642, separate from the proposed inquiry?

Yes. I recognise that petition PE642 has a link with the other petitions, but it raises other issues that merit proper investigation.

I have some sympathy with Bruce McFee's comments. There is a distinction between the other petitions, which call for an adequate bus service, and petition PE642, which mentions "essential lifeline services". That gives petition PE642 a much greater degree of urgency. I notice that we will consider the more general issues, but the paper by the clerk simply says that we will do so later in the session. I seek assurances that we will do so sooner rather than later and that that work will not end up being an afterthought at the very end of the session. The convener proposes to include the matter in the consideration of quality partnerships and quality contract schemes, but that inquiry will come later in the session. Essential lifeline services are matters of considerable urgency.

I am persuaded more by Iain Smith's line. I understand what Andrew Welsh says, but the petitions fit neatly together and they fit into the item in our work plan on quality contracts and so on.

I will try to draw the discussion together. I realise that an alternative suggestion has been made by Bruce McFee, but my view is that the four petitions are all about the same issue. They might use different language and have a different emphasis, but they all raise the same issues—issues on which every MSP could draw examples from their own area, where communities have inadequate bus services. My view is that the issue is not sufficiently distinctive to petition PE642 for us to single out that petition. It would be better to consider the issue in the round.

It would also be problematic for the committee to set a precedent by investigating in detail a petition that draws attention to the withdrawal of one specific bus service. We would soon be deluged with similar petitions from throughout Scotland and, having set the precedent, we would find it difficult to decline to examine other such petitions in the same detail. I do not deny that the issues are important. However, we should treat the four petitions with the same degree of importance, because they deal with overlapping issues.

Andrew Welsh referred to time scales. We expect to commence an inquiry by early summer 2004, once we have got through the major pieces of legislation that we must consider, including members' bills, but particularly the local governance bill. That is the time scale that I envisage. I hope that that is helpful for members to know.

I listened to what you said, convener, but I think that it would be unfair to represent petition PE642 as a request to investigate the withdrawal of a particular bus service. As I said, a temporary solution, although not a full one, has at least come into play in relation to that withdrawal. That is something that we could replicate all over the country, which is why I suggest that we consider the whole issue of how local authorities incorporate transport provision into their social inclusion policies. It seems strange for transport provision to be omitted from those policies, because it is such a vital element.

Frankly, the way in which to avoid being inundated from every part of the country with petitions such as petition PE642 is to investigate the issue to which it refers rather than say that if we investigate one such case we will open up the floodgates. I suggest that the reverse would be the case. If the committee considered the issue in detail—including taking elements from the other petitions, because there are similarities—perhaps we would not get the deluge of petitions on the withdrawal of bus services that I suspect we might otherwise get.

For clarification, I am not suggesting that we do not examine the issues or that they are not important. I am suggesting that we examine the issues as part of our inquiry.

I agree with the convener. If we go down the road of considering a petition because it uses buzz words such as "social inclusion" or "essential lifeline", there is a danger that we will not accept petitions that do not use such words. We must consider the merits of the case for each petition. Petition PE642 is clearly about the removal of a particular bus service. The conclusions that it draws about that removal may or may not be valid. Clearly, all local authorities should take into account social inclusion as part of their community planning and transport strategies. If they do not, they are probably failing to meet the guidance under the legislation. However, we can consider that as part of our examination of the effectiveness of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and the quality partnerships.

For once in my life, I agree with Iain Smith. I will leave it at that.

Okay.

Although buzz words do not bother me, I am bothered about essential lifelines. I think that that aspect hauls petition PE642 out from the others. I also note that the convener said that that aspect would be covered by the inquiry, which should be in early summer 2004.

We seem to have two proposals. One is that we consider the issues raised by all the petitions as part of our inquiry. The other is Bruce McFee's proposal that we carry out specific work on petition PE642. Are you pressing that proposal, Bruce?

Yes.

In that case, the best way of resolving the issue is to vote on how we should deal with the petitions. The first proposal—outlined in the briefing paper—is that we indicate to the petitioners that we intend to consider the issues raised by the petitions as part of our inquiry. The second proposal, suggested by Bruce McFee, is that we consider evidence on petition PE642 at this stage.

Can Bruce McFee confirm exactly what his proposal is, because both proposals are pretty similar? Bruce McFee is asking for Christine Grahame's petition PE642 to be considered, but I understand that we are proposing that it will be considered with the others anyway.

Yes.

I wonder what the difference is. Can Bruce McFee clarify that?

My understanding—and Bruce McFee can correct me if I am wrong—is that he is indicating that we should carry out work on petition PE642 and take evidence on it now.

So he wants an inquiry into that petition.

I can help Paul Martin with this. I want an inquiry into petition PE642. I recognise that some issues are common to the four petitions, but any work that is done now would easily dovetail at a later stage with any further examination of quality bus partnerships and contracts. There is merit in that particular—

I do not want to reopen the argument.

I just feel that the committee should consider petition PE642 now.

If everyone is clear about the two options, I will put the question. The question is, that we accept my recommendation that we consider the issues raised by petition PE642 as part of the inquiry. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)

Against

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

It is agreed that we will consider the issues raised by all four petitions as part of the inquiry that we agreed to undertake into bus services, quality partnerships and quality contracts.

---

Taxis (Use by Disabled People) (PE568)

The next petition is PE568, from Alan Rees, on behalf of the Scottish accessible transport alliance, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to encourage Scottish local authorities to ensure that half their licensed fleets are fully accessible to wheelchair users and other disabled people and to have a standard concessionary scheme for taxis. The Public Petitions Committee has asked this committee to consider—in light of responses that it received from the Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, VisitScotland and the Scottish Taxi Federation—whether to accept the referral to carry out further work, to refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee or to agree that the petition does not merit further consideration. I seek members' comments on how to proceed.

One suggestion in the paper is that, before reaching a conclusion, we request a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre on the issues raised in the petition and on the responses to those issues. We could seek that briefing before reaching a conclusion, but I seek members' views.

That is one way forward. It would also be useful to get an update from the Executive because, according to the papers, its response was made on 29 January. It would be useful to know whether any progress has been made since then.

I agree that we should obtain further information, because the information on the state of the councils dates from September 2001 and I know that some councils have since adopted policies requiring the provision of disabled access for the renewal of vehicle operators' licences. That applies to taxis as opposed to private hire cars.

Some local authorities say simply that all vehicles will have to be able to take a wheelchair safely by a certain date. From my local government days, I know that the Department for Transport has provided no further information about acceptable vehicle types, so although one local authority might test a vehicle type and deem it unsuitable for the job that it is being asked to do, another local authority might deem that vehicle type suitable for the job.

I am concerned that when local authorities perform non-destructive testing of a vehicle's safety, which is conducted largely in their own workshops, they can reach different decisions on vehicle types. That puts taxi operators in the invidious position of being asked by local authorities to buy vehicles that might in future be regarded as unacceptable for the job. We are talking about some pretty substantial investments of between £25,000 and £30,000 per vehicle.

As for concessionary schemes, a number of people who are disabled have told me that even if a taxi that is capable of taking a wheelchair is available, it is difficult to make it turn up in a reasonable time, because the downtime for picking up someone in that situation is large. Some taxi drivers avoid that like the plague if a fare going somewhere else is available.

The cost of travel must be addressed. Concessionary schemes have been taken up in some areas but, in other areas without concessionary schemes, the number of journeys that disabled people make in specifically adapted vehicles is low, given the overall investment. A clear strategy would be useful, but the first task must be to update the information, particularly on the situation in local authorities.

I say from personal experience of using crutches for a wee while that the situation is not as simple as it appears. Black cabs may be better at taking wheelchairs, but the height of black cabs above the pavement is unhelpful for people on crutches. In such a situation, an ordinary taxi can be more helpful. The issue is not easy. We need background information.

I agree. The situation is patchy across the country and the issue is not simple or straightforward. The problems in the cities are different from those in the burghs and those in rural areas. My local authority, Angus Council, has a well-developed scheme. I would like to have more information. A briefing from SPICe would help the committee in any further consideration of the petition.

Does the committee agree to seek further briefing from SPICe and to reconsider the petition at a subsequent meeting? It has been suggested that we should write to the Executive, too. We could ask for an update from the Executive and through the SPICe briefing. The petition will then be brought back to the committee for us to consider whether we wish to undertake further work. We will advise the Public Petitions Committee and the petitioners of the decisions that we have taken today. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Will we be updated on the situation in local authorities?

I hope that the SPICe briefing will identify enhanced or new procedures that local authorities have adopted since the original information was collected.

---

Rail Network (Local Railway Stations) (PE629)

The last petition that we will consider today is petition PE629, from Norman Banski, on reopening local railway stations. The petition refers to the former railway station at Laurencekirk. We have decided to take evidence from the Minister for Transport and from the Strategic Rail Authority on developments in the rail network in Scotland and we could ask them questions not only about Laurencekirk station, but about the principle of reopening services.

One of our predecessor committees—the Transport and the Environment Committee—indicated in its inquiry into the rail industry that new stopping services should be considered as part of improvements to the rail network. I am aware that the specific issue of a particular station has been raised, but it is best if we address that in the broader context of enhancing the rail network in Scotland. I suggest that we do something similar to what we did in relation to bus services. We do not want to focus on a specific location; we want to consider how best to improve the rail service in general.

Are members content that we proceed on that basis, or do they wish to proceed in any other way? At this stage, we are being asked only for our view on how we could address the matter. We are not being asked to undertake the work. The Public Petitions Committee has not formally referred the matter to us yet; it is just looking for guidance from us on how to proceed. The Public Petitions Committee has already written to Aberdeenshire Council about the issue and is awaiting a response.

Are members content with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

We will communicate that to the Public Petitions Committee.

The next item is the main item on the agenda: the budget process 2004-05. I suggest that, while the witnesses are brought in, we suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—