Transport (Scotland) Act 2001
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2854, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, on behalf of the Local Government and Transport Committee, on its inquiry into issues arising from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.
In deciding on the Local Government and Transport Committee's work programme, members believed that it would be useful to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of legislation from the previous parliamentary session, so we decided to examine the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that is within our committee's remit. We did not cover all aspects of the act; for example, we did not explore congestion charging, partly because Edinburgh's proposals were subject to a public inquiry and, ultimately, to a referendum. However, to have gone into such issues might have added to the interest of our report.
The main subject on which we focused was quality partnerships and quality contracts for bus services, which have been available since 2001. We knew that no formal quality partnerships or contracts had been embarked on, but we were well aware from constituents and bus-user representatives that many complaints are made about bus services in constituencies around Scotland. Services for some of Scotland's most excluded communities have been withdrawn and claims have been made about cherry picking on key profitable routes, particularly the main corridors into cities and towns. Some areas have too many buses whereas others have far too few. We wanted to get to the bottom of those issues, to find out what was happening throughout the bus industry and to collect views from all quarters. We also considered the concessionary travel schemes that were introduced under the 2001 act.
In addition to the normal parliamentary work of taking evidence in committee in Edinburgh, we decided to organise meetings and community events in Stranraer and Glasgow to collect views from regular bus users in a major city and a relatively rural part of Scotland. I thank not only the parliamentary clerks who supported our work, but the many organisations that offered written and oral evidence and, most of all, the members of the public who participated in the events in Stranraer and Glasgow.
The picture that emerged was mixed. It is true that no quality partnerships or contracts have been established, but that does not mean that no positive developments have occurred in the bus industry. Almost every local authority has partnership working with local bus operators to develop voluntary partnerships, many of which result in better quality and cleaner vehicles with low-floor access, better service frequencies, reduced journey times and better information for passengers. We should acknowledge and applaud such developments.
It is also true that, in Stagecoach and FirstGroup, we have two major private companies in the transport market that play a major role not only here in the United Kingdom, but internationally. Scotland should welcome the fact that two such major companies are based here.
After many years of decline, the number of local bus journeys has grown in each of the past five years. In 2003-04, 449 million local passenger journeys were made, which represents a year-on-year increase of 1 per cent. Since current records began, this is the first time that we have had five years of year-on-year growth.
However, the picture is not all positive. When non-local journeys are included, the overall bus market declined by 1 per cent in 2003-04. In comparison with 10 years previously, the number of people who travel by bus was down by about 15 per cent, which is consistent with the rest of Great Britain except London, which has substantially bucked the trend.
Why is it important to reverse the trend in bus patronage and to encourage more people to travel by bus? First, if we are to tackle the problem of congestion in our major cities, buses are a more flexible alternative to the private car than rail and trams. Investment in new bus services can be swifter because the infrastructure constraints are fewer. Buses already represent the largest segment of the passenger transport sector and account for about 11 per cent of all commuter journeys. The bus is probably the most effective way to connect employment and social opportunities to excluded communities or individuals who have no access to a private car.
We recognise that progress has been made in some local journeys, but the picture throughout Scotland is inconsistent. We uncovered several services that had been withdrawn from communities and many cases of poorly maintained vehicles, insufficient cleaning, poor customer relations and poor customer care in general. There were also many tales of intense competition on busy routes and of very little competition and often no services at all in rural communities and communities that are on the periphery of our larger towns and cities.
To date, no quality contracts and quality partnerships—which I want to consider—have been developed, but the fact that quality partnerships and quality contracts are on the statute book has acted as a means of encouraging bus companies to enter voluntary partnerships in some areas. A positive development that I want to highlight in my area is the partnership that was recently formed between West Lothian Council and FirstGroup. It is probably fair to say that there have been many frosty exchanges between those organisations over the years, but they recently came together at senior level and developed a partnership agreement that aims to grow patronage by 5 per cent over the next two years on the important Bathgate-Livingston-Edinburgh corridor.
Among aspects of the agreement to which both sides have committed themselves and which will improve services along the corridor are the council's taking greater responsibility for replacing shelters, for improving lighting and security at bus stops and for tackling graffiti and repairs more timeously. The council has agreed to provide better information at stops and that there should be better liaison between the organisations on roadworks in order to try to minimise disruption to timetables. The council also committed itself to agreeing contingency plans when roadworks are necessary. First Edinburgh committed to introducing new low-floor buses to the route this month, to agreed emissions standards, to a guarantee that existing frequencies will be maintained for at least a year in order to find out whether passenger growth aspirations are achieved, and to agreements on cleaning standards and the use of closed-circuit television to improve security.
Looking to the future, the new regional transport partnerships should be able to play a key role in developing bus networks and routes more regionally—that role has been missing in the past few years. All the powers that are currently available to local authorities will be available to the new RTPs if they want them.
During the inquiry, there were calls from witnesses—and, indeed, from some committee members—for the bus industry to come under far heavier regulation than is currently the case, and even for some parts of it to return to full renationalisation or some other public sector model. We considered a number of different ownership and regulation models as part of the inquiry, some of which seemed initially to be attractive. For example, the franchise system that operates in London seems to work well and has led to more passenger journeys in London and to London bucking the passenger transport trend compared with other parts of the UK. Lothian Buses, which remains in a form of public ownership, also seems to provide an excellent service to its users at a reasonable cost and returns millions of pounds each year to the City of Edinburgh Council and the other Lothian councils by way of dividend.
I want to pick up on that point. I have travelled around the country and it strikes me that much of the soft passenger information is much better and that, as a result of the best practice that the Scottish Executive identified on timetabling information and information at bus stops and of new stock regularly coming through, the service is much more attractive than it was a few years ago. To what extent should best practice be encouraged throughout the country? We now have Traveline Scotland and people can telephone or go on to the internet to find out when buses run. Reliability, information at stops and ideas such as texting information to people's mobile phones are important.
I agree entirely. Ensuring that bus passengers and people who are not currently bus users have access to accurate information about timetables and real-time information on bus services, if that is available, can only encourage more people to use such services. Some voluntary partnerships that have been developed and some Executive initiatives have expanded such services. Further encouragement of them will assist in growing the bus market.
I turn to the models that we considered. We concluded that some models were superficially attractive, but it would be difficult to implement many of them in Scotland at this time. If we were to turn back the clock 20 years, perhaps it would be possible to create for the whole of Scotland a model that is similar to London's. However, we might have things to learn from London about promoting quality contracts. I am encouraged by the Executive's commitment to discussing with Transport for London ways in which that organisation franchises services in the city of London. Similarly, although everyone has positive words to say about Lothian Buses, it would be difficult for other local authorities to recreate such a service, given the 20 years that have passed since deregulation.
It is arguable that the challenge that we face is how we can make the current mixed economy work best. We have a couple of world players, which I mentioned earlier, in rail and other interests. We also have some niche operators and—as I mentioned a moment ago—we have a successful public sector model in the Lothians. The trick is to make all those work together with the public agencies and the RTPs through appropriate use of quality contracts and quality partnerships. It is important that the Executive assist local authorities in developing that model.
The concessionary travel schemes that were introduced in the first session of Parliament are by far one of the most important success stories of the Parliament's first four years. By 2003, 26 per cent of the population held a concessionary bus pass, with more than 75 per cent of drivers aged over 65 and more than 90 per cent of non-drivers holding a pass. That is one of the most effective measures that we could have introduced to improve the lives of our oldest and most excluded citizens. I welcome very much the Executive's announcement during our inquiry of its commitment to extending the older people's travel scheme and to introducing a travel scheme for young people. Aside from the benefit that young people will gain when many of them do not have access to a car, the scheme will, I hope, encourage travel patterns that will lead later in their lives to consistently higher public transport use, even when they can drive and have access to a car.
Although the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has had a limited direct effect to date, it has, through the introduction of quality contracts and partnerships, probably acted as a driver of several of the voluntary partnerships that have emerged. Equally, the concessionary travel initiative that was introduced through the act has made it one of the most effective and popular acts to have been passed in the first four years of Parliament, and contributes to promotion of bus travel and the achievement of a more inclusive society.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the recommendations contained in the Local Government and Transport Committee’s 4th Report 2005 (Session 2):
Inquiry into issues arising from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (SP Paper 316).
I was not a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee when it began its deliberations; I came in at the end. I convey the apologies of Bruce Crawford, who is not able to be here. I am happy to see David Mundell in the chamber, to make what may be his valedictory speech, which we look forward to.
The Scottish National Party recognises that the bus is the predominant and key mode of public transport in Scotland, and we welcome and recognise the improvements that have been made over recent years. Those improvements have resulted from a large number of factors and through people working together. They have come about through extra money being put into the provision of buses; through the ingenuity of local authorities, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and other bodies; and, not least, through the commitment of the big three bus companies and the other bus companies.
Ironically, perhaps, much of the improvement that there has been has not resulted directly from the vehicles that were created by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. It was envisaged by the then Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, and others that quality contracts and quality partnerships would be the way in which we would achieve that success, whereas, in fact, the success has been achieved through voluntary arrangements. The SNP recognises that there is a role for regulation and that there is a case, as Bristow Muldoon has said, for regulation. We do not agree with renationalisation. Although no SSP member is in the chamber at the moment, perhaps we will hear from them later.
They are on the bus.
Brian Adam reliably informs me that they are on the bus.
It is clear that quality contracts and quality partnerships are a solution that, when examined closely, has been found wanting. In its evidence to the committee, the National Federation of Bus Users estimated that a pilot scheme in West Lothian might cost £1.5 million. The SPT estimated that the cost would be £1 million. Plainly, it would be folly to enter into such models at such cost if the money could be better used to increase the frequency and improve the quality of the service to the passengers and the public.
The SNP recognises that it is necessary to tackle congestion where it occurs. Bristow Muldoon was quite right to say that the committee—for the reasons that he gave—did not study or take evidence on congestion charging. I hope that that opportunity will come. With reference to the Edinburgh scheme, the SNP believes that although local authorities should at that time have had the authority to consider such schemes, that particular scheme was wrong.
What alternatives have been presented? The debate has not moved forward significantly since the Edinburgh referendum debacle. The SNP recognises that park-and-ride schemes have played a role. As we heard from Stagecoach, the Ferrytoll initiative has been a massive success. As the local member for Inverness, I believe what the director of Stagecoach, Robert Andrew, said in his evidence: such a facility, coupled with other anti-congestion measures, would be a great advantage and would keep cars out of the city centre.
The SNP and an SNP Government would ensure that public sector workers had the opportunity to avoid driving to work in the rush hour. The merit of that proposal, which I have mentioned in the chamber before—I look forward to the current minister or his successor developing it—is that the costs would be minimal. I commend that proposal to the chamber.
In rural Scotland and in most parts of my constituency, other solutions are required. Brian Souter recognised that the best solutions to the problems will come not from big central locations, but from community-led partnerships such as we see in Badenoch and Strathspey. He proposed in his evidence the excellent idea of taxi buses that could be operated like post buses and extended to take in other services in local areas. Those are the types of solution that are being developed, that will be developed and which we can all support.
I turn to the national concessionary scheme. The SNP supports in principle a scheme that will benefit our senior citizens and those with a disability. [Interruption.] We will continue to do so, whatever alarms are going off around us—and I am not referring to the sound of Kenny MacAskill's lectern falling. When the minister announced to the Parliament on 22 December that there would be a national concessionary scheme, he won support for it in principle. However, it has emerged subsequently that the details of the scheme appear not to have been thought through. Several months after the announcement, in a letter that I have obtained from the project manager, she asks local authorities whether she can have details of the 16 local schemes that operated before. Should not that have been done before the minister announced the national scheme?
In a report by the MVA Consultancy Group Ltd, which reported in draft in April, the consultants raised the pertinent question about the cost of the scheme. The minister has not given the total costs; he has given maximum costs. However, the consultants say that it is not clear whether any financial modelling has been done. Surely that modelling should have been done before the minister made the announcement to Parliament.
It is not clear how the smart card system will operate. There will not be a machine for every bus, as was the intention; the system will be operated manually. The scope for fraud is thus greater, as the MVA report recognised, and there are many other potential problems. The purpose of the SNP as the Opposition is to probe such deficiencies, but there is not enough time today for me to go over the vast deficiencies that exist in the proposed scheme. I hope that the minister will come back to Parliament before the recess, as he promised to do, to let us know what is happening to implement a scheme that the SNP, of course, warmly welcomes.
This is the last time that I will speak in this Parliament, at least for a while, and I am very pleased to speak in this particular debate. For me, there is a certain resonance in following Fergus Ewing in any debate in the Scottish Parliament, because although I have enjoyed his speeches I have rarely agreed with them. It is true that I am standing down; indeed, I made it absolutely clear that I would do so if I was elected to Westminster. However, Mike Rumbles's recent words made me think again, because the prospect of him leading the Liberal Democrats might have been worth staying for.
As far as Bristow Muldoon's comments are concerned, I hope that I can contribute to the on-going debate in London on travel. From my experience over the past three weeks, it appears that the evidence on transport in London from the Mayor of London's office is not quite what it seems.
I was very pleased to contribute to the Local Government and Transport Committee's report. In fact, I think that I was one of the members who argued in favour of holding the inquiry. The report on bus travel represents the Scottish Parliament and its committees acting at their very best and pursuing an issue that is important to hundreds of thousands of people. The committee and the Parliament have had some lengthy deliberations on rail travel, but we must accept that the majority of citizens who use public transport use buses. From that perspective, the inquiry was very worth while.
Will the member give way?
I will indeed.
Given that so many of his colleagues are in the chamber to hear him, I am sure that David Mundell's maiden speech as the shadow Scottish secretary cannot be long delayed. Will he represent the wee free Conservatives or the broader Conservative communion?
My committee colleague Paul Martin pointed out this afternoon that Mr Michael Martin and I are single-party House of Commons representatives from Scotland. Together, and with our other colleagues, we will represent Scotland well in that chamber.
I was particularly pleased that the committee was willing to visit Stranraer to engage with the communities and various people who fed into the report. However, people must see that their participation in the inquiry and the general public participation in which the Parliament has engaged have some meaningful effect. One of my greatest disappointments as an MSP was to see what happened to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report on its inquiry into lifelong learning on which I and others, including Mr McNulty, spent more than a year. Although an enormous amount of time was invested in that inquiry and an enormous number of people contributed to it, little or nothing flowed from it. If the public see that their participation is having no effect, they will simply not engage in such work.
As a member for the South of Scotland, I felt that the most pertinent issues in the inquiry related to the funding of rural bus services. As a result, I would like to hear the minister repeat his reassurances with regard to Dumfries and Galloway Council's concerns that changes to funding, particularly in relation to the national concessionary scheme, will lead to a reduction in services in those communities. There is no point in having a concessionary scheme that allows people to travel for free if there are no buses in their locality for them to travel on. The report also highlighted the lack of bus operators in rural areas to offer alternatives to Stagecoach or FirstBus. We must not only take forward those important issues, but take account of Brian Souter's response to the questions on new and fresh ideas for rural transport that I asked at the committee's meeting in Glasgow. He said:
"It is absolutely not the answer to have a big bus trailing around with three people in it."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 28 September 2004; c 1132.]
I pay tribute to the committee clerks for their support in preparing the report. If you will indulge me slightly, Presiding Officer, I want to reaffirm the comment that I made in my letter of resignation: it is with genuine sadness that I leave the many friends and colleagues in the Parliament with whom I have worked over the past six years.
I put on record my appreciation for the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, Bristow Muldoon, for his indulgence during the inquiry. None of us should make any apologies for the issues that we raised in the inquiry, because the effectiveness of our bus network throughout Scotland affects many people, particularly the disadvantaged groups who depend on an effective bus network.
Many people in my constituency and throughout Scotland need a decent bus network to get them to hospitals, health centres and leisure facilities, and even to get them to work in the early hours of the morning. I do not see any evidence that, under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, our bus companies are motivated by the need to deliver for the social needs of our communities. They are motivated only by the need to ensure that they make a nice tidy profit from every route that they deliver. Social conscience may have nothing to do with the concerns that have been raised, but the specific issue that I want to raise is the cherry-picking process that the bus companies involve themselves in.
I ask the Minister for Transport not simply to take my word for that. I quote from the minutes of a north Glasgow FirstGroup transport liaison group meeting, at which David Robertson, the network manager of FirstGroup, said:
"Unfortunately bus operators cannot afford to be suppliers of Social Services",
as previously delivered by the SPT. The minister said in response to our inquiry that the bus companies should not always look at the bottom line, but should deliver social services throughout Scotland. I agree with that, but unfortunately that is not what is being played out in our communities. I find the cherry picking that goes on throughout the bus industry unacceptable, and the quality partnership and quality contract process, which was well meant in 2001, is not playing out effectively. There will have to be a process to ensure that we can regulate to deliver the social needs of our communities.
In relation to concessionary fares, we have seen significant investment by the Executive of £156 million; I know that all members welcome that. However, the evidence that we received during our inquiry showed that there is no purpose to that scheme unless people can access the bus services in the first place. Once again, I must mention the need to ensure that the elderly and, in particular, the disabled can access those services. We are advised that many of the buses that are being developed will not be ready to comply with the amended regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for another 20 years. We should introduce legislation timeously to ensure that everyone can get access to bus services.
I have spoken a number of times in the chamber about the need to ensure that we deliver to many of the facilities that require bus services for people who have no alternative but to access the bus network. I welcome the minister's response on that point during stage 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, when we ensured that the new regional transport partnerships will take health facilities into consideration. I believe that the minister will, at some point, have to address the need to regulate to ensure that bus companies take those issues into account.
I want to address the constant need for companies to consider a subsidy before they will deliver a service. David Robertson, whom I quoted earlier, also said to the north Glasgow liaison group, "Why don't you make representations to your MSP to see how that subsidy can deal with delivering some of those social services?" FirstGroup asks us to provide funding from the public purse to deliver social services when its turnover, according to a recent announcement, has increased by 8 per cent from £2.29 billion to £2.47 billion. It is time for such companies to move away from the cherry picking of routes and to ensure that they deliver a cross-section of services to the people who need them in the most disadvantaged areas. They should have the reality check and accept that, in business, it is necessary to take the good with the bad. Many other public limited companies in various industries have to do that; it is time that the bus companies woke up to that and ensured that they deliver services to the most disadvantaged groups throughout Scotland.
We move to the open debate. I want to call as many back benchers as I can, so I ask for four-minute speeches.
I tender my apologies for the discourtesy of not being in the chamber for the opening speeches. Regrettably, and as is often the case, my media interview did not proceed at the time that it was supposed to.
It is appropriate that we are reviewing the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Such review is part and parcel of the legislative process and the purpose of the Scottish Parliament. We are a unicameral Parliament, so we have to make legislation without having the opportunity to review matters. Some time after legislation has been introduced, therefore, it is appropriate that we should pause and reflect on whether what we sought to achieve has been achieved; whether the act is working well; whether things can be improved; and what amendments we need to make. When we do that, it is appropriate that we look at issues in Scotland in terms of the glass being half full rather than half empty. It is clear that some aspects have not worked out as well as we would have liked, but significant process has been made in other areas.
A difficulty for the committee is that there may have to be a further review because, to some extent, the ground is shifting under our feet. The decision, which I and the SNP support, to introduce regional transport partnerships is long overdue. We can use that method to provide in other areas of Scotland what currently exists in the west of Scotland. The representation from that area here today makes it clear that we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater in respect of what has served the west of Scotland well through the SPT.
Regional partnerships represent progress, in that one of the difficulties for buses is that they transcend local authority borders. Local authorities face significant difficulty in many regards. We must consider the society that has evolved, in respect of larger travel-to-work areas, and extend the opportunities that exist for regulation and control to be taken over that. That means broadening out the base.
To some extent, bus services are a Cinderella service. They are often maligned, but they are a good service for those who use them. At low cost, they are capable of delivering a great deal. I believe that trams will be appropriate at some stage, but I am aware that for the current cost to the city of Edinburgh of tramlines 1 and 2, we could renovate the entire Lothians bus fleet and, I am told, run the buses free for the next seven years.
We must question whether, on a utilitarian basis, the bus service is best value and whether it runs when it is wanted, which is not only at peak times, and at an appropriate fare level. We must make progress on matters such as park and ride and, most certainly, integrated ticketing. There is a role for Government in that.
An integrated structure will have to be created. I have a friend who works in Denmark but lives with his partner in Malmö in Sweden. He commutes daily from Malmö to Copenhagen, a journey that involves two countries and two currencies but one ticket. We travel between the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow in one country with one currency, but we need two tickets. We must bang heads together. We are a small country and we should be capable of delivering an integrated service. I accept that a multitude of factors, such as local authorities, transport authorities, the private sector and the public sector, must be taken into account, but ultimately it is the role of Government and this Parliament to deliver on such matters. People want buses that arrive on time and are easy to use, as well as new fleets, and if the ticketing system is complicated they will not use the bus.
We have come a long way, but much must be reviewed. I appreciate that we have made progress, but we will have to return to many matters when the new regional transport partnerships are in place, because the ground will change significantly.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which is important, not least because it is David Mundell's last debate in this Parliament. He has cherry picked Westminster over the Scottish Parliament and I wish him well.
Although we can all applaud the Scottish Executive's efforts to promote public transport in the broadest sense, through tram and rail projects for example, Scotland's bus services remain at the forefront of public transport for most Scots. Bus services are important to all our communities, so I am happy that the Executive is doing its best to support services not just directly but indirectly, by subsidising local services to hospitals, for example, through local authorities. I think that all members know that the two issues that are guaranteed to get our constituents writing to us or signing petitions are the proposed loss of a hospital and the proposed loss of a bus service.
The Local Government and Transport Committee is to be congratulated on taking the opportunity to review aspects of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. That is part of the welcome trend of actively reviewing and pursuing issues on which we have passed legislation, which I have noticed in other committees, too. I am relatively new to the committee and was not involved in the taking of evidence on the subject, but I thank the people who contributed. Their evidence demonstrated that although the deregulated bus market has provided benefits in some parts of the country, other parts have suffered. Witnesses described a mixed picture, in which different issues are faced by councils and bus users in different parts of the country. Some places have experienced increased frequency of services, reduced fares and improved infrastructure. In many of those areas, voluntary quality partnerships between councils and operators are playing a key role. Bristow Muldoon gave an example of a voluntary partnership in West Lothian, which covers an area that is on the fringes of my constituency. However, other parts of the country have experienced the withdrawal of marginal services and the overprovision of services on key corridors. Although bus operators, many of whom are among the biggest transport operators in the world, told the committee a generally upbeat story, bus users from throughout the country told a different story of instability in scheduling, dirty buses, staff who are often ignorant, and lack of information. In my constituency I have had to meet FirstBus to discuss unacceptable problems in Queensferry, which have been caused to some extent by lack of competition.
What are the key messages of the committee's report? First, the committee does not favour the reregulation of the bus industry, primarily for pragmatic reasons, as Bristow Muldoon outlined. Many aspects of the approach in London and that of Lothian Buses might be regarded as positive, but whether those approaches offer a way forward is debatable. The 2001 act created a legal basis for the introduction of statutory bus quality partnerships and quality contracts. Some people argue that the approach has failed, because statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts have not been set up. However, I do not agree with that analysis. The fact that councils have the power to introduce statutory partnerships and contracts has probably assisted in the successful development of a number of voluntary partnership agreements. From the evidence of councils such as Midlothian Council and West Lothian Council and from SPT in relation to the costs and difficulties of quality contracts as they are currently perceived, it is clear that statutory quality contracts are a long way down the track, if they are to come to fruition at all.
I welcome the minister's willingness to have discussions with relevant stakeholders, to ascertain whether the benefits and improvements that deregulation has brought in some parts of the country can be enjoyed throughout the country. The Executive's announcement of the extension of the concessionary fares scheme demonstrates that willingness to listen. The scheme has been a major success: it has increased bus use and it has brought wider health and social inclusion benefits for older people. The extension of those benefits to young people is welcome. Funding remains the big question, which I hope that the minister will answer.
Sometimes we in the chamber congratulate ourselves on passing legislation, and we are right to do so. However, occasionally we should take a look at what has been achieved by that legislation. With transport legislation, the question to ask is this: Has transport got better across Scotland? I am not sure that it has.
It is interesting to reflect on the genesis of the bill that led to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee throughout the first session of the Parliament and a few members here today were also members of that committee at different times. The bill was, in many ways, flagship legislation. It was the first piece of transport legislation on such a scale to be dealt with in Scotland for almost 20 years.
The first element of the bill was bus regulation, but there were two other substantial elements in the initial drafting: congestion charges and workplace parking charges. In the end, it was decided not to proceed with those elements. There were also significant elements in the legislation to do with bridges and estuary transport management. In the report that we are discussing today, the summary of conclusions and recommendations puts the focus on one aspect of the transport legislation but does not really give an overview of what has been delivered or of how transport has changed, or an overview of whether the decisions that were made during the passage of the legislation were correct or not. That is a bit of a shame. I say that not to criticise the committee, but to suggest that a wider view could have been taken of what was, as I say, flagship legislation. A wider view could have been taken of the decisions that were made and the changes that came about as a consequence.
It is important to consider how legislation influences—or does not influence—budgetary decisions. When introducing legislation, it is an old trick of the Executive to say that it will not really cost much, that it is just a marginal change, and that little pieces of administration can easily be dealt with, but also to make a whole series of strategic investment decisions that have nothing to do with the legislative framework. To some extent, those decisions will probably evade the process of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not mean to criticise any one minister—at different times, a number of different ministers have had responsibility for transport—but we as parliamentarians will have to consider the process of tracking ministers' decisions.
When the old Transport and the Environment Committee was considering transport legislation, we tried to envisage what kind of congestion charging scheme would work and what kind would not. It is a shame that most of the committee's recommendations were ignored in the scheme that was introduced in Edinburgh. The scheme failed because of entirely predictable issues.
For bus regulation, we introduced a series of mechanisms that have never been properly implemented. We have never gone down the route of quality partnerships. The real issue to be addressed was that of the oligopoly of FirstBus and Stagecoach. Decisions made since the implementation of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 have, I regret to say, led from FirstBus to First ScotRail to very big profits. I am not sure that we always get value for money.
I take Kenny MacAskill's point about how, if money were spent on buses rather than on very expensive trams, a value-for-money issue would arise as well as a transport issue. The Parliament should be scrutinising such issues more effectively and in greater detail—either through post-legislative scrutiny or through the work of the Finance Committee or the Local Government and Transport Committee.
I welcome this report; it contains many good things. However, there are many things that it should have addressed but does not.
I am well aware that the fact that I was not a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee that compiled the report puts me at something of a disadvantage, in that I did not hear the evidence. However, as was pointed out in what will be the final speech in this Parliament by David Mundell—whose unique, intelligent and humorous debating style we will all miss—the issues are quite clear. In my view, the Parliament can take a step forward with new ideas or it can take a step backwards. There is a real choice.
If the Parliament wants to go back in time, it will heed Government proposals by accepting regional transport partnerships, with more bureaucracy and mass regulation. In the best traditions of Scottish Labour and of the coalition, the doctrinaire fashion is that, if a policy such as quality partnerships and quality contracts is not working, we must have more of it. As I understand the matter, statutory quality partnerships have been a failure quite simply because—as Des McNulty pointed out—none exists. We must examine why no quality partnerships exist before we move on to consider regional transport partnerships.
No quality partnerships exist because the people who live and work at the coalface of bus service delivery throughout Scotland do not want them. Neither bus operators nor local authorities want quality partnerships; they want their existing voluntary partnership arrangements, which have been strongly advocated by the Conservatives. Bus operators want flexibility to do what they do best, whereas local authorities simply do not want the hassle of quality partnerships. It would be a step in the right direction if the minister would at least acknowledge that statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts have not been the success that he and Sarah Boyack had hoped. An acknowledgement of the failure of that policy—which, to be fair, was not the policy of the current Minister for Transport—would be helpful because that would stop the minister compounding the mistake by introducing RTPs. That is why I said that we face a clear choice between a step backwards and a step forwards.
That point has been made not just by the Conservative Party but by many witnesses who gave evidence the committee. They pointed out the benefits to passengers of the voluntary arrangements. Members should take note of that.
Will the member give way?
I will do so in a moment.
The Parliament should also note the National Federation of Bus Users written submission, which states:
"the interest of bus users has been and will always be best served where there are voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities".
I give way briefly to Bristow Muldoon.
If the policies that have been pursued by the Executive and by the Labour Government since 1997 have been so wrong, why has bus patronage been rising consistently since 1998? Between 1993 and 1998, when the Tories were in power, bus patronage fell consistently.
The change is due to the voluntary arrangements that have been put in place. It is certainly nothing to do with the quality partnerships or quality contracts, which have not been used.
On this side of the chamber, we believe clearly and unequivocally that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Voluntary arrangements are working well. In my constituency, we have good local agreements and co-operation. Quality corridors are working well, including in my constituency. However, quality partnerships and quality contracts are not wanted and regional transport partnerships would not work.
A further point of which the minister should be aware is the Scottish Executive's potential conflict of interest in both promoting and approving RTPs and QCs. The Executive has not yet had to face that situation simply because no quality contracts have been created. Furthermore, as John Hibbs of the University of Central England has pointed out,
"a Quality Contract is … a classic example of competing for a monopoly, and prohibits competition in the market … that is clearly a retrograde step."
In my view, the minister may at best face a conflict of interest and, at worst, be in contravention of European Union competition law.
In conclusion, the Conservatives suggest that the minister should heed the signs of the marketplace and the will of passengers. He should heed the words of committee witnesses and beware of the legislative bear trap that he may be setting for himself. He should leave the existing voluntary arrangements well alone. No business in the world would propose to go even further down a road if the journey so far had been so spectacularly unsuccessful. The answer to those issues will be debated in future transport legislation, but in the meantime we will, as the motion suggests, take note of the committee's report.
Much of what I will say concerns those areas of Scotland in which support from local authorities and from the new regional transport partnerships will be necessary if we are to achieve an integrated transport system. I will also make some remarks on the need to integrate community-provided transport and the regular bus services and try to tease out whether the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 had any vision for the areas that I represent.
First, there is a fundamental problem in taking individual parts of transport and thinking about the pricing systems that work for those parts. If we do not have similar pricing systems for rail and for ferries, for example, we are not providing the kind of quality transport access across an area in a fashion that makes it more possible for people to use the transport that is on offer. I make a plea for the Local Government and Transport Committee to look carefully at how pricing is carried through. Competition between bus and rail—or between bus and tram and so on, which we are talking about at the moment—does not help the process of integration. As a member of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, I will be very interested to see whether we get integration between those modes of transport. It is essential that citizens have that integration.
The coming of the new transport partnerships means that there will be quite a big imbalance in the quality of bus services between areas. For example, from evidence that was given in June last year, I note that Shetland Islands Council, Orkney Islands Council and the Western Isles Council provide 100 per cent services on a tendered basis and that Dumfries and Galloway Council provides 85 per cent of services in that way. Interestingly, Shetland Islands Council is the only council that has 100 per cent low-floor bus provision. That comes at a cost, however. When all the commercial providers in the relevant cities and areas are looked at, surely we will see the need for regulation that says, "That kind of approach has to be applied everywhere." The fact is that in the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership—HITRANS—Shetland will be well provided for in that respect, but what about the Western Isles and the Highland Council area? How will the regional transport partnerships be able to bring other parts of their areas up to a better standard?
I turn to bus access in the Highlands. The difference between how access works in some areas and not in others comes into play. For example, there is a real lack of wheelchair-friendly buses in the Highlands. Since HITRANS will fund only Highland contractors to install wheelchair access, private contractors like taxis get no money and yet they are a means to link people in remote areas from their home to a concessionary fare system. We have to get that sorted out.
Community contracts can stress that wheelchair access be put in place for community transport. That is the sort of thing that we have to have in terms of the general provision of buses.
My final remark is about access to radial services around the big centres. I hope that the Environment and Rural Development Committee inquiry into areas close to cities will look at the problem of providing transport not just from the centre to the periphery, but in the radial routes as well. The big problem in many areas that are close to big centres is that bus services do not provide that at present.
We hear a lot in the chamber about rail, but it is bus travel that is most important to Scots on a daily basis. Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders—an area with a population that is almost the size of the Highlands and which is a large swathe of the South of Scotland region that I represent—has four railway stations whereas the Highlands has 158. The bus is key to getting people to use public transport.
Through our mailbags, however, members are all aware of the problems of inadequate services, particularly in rural areas. I am thinking of people who are unable to go to events in town because there is no bus service home; people who lose their jobs because an irregular and unreliable bus service makes them late for work; and people who are unable to take up jobs because of the lack of a suitable service. If we are to tackle social exclusion in Scotland we must sort out the problems with our bus services, particularly those in our small towns and rural areas. That is not happening at the moment. We need to take a new look at how we organise and fund our bus services.
Prior to the publication of the Local Government and Transport Committee's report, Westminster's Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee came up with similar findings. It stated:
"The bus industry's approach to the use of quality contracts is entirely negative and unhelpful … the Department must continue to ensure that its bus policy is driven by the interests of the tax payer and the ticket holders and not just the shareholders."
The passengers of FirstBus in the Borders do not believe that that is happening. They share the problems that Margaret Smith identified in her area. We must sort out those issues. Sarah Boyack praised the information that is available in Edinburgh, but in Dumfries and Galloway we are still waiting—in June—for this year's timetable to be printed, because, we are told, of a lack of funding.
It is telling that the Local Government and Transport Committee report states:
"the Committee believes that there may be specific circumstances under which a QC would be the most appropriate option available to a council, and the option should therefore remain as part of the ‘toolkit'."
The report continues:
"the Committee welcomes the Minister's statement in a letter to the Committee that ‘operators must be prepared to put in place a full network that offers a service to passengers without always looking at the bottom line for a specific individual route.'"
I support Paul Martin's call for a degree of re-regulation and I ask the Scottish Executive to say whether it will consider that. The Executive seems to be refusing to re-regulate buses. The process of delivering quality bus contracts has been made so difficult and complex, with so many obstacles, that it is practically impossible to deliver quality bus services through that mechanism. Bodies such as SPT have suggested repeatedly to the Executive that buses should be re-regulated, yet there is still no experience of quality contracts from which to draw evidence.
Where do we go from here? The answer is clearly that there is much work to do and that it will cost money. The Green party has challenged the Executive's frequently stated claim that 70 per cent of transport expenditure goes on public transport. Given that the budget lists the road haulage modernisation fund as public transport expenditure, it is obviously open to ridicule. Further, the budget for the M74 private finance initiative will be spread over 30 years, rather than over the time in which the road will actually be built. The figures also include £150 million—almost 15 per cent of the total—for the integrated transport fund, which, according to a written answer that was supplied to me, cannot be defined by transport mode.
The Executive is short-changing public transport and buses are the poor relations of the public transport system. If the Executive is to solve the problems of social exclusion and mobility, it will have to fund our bus services, and regulate them more.
I am grateful to members of the Local Government and Transport Committee for their work on the report. I am even more grateful to Sarah Boyack, who was the minister responsible for the 2001 act. Sarah is held in great affection in East Lothian, as the then Minister for Transport who made the big decision to dual the A1 from Haddington to Dunbar. However, the committee's report confirms that Sarah Boyack's objective of establishing quality bus partnerships and contracts to underpin quality public transport services throughout Scotland has simply not been implemented by her successors.
I agree with Des McNulty that it is just not good enough to legislate and then hope for the best. If we are serious about the provision of quality public transport to reduce congestion and pollution, we must make it happen; we must ensure that good bus and train services are available for passengers where and when they need them. In the past six months, I have had more complaints from constituents about poor bus and train services than I have had at any time in my 26 years in Parliament. People accept that things occasionally go wrong in transport systems, but the performance of FirstGroup's services in East Lothian in recent months has been almost unforgivable. I have received complaints about buses not turning up, buses breaking down during journeys, filthy mingin buses with seats missing, diesel fumes in buses, a bus not going to its stated destination, a train with a door hanging off and a defective train blocking a commuter line so that commuters had to travel to work from North Berwick by taxi. I expressed anxiety to the minister when he saw fit to give FirstGroup a monopoly of bus and rail transport in much of East Lothian. He assured me that all would be well, but it is not.
I met the new managing director of FirstGroup for the east of Scotland two weeks ago. He acknowledged that local services had been very poor. He has promised to invest in new buses and to improve the management of the business and the maintenance of his vehicles. I wish him well. I have no doubt that Mr Juffs will do his best.
What has happened to the Scottish Executive's objective of quality partnerships and contracts to ensure that passengers can depend on good, reliable services? Why is that policy not being actively promoted by the minister? The Executive has an excellent transport strategy, but people who are standing at a bus stop on a rainy day trying to get to work do not want a strategy; they will settle for a bus. After recent experiences in East Lothian, we should not be surprised that it is difficult to persuade people not to use their cars.
For goodness' sake, we are about to offer pensioners free bus travel throughout Scotland. I respectfully suggest that FirstGroup's services in East Lothian, judging from its performance in recent months, should not be recommended for older people. Some of those services should probably carry a health warning for people of any age. Speaking of health, we have a magnificent new national health service hospital—the new Edinburgh royal infirmary—but why has nobody got round to providing bus services for patients, staff and families from East Lothian to get to the infirmary?
I know that the Minister for Transport has had to cope with some distractions. I appreciate the attraction of being deputy to an excellent Labour First Minister, and I realise that the prospect of a picturesque new railway line must be a temptation for any transport minister. Perhaps I should declare an interest at this point, as a council tax payer in the Borders. My heart tells me that it would be wonderful to see trains coming through the Border hills again, but my head tells me that the long journey times and the limited market make the Borders end of the Waverley line look like rather a risky prospect. I suggest that there might be better ways to invest to develop transport links in the Borders.
The immediate priority must be to get the services on existing lines and bus routes to operate satisfactorily. I strongly support the Local Government and Transport Committee's call to the Executive
"to ‘kick start' the development of statutory QPs"—
or quality partnerships—to ensure that firms such as FirstBus provide the reliable, respectable and affordable services that passengers throughout Scotland should be able to expect.
I am still slightly confused about where those 158 stations in the Highlands are. Perhaps I will have a look at my map later and find them. I am pleased that John Home Robertson is not Minister for Transport, and I am sure that people in the Borders are, too, given his attitude to the Borders rail line, which I think will be an extremely important link for the economic development of that region of Scotland.
Like the Minister for Transport, I am old enough to remember the pre-deregulation days on a local council. I am slightly younger than the minister, but we were both elected to our respective regional councils in 1982. I remember that there were concerns at that time about the decline of bus services. Indeed, there were deep concerns about the Conservatives' plans to bring in deregulation. A Tory white paper was published in 1984, entitled "Buses". As the committee's report mentions, it claimed that
"competition would lead to lower fares, new services and more passengers, by removing obstacles to enterprise, initiative and efficiency".
In reality, what many of us ended up with after deregulation was higher fares and a continuing decline in bus patronage. Occasionally, we had more buses on the same routes. Generally speaking, however, they travelled along fewer routes, and there was certainly not great innovation in new routes as a result of deregulation. We often found increases in local government subsidies because of the loss of the cross-subsidy between the profitable routes and the non-profitable routes. The resulting funding gap had to be picked up by the local authorities in order to keep services going, while the bus companies creamed off the profits from the profitable routes.
Where improvements were made to bus services, that was often done through local authority action. In Fife, under Henry McLeish, when he was leader of the administration there—some members might remember him in the same fond way that they will remember David Mundell—concessionary fares schemes and the co-ordination of bus contracts with school contracts to arrive at a whole-area contract were what saved rural bus services. That kept services going and led to an increase in patronage in Fife, while the national pattern was one of decrease. That was not because of deregulation; the bus service was made safe through the action of the local authority.
An interesting point to note is that subsidies for bus services in Fife fell after 1987, simply because the bus companies were picking up a huge amount of money from the concessionary fares schemes. The total amount of public money going in through concessionary fares and subsidies was roughly the same after 1987; deregulation had nothing to do with it.
The private sector has proved not to be good at responding to social need. A number of members have referred to the lack of services to hospitals, which is a major problem in many parts of my constituency. Travelling from the east neuk of Fife to major hospitals such as Ninewells in Dundee, the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy or the hospital in Dunfermline is difficult. Many rural services stop running at about 6 o'clock at night, so young people in rural villages trying to get access to facilities to stop them indulging in antisocial behaviour find that there are no buses to run them into Cupar to get to the swimming pool, for example. The same is true on many city housing estates.
Competition does not help deal with many of those problems and we need to ensure that we have a system that takes the best of the planning of local public services along with the advantages of competition for services. We do not have competition throughout most of Scotland. We have three bus companies with 84 per cent of the market. In most places in Scotland there is no competition; there is either a Stagecoach bus or a FirstBus bus. Here in Edinburgh, there is often just a Lothian Buses bus. That does not result in better services or innovation, which come through proper partnerships.
The use of quality partnerships and quality contracts as a backstop to allow us to say to the bus companies, "If you don't react we will bring in these things" is improving bus services in Scotland. Not having them, which the Conservatives would like, would result in there being no improvements at all.
As Des McNulty said, the importance of the report is that it attempts to monitor the implementation of previous legislation. When the other Deputy Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, was convener of the Local Government Committee, she said that that was an important function of any committee.
It is important that we identify the difficulties and try, as far as possible, to make them good in new legislation. The big chance for us to do that is the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The example that many speakers have quoted is the quality contracts and partnerships. None has been set up yet. John Scott spoke about them negatively, but we heard evidence about the difficulties in setting them up. We also asked how the voluntary partnership arrangements are working and whether we need quality contracts and partnerships. If they are needed, as many members have said, what are the barriers and how might we overcome those?
We got a mixed picture when we considered the voluntary partnerships that are now working. Margaret Smith talked about the variety throughout Scotland. Good examples of partnership are operating, which the minister notes in his response to the committee's report. We heard from John Home Robertson, Paul Martin and the people who came to the committee's seminar in Glasgow that all is not well in places such as Glasgow. It was decided that in future quality partnerships and quality contracts might be needed. We raised that with the minister, who suggested in his letter that there might be a role for the regional transport partnerships, which are part of the bill. At stage 2, we spent time considering the functions of the RTPs. There might be further amendments on that issue.
I turn to some of the other issues from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The big success story is concessionary fares, as Margaret Smith said. Although they have been a success, certain issues have arisen. I believe that there was a sigh of relief when the minister announced that the 16 schemes would be replaced by a national scheme. We also know that, in the early days of those schemes, we had to make special pleas to ensure that express services, such as the ones from Stirling to Edinburgh or Glasgow, would be included in the concessionary scheme, even if that meant that a small amount of money had to be paid.
The evidence also revealed that there is no point in having a concessionary fares scheme if there is no service for people to use. In some areas, that is a problem, but that is balanced in other areas. For example, Arriva ran more buses between Glasgow and Largs than previously and had better buses overall, showing that concessionary fares can make a service better.
We also considered whether the ownership arrangements of a bus company affected its ability to operate effectively and invest in improvements and examined issues such as flexibility and how bus companies had been able to adjust in order to meet factors such as a new hospital opening up. In certain cases, the service had not been flexible. For example, we found that, even though a health centre in Glasgow had been closed, a bus service was still going there.
We found examples of innovation. In my constituency, the postbus that runs in Killin and some of the rural areas has been welcomed. We asked about low-level buses and the various investment procedures that companies are using. Brian Souter, FirstGroup and Lothian Buses were all clear about the ways in which they were investing and modernising.
We heard about the franchising system in London and were heartened to receive a letter from the minister that indicated that he will be talking with the Greater London Authority about its proposals.
We examined deregulation and heard about cherry picking. We also heard about the competition that followed deregulation and about the fact that facilities in some areas did not allow some companies to expand as they might have wanted to.
A question that has come out of this inquiry is how we can deal with market-based issues alongside the social aspects of a bus service. It cannot be said that there is a lack of input from the Scottish Executive. In one of his letters, the minister talked about the funding allocation of £235 million under the Executive's public transport fund. He also spoke about the £2.6 million that is being invested in the current financial year through the local government settlement for transport authorities to support socially necessary services. Bringing those two aspects together is the main issue before us.
I was pleased with the part of the inquiry that dealt with the Bus User Complaints Tribunal. Hopefully, with the minister's help, we will be able to examine how the tribunal's remit can be extended and how it can be given more teeth.
I commend the report to Parliament.
I agree with other members of the committee who worked on the report that the clerks, parliamentary staff and those who gave evidence contributed in important ways to its production.
The most pertinent statement of the convener was that the 2001 act has had limited impact. I suppose that the debate is about whether that piece of legislation has any worth. Several members, such as Fergus Ewing, Kenny MacAskill, John Home Robertson and David Mundell, talked about that. I think that John Home Robertson summed up the situation well when he said, "What is the point of having legislation if no action comes out of it?" Perhaps the reason why no action has come out of it is that the legislation was poor. The proof of the pudding is that we have not had any quality partnerships or quality contracts. I ask the minister to give the industry, local authorities and the people of Scotland an assurance that he will not try to force on them something that is simply not acceptable.
Will the member give way?
I will make a few points first.
Bristow Muldoon also talked about how we can make what he called a mixed economy work. The truth is that, in the main, deregulation has worked. However, as many members said, there remains a question over how we deal with non-profitable services in areas in which it is not feasible to deliver regular bus services in a rigid manner, with set bus stops. Organisations such as Buchan Dial-a-Community-Bus near Mintlaw operate schemes that reflect the needs of the community, such as the need to get to hospital. We must be more creative in looking at such schemes and encouraging communities to come together. As Rob Gibson said, such operations must also integrate with regular public transport routes.
Will the member suggest how we might move forward so that profitable routes can be run alongside non-profitable ones?
In the Lothian Buses scenario, we have the benefits of the freedoms of the private sector in a service that is operated by a public service company. This year it will break even, so there will be no subsidy. The money that would have been used as subsidy could be used to support community initiatives. We on the Conservative benches are anxious that everyone in Scotland should get reasonable access to transport. There is no point in having concessionary fares schemes if there are no buses. The Minister for Transport lives only a few miles from me and he knows very well that nobody in my community will be able to access any of the buses.
Is the member aware that Lothian Buses is a public company that pays dividends to the council? It operates in a marketplace with other bus companies, but it is a public sector company. The member seems to think that it operates as a private company, but it does not.
It is a public company that operates with the same freedoms that a private company would have. The money goes back into the system, the company is efficient and it satisfies needs. Perhaps the money that it generates, which goes back to the local authority, could be spent on provision in the smaller places. That would support people who live there and enable them to access the major routes and get access to hospitals and so on.
A number of members made positive comments during the debate. David Mundell and others talked about the funding of rural bus services and made a call for access to buses. I think that Paul Martin was the first to make the point that the 2001 act has not stimulated the social conscience of operators, but he went on to expand on a more important matter. He asked what role there is for regulation in dealing with communities' social needs and he said that the marketplace cannot do that unless we create new partnerships.
However, the main thrust of the debate was that voluntary partnerships are the way forward. They have delivered on behalf of the people of Scotland and they are one way to deal with issues in a decentralised manner. We must ensure that they are not taken away by the introduction of regional transport partnerships. As I argued to the minister in the committee, it is important for local authorities and local operators to be able to work together in a mutual partnership to suit the local needs and conditions. We must not have from the centre a one-size-fits-all approach that is stamped in tablets of stone. Such an approach would mean that a lot of people would end up being excluded from access and we would not get the investment from the private sector that we have seen during the past 20 years.
I conclude with a comment on a lesson that we have learned from the exercise—as I said, I was not a member of the committee at the time, but I read its report. The Parliament must start to carry out post-legislative scrutiny more vigorously. As many members suggested today, the time is right for that. Furthermore, if a piece of legislation is not practical and usable and is not delivering anything, it should be removed from the statute book.
It was with great pleasure that I saw so many members on the Conservative benches today showing great interest in a significant public transport debate. I was not at all surprised when they eventually left. Perhaps the real reason why they were here was to commiserate with their colleague David Mundell on his demotion. I note that he, too, appears to have gone somewhere else, perhaps by bus.
However, David Mundell should be commended for at least having been here. I should also commend our Scottish Socialist Party colleagues—the brothers and sisters who are showing solidarity with their erstwhile leader. They are obviously taking annual leave, maternity leave or paternity leave, or perhaps the wheels have come off their bus. It is shocking that they are not present to participate in what should be a key debate on public transport. This is not the first time that they have been absent from the Parliament when important matters have had to be discussed.
We have had an interesting debate. I share some of the views that David Davidson just expressed, for example in asking why we have legislation when its consequence is little action. The purpose of legislation is to provide regulation, whether that is re-regulation or regulation to control circumstances.
We and the public need buses. We must provide appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that we have buses. Whether the subject is appropriate to legislate on and whether, if we look back four years, the legislation has proved appropriate, are open questions. Other members have raised those questions and some have asked whether a different model would be appropriate for Scotland. That could be an all-Scotland model or a model that already exists in Scotland. The Lothian Buses model works for Edinburgh, but it may well not be possible for other cities to return to that model.
Of course, that model never worked in rural areas. A large part of the population depends on buses, particularly in rural areas, as several members said. Rob Gibson discussed the variety of models in rural areas and the differences. Some of our citizens will lose out significantly on improvements that could happen, because of those differences.
We will always have that dilemma. The questions are whether we should allow local circumstances to prevail and arrive at local solutions for local problems and whether that should happen in a national framework of a minimum standard. Is it acceptable that people in Shetland will have buses that comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but people in parts of the Highlands will not, because of local circumstances? The minister should address such issues when considering whether arrangements should be tweaked, particularly in the light of how we might deliver through the new regional transport partnerships.
I am interested in the idea of taxibuses and postbuses, which is not new, and how they might serve communities better. That is not just a matter of serving rural communities. In the city of Aberdeen, FirstBus tried Beaver buses, which are much the same. They were much smaller buses, which were used to try to create markets locally. They succeeded in delivering a service, but they did not stack up financially for FirstBus.
That brings us to a point that Paul Martin made. How do we make socially desirable and socially essential services work when the private sector delivers the bulk of our bus services? The mechanisms for that are deficient. There is no doubt that the quality partnerships and contracts have not delivered and seem unlikely to deliver on that, substantially because of the high cost of even establishing them, as the report says. That applies especially when an attempt is made to tweak arrangements for the local service, whether it is targeted at delivering people to a hospital that is not on a main bus route—perhaps that says something about our planning for hospitals—or at a different local need.
I have certainly tried to encourage my local bus company to use Beaver-bus-type services to allow folk who live in high-rise flats, amenity housing or sheltered housing to gain access to shops. Many large supermarkets are not close to bus routes, as it is assumed that people will travel to them in their car. There is scope for using taxibuses, postbuses and Beaver buses, but a subsidy will be required. The minister will have to wrestle with whether that subsidy will come directly from the public purse or whether there will be a market-based solution that the major bus companies should be forced to deliver.
The national concessionary scheme is highly desirable, but Fergus Ewing undoubtedly put his finger on weaknesses in respect of how it might be delivered. It looks as if not all the mechanisms are in place as the minister might like them to be and I hope that the problem can be overcome. We wish the minister well with that, provided that he is still in his job in a few weeks' time.
I commend the report to the Parliament.
Like other members, I thank the committee and its clerks and advisers for their hard work. I also congratulate David Mundell on becoming a member of the House of Commons and wish him the very best in the future.
The debate has been on a vital issue for Scotland. Buses are used a great deal more than any other form of public transport. There are around 450 million passenger journeys per year on buses, which is around 90 journeys for every person in Scotland. However, buses still tend to be the Cinderella of public transport, and that view must change.
There have been improvements. The number of buses has risen by around 1 per cent a year for the past five years. During the Conservative years, numbers never increased. There is a new national concessionary fares scheme, which all parties have praised. Fergus Ewing tried to criticise and pick at the details of the scheme, but all parties support its general thrust. Significant investment of around £160 million a year has been made available.
Kick-start funding has been made available to encourage the development of existing routes or to kick-start the establishment of new bus routes and to help to change the configuration of bus services. Brian Adam is absolutely right; we must work more closely with the planning system in order to ensure that new bus services follow new industrial or housing developments. We are investing more than £20 million in the new kick-start fund.
Local authorities already have powers to support evening, weekend and rural services. We will ensure that supported services are retained and that funding is kept in place—indeed, we are having discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that that happens. Of course, there are powers to introduce quality bus partnerships and quality bus contracts under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Those powers have not yet been formally used, but they have nevertheless been influential. We must not lose sight of the fact that transport authorities and bus operators have been involved in a great deal of partnership working.
I want to make a helpful intervention. The minister is right: the powers have shaped the framework for voluntary partnerships. However, I wonder whether he will commit to setting as a priority targets for increasing bus use with the new transport agency and to offering assistance to local authorities on how to use bus contracts and partnerships. From reading the report and talking to authorities, I sense that authorities find those things too complex. They are necessarily complex, but perhaps an approach by the national transport agency with the minister's lead and local authorities would help to crack some delivery mechanism issues. The committee has not suggested an alternative, so the issue is how to make what is there work. Would the minister be prepared to take on that work?
Yes, I would. That is something that I would be pleased to give as a responsibility to the new transport agency for Scotland. Sarah Boyack is right: we must find ways to promote quality bus contracts and quality bus partnerships, to simplify their introduction and to help local authorities and others, such as SPT and the regional transport partnerships, through the complexity.
There are some positive examples, such as the increasing number of bus-related park-and-ride sites. Those include sites at Bridge of Don, Ellon and Kingswells, around Aberdeen, and the sites that are now being developed—at long last—around Edinburgh, at Hermiston, Ingliston, Straiton and Todhills. Only yesterday, I opened the new Ferrytoll, in Fife. Ferrytoll has been so successful that it has been doubled in size and now has more than 1,000 car parking places.
In Dundee, we have supported a comprehensive public transport fund project that includes bus priority measures, real-time information bus timetables and closed-circuit television. In Glasgow, eight bus corridors have been developed with PTF funding, and SPT is part of that initiative. I am pleased to see in the public gallery today Councillor Alistair Watson, the chair of SPT, and other colleagues. I would like to do more to encourage significant park-and-ride facilities on the routes into Glasgow, as we do not have those yet.
I share that sentiment. Does the minister feel that a park-and-ride scheme should be incorporated into the link between Glasgow airport and the city centre? That would make a significant impact by taking cars off the M8.
That project is being led by SPT, and the detail and promotion of the project are a matter for SPT. However, I would encourage the creation of an appropriate park-and-ride scheme in that area. If it could be integrated with the airport rail link scheme, so much the better.
We must have more projects of that vision and quality to drive the future. If proposals for quality bus contracts or quality bus partnerships begin to be developed, the simple message is that we will support them.
There are lots of examples of partnership working in other parts of Scotland—in Dumfries and Galloway, in the Highlands, in the Fort William transport interchange project, and in West Lothian. West Lothian is a good example of where a quality bus contract was seriously considered but, out of that, a positive partnership agreement was established with the main bus operator, on key services on the Bathgate-Livingstone-Edinburgh corridor. Bristow Muldoon referred to that. We have awarded £12.2 million from the kick-start fund for 27 new bus kick-start projects, and a further £10 million or so is still available for worthwhile projects throughout Scotland.
The current, largely deregulated, regime is far from perfect but has a lot going for it. Bus operators have the incentive to be innovative. The traffic commissioner is there to ensure that services are provided safely and to time, and the Executive has done more to support and fund additional staff for the commissioner. Local transport authorities are resourced to ensure that non-commercial but socially necessary services are provided, and they will have the powers under the new act—
Will the minister give way?
I am out of time so, unfortunately, I will not be able to give way. I am just coming to a close.
We have to do more, and the Executive's response to the committee is that we are anxious to do more, especially in relation to regional transport partnerships. I would encourage regional transport partnerships to be ambitious in their regional strategies and to be willing to take on new powers and responsibilities. My simple message is that I want more measures—including bus station improvements, low-floor buses, park-and-ride facilities and bus priority measures—to be introduced by the regional transport partnerships in all parts of Scotland. I make it clear that if regional transport partnerships seek to take powers in that area in relation to quality contracts and quality partnerships, ministers will be willing to make an order that delivers those powers to the regional transport partnerships.
We must drive the issue forward and give a high priority to buses. Buses are the most crucial form of public transport, which is why the debate has been so important.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Some specific issues were raised during the debate, and I think that it is only courtesy for the minister to give members a response to those issues. I ask the Executive to reflect on the fact that it should respond to specific issues that are raised by members to ensure that there is a purpose to the debate.
I point out to members that the minister sacrificed seven minutes of his speech so that two additional members could take part in the debate. I would not like the minister to be given a caning for his co-operation with other members. He may care to consider responding to some issues that arose in the course of the debate, but that is a matter for him and his officials.
As anyone who has gone on a journey with children will testify, regardless of how long the journey is, it is never long before one hears the question, "Are we there yet?" In 2001, the Scottish Executive started a journey, with the first transport bill for more than 20 years. The aim of the bill was to aid the resurgence of Scotland's transport industry for the future. Its policy objectives were to deliver a sustainable, effective and integrated transport system for Scotland, to empower local authorities to deliver local solutions to local problems and to promote partnership working. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 includes provisions to give power to local authorities to address growing congestion and environmental problems in cities and larger towns.
As Bristow Muldoon outlined, four years on, the Local Government and Transport Committee decided to conduct an inquiry into the impact of the 2001 act, especially its provisions for bus quality partnerships and bus quality contracts. In effect, we were asking, "Are we there yet?" That may not be the question that Des McNulty wanted us to ask, but Bristow Muldoon explained why the scope of the inquiry was slightly limited. However, I think that it covered many of the issues that Des McNulty wanted us to address.
The 2001 act made legislative provision for a plethora of initiatives that transport groups, users and the industry in general had long sought. There were to be joint transport strategies that would involve improved joint planning by local authorities to address shared cross-boundary issues, such as how to manage travel in and out of Scotland's largest cities.
Bus quality partnerships were envisaged. Bus services would be improved by giving the force of law to partnerships between local authorities and bus companies. The fundamental aim of such partnerships was to provide quality services to passengers, but the evidence that we took suggested that that is not happening. The theory was that, if bus quality partnerships were tried, but failed or were found to be inappropriate, the legislation would enable the Scottish Executive to approve bus quality contracts, which would allow an exclusive franchise to be awarded to a single operator through competitive tendering. There is a distinct lack of evidence that that is happening, because the private operators are not keen for their oligopolies to be tested in that way.
The most high-profile element of the bill was the concessionary fares scheme. The aim was to deliver a minimum level of concession for pensioners and disabled people travelling in Scotland and progressively to enhance that level over the next few years. Rightly, the new national concessionary travel scheme has been welcomed. It is especially welcome that today we have heard commitments from SNP members to support it, because they could not bring themselves to do so when the current Transport (Scotland) Bill was debated at stage 1. SNP members sought clarification from the minister, but we need to know just what the SNP's policy on concessionary travel is. During evidence taking, we heard Fergus Ewing, in particular, suggest that we should not use the money to give concessionary—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr McMahon is obviously curious about SNP policy, but he would have heard it clearly stated earlier, if he had listened. Can he tell the Parliament which part of the committee report refers to SNP policy and in what way that is relevant to his summing up on behalf of the committee?
I am not sure that Fergus Ewing's point is really a point of order. Mr McMahon is responding to the debate, rather than just to the report. However, I understand that he is closing for the committee, rather than for a political party. That may guide him as to the appropriateness of some comments.
It would help the committee to know exactly what the SNP's policy on concessionary travel is. By raising the issue, I clearly succeeded in rattling Fergus Ewing's cage.
I recall scrutinising the previous Transport (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 as a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. We found that initially the bill did not make provision for information to be made available in minority ethnic languages and in forms accessible to sight-impaired groups. That was rectified through the mainstreaming requirement. Rightly, the 2001 act amended the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 for the enforcement of the orange badge scheme. However, much needs to be done to ensure that disabled users have access to public transport.
The committee concluded that, although the deregulated market had led to better services in some areas, issues still had to be resolved, such as the withdrawal of marginal services and the overprovision of services with inefficient competition in certain key urban corridors. Glasgow was highlighted in that respect, although we found examples everywhere we looked. In setting out good examples of the cherry picking that has adversely affected too many communities, Paul Martin exposed the flaw in John Scott's belief that quality partnerships are not wanted. They are wanted, but major operators wish to concentrate on commercially viable routes at the expense of local communities. Quality partnerships are needed to deal with such cases, but Mr Scott and David Davidson seem happy for bus companies to make money at the expense of communities, even though Mr Davidson argues that the same communities are losing out because market forces are failing to deliver buses to them.
I thank Mr McMahon for giving such a politically impartial response to my speech. However, if he had listened, he would know that I said that the state and the market can both play a role. Their roles are clearly different, but they can work together.
I absolutely agree that the state and the market can both play a role, which is why we have quality partnerships and quality contracts. However, they are not being used. Mr Davidson simply dismissed their relevance.
The committee found that there was little incentive for councils and bus operators to enter into statutory quality partnerships, given the costs of developing such partnerships and the perceived effectiveness of the voluntary partnerships. Unfortunately, only the local authorities and bus companies thought that the system was working. The bus users groups did not give it the same support; indeed, as Margaret Smith pointed out, we were presented with a picture of failure in many parts of Scotland. The committee concluded that there might be scope for better development of statutory quality partnerships, especially under the regional transport partnerships that the Transport (Scotland) Bill seeks to establish.
We identified a need to clarify the powers of local authorities and the traffic commissioners with regard to quality partnerships. We believe that the Executive could do much more to kick-start the development of quality partnerships in areas where they are needed. Indeed, we heard evidence that, in some cases, the Executive was the obstacle to their establishment. As Bristow Muldoon pointed out, a statement from the Executive is required on how it will support councils and regional transport partnerships when they consider the statutory quality partnerships that are proposed in the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
The committee wants the minister to report to it on the progress of the partnership commitment to monitor the quality partnership powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Are those powers adequate to protect and enhance the evening, weekend and rural bus services that Rob Gibson and other members seek? The committee feels that the Executive sees quality partnerships as an option of last resort. Instead, it should consider whether it can support the further development of quality contracts. Although it does not seek re-regulation, the committee would like the Executive to indicate whether it would consider such a move if quality contracts were shown to have been tried but had failed.
When we took evidence from the Bus User Complaints Tribunal, we found it to be toothless in its ability to tackle the problems with which it was confronted. BUCT should have its remit and powers extended to ensure that it takes responsibility for long-distance coach services and reports more generally on issues that affect bus users. The committee concluded that the Executive should review BUCT's operations and consider whether any additional powers are required.
I thank the committee clerks for their efforts and the Scottish Parliament information centre for all its support during our consideration of the evidence. I particularly thank David Mundell for his contribution during his time on the committee and, like others, I wish him all the best as he becomes the fleeing Scotsman.
I also thank those who attended our meetings in Stranraer and Glasgow or came through to Edinburgh and gave us the evidence on which we based our report. I have to say that there was no full consensus on whether the legislation is working. At the beginning of my speech, I asked, "Are we there yet?" The committee has concluded that we are not, but we have identified the journey and have shown that it is well under way, even though the route itself might require some modification.