Bus Industry (Accountability)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4577, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on passengers before profit; greater accountability in public transport. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament reiterates its strong view that decent local bus services are vital to all Scotland's communities and its belief that such services are integral to cutting road congestion and safeguarding the environment; welcomes the significant investment in bus infrastructure, including better terminuses, priority bus lanes and fast track traffic management systems which have received Scottish Executive support throughout Scotland; expresses significant concern that withdrawal of services is continuing resulting in, for example, a much poorer after-hours service in Glasgow, undermining investment and attempts to deliver more integrated and accessible health care and other public services, as well as leaving many areas of both urban and rural Scotland without adequate services, and believes that the Executive and Transport Scotland, in return for the increased investment, should ensure greater accountability of the bus industry for services across Scotland, should undertake speedily a review of how quality bus partnerships are operating and should consider seriously all possible options which could prevent the loss or absence of vital services, including new and greater forms of regulation such as franchise agreements or allowing the new Regional Transport Partnerships the power to determine routes and timetables, so as to guarantee all Scottish communities the bus links which they need and deserve.
I thank the members who signed the motion. I also thank the Parliamentary Bureau for selecting the motion for the first members' business debate after the summer recess.
I find this hard to believe, because I remember it happening, but 26 October will be the 20th anniversary of the deregulation of local bus services. The privatisation of publicly owned buses was introduced by the Transport Act 1985 and changed the face of how bus services were run in the United Kingdom, with the exception of London and Northern Ireland, which retained a degree of regulation.
Has deregulation served the nation well, or has the time come for change? Deregulation brought about good and bad practices in the industry. It brought about more investment and the use of modern vehicles. More than 100 commercial bus companies serve the Scottish public and we must acknowledge that there have been positive aspects to deregulation.
However, if we consider how the unregulated framework for bus services has worked in practice, it is clear that the balance has swung too far against the interests of the people whom we represent: not just the people who most rely on bus services because they have no choice about using another mode of transport, but the people whom we want to use the bus instead of their cars, as part of a contribution to a sustainable environment—that means us.
Local bus passenger numbers are 48 per cent lower than in 1975, which is surprising. However, in the past six years there has been a year-on-year increase in passenger numbers. We are witnessing growth after years of decline and demand will continue in the future. The national concessionary fares scheme will sustain growth.
Many parts of Scotland are experiencing a loss of service after 6 pm and at weekends. Services have been cancelled, varied or withdrawn. I am a Glasgow MSP, so I cannot fail to mention my support for the Evening Times campaign—get Glasgow moving—which is highlighting the loss of services in and around the city and the impact of such service loss on ordinary people. I am sure that other members will describe their experiences of such problems.
There is a brutality to deregulation, whereby consideration seems not to be given to the public service duty as well as the requirement to serve profitable routes. My constituency of Glasgow Kelvin is generally well served by buses, but there are still major gaps in provision and many examples of services being withdrawn or varied without notice. There is no requirement to notify the general public of such changes. In Anderston, Broomhill and Partick in my constituency we have been campaigning for bus services that suit the needs of the elderly and vulnerable population—people who need a bus to take them to the hospital, the post office or simply to visit friends in the community.
There is no duty in law for an assessment of how bus changes will affect members of the public and no duty to consult the public about the services that they actually need. My constituents complain that they cannot travel from the west end to Springburn without changing buses and that the services to hospitals are not direct. Getting information on how to travel is still a bit of a nightmare, despite the investment in Traveline Scotland. In my area, the new Strathclyde Partnership for Transport reports an ever-increasing demand for the replacement of lost services that have been withdrawn by commercial bus companies, leaving parts of our communities isolated. Just think that the public purse is picking up the tab for routes in poorer areas where commercial companies have withdrawn but are still allowed to compete for the new contracts.
SPT recently ran a seminar in which it said clearly that the answer lies not only in increasing the budget for subsidising routes, but in changing the regime. I agree with that. Every working day, there are a staggering four changes to the bus timetable. The regime is extremely volatile. The open market has been harsh on some bus companies, too. There is a great deal of debate to be had about whether genuine competition exists in all parts of Scotland. We know that there are dominant operators. Competition between operators that run the same services causes overprovision, as well as underprovision on other routes. Some operators choose to cherry pick routes and to serve routes at peak times but not at others—those practices are killing poorer communities.
At present, there is virtually no accountability in the bus industry, despite the fact that one third of bus operating funding comes from the Scottish Executive through the national concessionary fares scheme and bus operator grants. No other industry is so unaccountable. The 1985 act removed the right for users to object to the removal of services. The success of deregulation varies throughout the country. I am sure that people have different views on its success, depending on where they are, but I want change. I believe that change is necessary for the people whom I represent, for Scotland and for the industry. I am not the only advocate of change. I must mention the work of the Local Government and Transport Committee in reviewing the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I welcome the Minister for Transport's consultation during the summer, which asked us directly about our experiences.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to outline my analysis of what I think is wrong with the quality bus partnerships and contracts. Suffice it to say that there is not a single quality contract in the United Kingdom, which shows clearly that reform is required. I am sure that operators would agree that we are still a long way from providing the best possible service that connects people easily to where they want to be, with ticketing arrangements that suit them.
I call on the Executive to take powers to make services to hospitals compulsory. I want to add to the work of my colleague Paul Martin, who in a previous debate ensured that transport agencies have the power to provide services to hospitals. We must go further than that. Transport authorities must be able to assess transport needs and have the powers to address those needs. Government must be able to protect its communities if it funds the very services that are depriving those communities. We need the power to force ticketing arrangements between companies when they cannot agree. We need powers over timetabling if necessary and a duty to ensure that timetables are supplied to Traveline Scotland, which the Executive set up. We may need to consider forms of franchising on a smaller scale. Nothing should be overlooked. We should reinstate the public's right to object to the removal of routes.
Whatever we do, there must be change. The status quo cannot remain and, I argue, we need change very soon.
I declare an interest in that I have a bus pass, which allows me to use buses more often than I might do otherwise, for free. On the ticket that I get are the words, "Scottish free", which I think is a good start.
I welcome the debate. In many parts of the country, people rely on buses as the basic form of public transport. We need to have a review of the lucrative franchises that certain bus services have at present and to extend services to meet people's real needs, not what the bus companies think are their needs.
In my area, I will seek a review by HITRANS with a view to integrating community transport services that are underfunded with commercial bus franchises that are well funded. I will return to that issue in a moment.
I will use the example of bus services between Caithness and Inverness, which is a fairly long distance. Those services are important to allow people to get to a major centre for shopping and other things. The last bus to Inverness leaves Wick at 5 in the evening, while the last train leaves at 4.52. People who wish to leave Caithness for business or pleasure in the evening are not catered for. Folk from Thurso who want to go to Inverness or further afield by bus or train have to take an extra half day to make the connection. Surely better-designed bus services can meet the needs of people in Caithness and other parts of the far north. From Inverness, the last bus to Tain, which is about 30 miles away, leaves at quarter to 11 in the evening and the last bus to Thurso leaves at 18.35. There is a significant cut-off time for people getting to and from the major centres.
Greater integration between community transport, commercial transport and HITRANS is much needed. I welcome HITRANS's granting of stakeholder status to the Highlands and Islands community transport forum. However, it is important that it is given proper funding. The commercial companies, such as Stagecoach and Rapsons, must serve a cross-section of needs at all times in rural and remote areas.
The Caithness transport partnership, through its excellent document, "Caithness Transport Vision", has raised the question of getting the dial-a-bus services for initiative at the edge communities properly funded, so that they can be dovetailed with the commercial bus services. All those issues have to be taken up by the transport partnerships. At the moment, far too many communities and individuals are disadvantaged, compared with the bus franchise holders, which are making a lot of money at our expense.
It will be a while before I qualify for a free bus pass, but I hope that it does not take that long to improve bus services for people who are already entitled to a free bus pass. The challenge that the Scottish Executive faces is to ensure that we get best value from the massive, unprecedented investment in free bus transport. More than £0.75 billion has been invested in public transport in the past three years and we must ensure that people get best value from it.
I make a similar point to one that Pauline McNeill made in what I thought was a thoughtful speech: we will have to have some form of regulation to ensure that bus companies deliver best value for money. We have given them the opportunity to deliver a more effective public transport system through quality contracts and various other measures that we set out in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. However, I am afraid that my experience of dealing with the bus companies is that they do not want to comply. Therefore, we have to introduce some form of regulation.
The issues that surround bus transport are threads that run through many of the challenges that the Scottish Executive faces. We will not tackle the economic challenges that my constituency faces unless we give my constituents a decent bus service to their place of work. We will not be able to improve health care in my constituency unless we give people decent bus services to their health facilities. There are so many social challenges that face communities across Scotland that we will not be able to deal with them if the bus companies are not willing to face up them.
Pauline McNeill mentioned the issue of the few bus companies that are dominant in Scotland. Will the minister consider making a referral to the Competition Commission to investigate whether the companies are, in fact, dominant in the market? One of the aims of the deregulation of the buses in 1986 was that we would have a competitive market that would provide a wide range of options for those travelling on our buses. However, in the bus industry in Scotland, certain companies dominate and there is a lack of competition. In responding to the debate, will the minister say whether he thinks that such dominance exists in the market? Will he refer the matter to the Competition Commission?
I welcome the debate that Pauline McNeill has initiated. We cannot continue to talk a good game about tackling social exclusion and improving public transport unless some form of regulation is introduced.
I thank Pauline McNeill for securing this debate, which is on a subject that has caused anger in communities in Glasgow and throughout Scotland. I agree with what Pauline McNeill said about the successful campaign that was run by the Evening Times—I congratulate the paper on its campaign. We talk about accountability, and the Evening Times certainly brought some of the bus companies to account and ensured that the public, at last, got some reaction from them. I look forward to seeing what the Competition Commission has to say about the comments that the public made during that campaign.
I know that the minister has been sent a letter by a constituent of mine regarding the service—or, rather, the non-service—that he received. The motion talks about poor services after hours; Rob Gibson talked about the problem in his area. Similarly, in some areas of Glasgow, there is no service whatever after 6 o'clock, which means that people are stranded and are unable to visit relatives. More important is that people can get a bus to Gartnavel hospital, but cannot get a bus back. Elderly people who go to the hospital to visit relatives have to get taxis back. That is ridiculous, given the subsidies that bus companies receive from the Executive. I would like that to be investigated by the Competition Commission.
Last year, FirstBus made £100 million profit, but what has it done? It has withdrawn services from various areas, including low-level bus services, which are useful to infirm, disabled and elderly people and to people with prams. Limited as those services might have been, some people cannot access them any more. I wrote to the minister on the subject and have received a reply, which mentions that powers relating to such services are reserved to Westminster. That is an absolute nonsense, which we should also consider.
On greater accountability, I will read out part of a letter that a constituent of mine—Mr McGrath—wrote to the minister. This elderly gentleman, who was using a concession ticket, had to wait a number of hours to get on a bus because the operator told him and the other concession ticket holders who wanted to get on the bus that only people with valid tickets could get on the bus. He wrote:
"I was never so badly treated, or made to feel so demeaned in front of people in all my life by this policy of Control by the bus companies. I assume the Scottish Executive would not accept this is what should happen to Old and Disabled people?"
At the same time as bus companies are failing to provide an adequate service, they are discriminating against people who are using their concessionary tickets, in respect of which we pay the bus companies a lot of money.
There needs to be a review of exactly what is happening with the bus companies. The review can examine the London model or another form of franchise, but there needs to be a review that gets people round the table. It is clear that the bus companies are not behaving accountably. Parliament must legislate to ensure that bus companies are accountable to the public and Parliament.
I start by congratulating Pauline McNeill. Not only is her motion a good one, but I thought that her speech to set off the debate was well measured and effective. I have no doubt at all that although the deregulation of bus services by the Conservatives some 20 years ago has been helpful for some, it has also been disastrous for many people in Scotland.
The Conservatives are missing.
Pauline McNeill has pointed out that the Conservatives are all missing. I, too, had noticed that: this is such an important issue for the Conservative party that not one Conservative MSP is interested in coming along to the debate. That says a lot. They are not really interested in how difficult the situation is in rural communities—certainly in my area, the north-east, where there are many problems with accessing decent bus services. For the representatives of rural Scotland—which the Conservatives claim to be—to disappear when we have such important debates is unfortunate, to say the least.
In my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, people have little or no choice as far as bus services are concerned. We have the highest level of car ownership in the country, and the reason is that we do not have bus services. I live 3.5 miles from the nearest bus stop. No bus comes near my small rural community.
That is the length of Mike Rumbles's driveway.
Sorry—was that an intervention?
That means that the four adults in my household—I count my 16-year-old as an adult—have to have their own forms of transport. There is no alternative.
I look to large and growing communities in my constituency, such as Laurencekirk in the Mearns. I see that the Minister for Transport knows what I am about to say. That area is bereft of bus services, and one way of addressing communications issues in the Mearns and in Laurencekirk would be to reopen the Laurencekirk railway station, which would be of huge benefit to the people who live there. I know that the application for that is with Transport Scotland at the moment, and that it just needs the green light from the minister—it has received all the other green lights so far.
The answers to the issues in Pauline McNeill's motion do not lie just in subsidies to bus companies. We are putting a lot of public money into our bus services, so I would encourage the minister to examine all the options that are available to him to ensure that our rural communities in particular get decent bus services.
I congratulate my Labour colleague, Pauline McNeill, on securing a members' business debate on a subject that is of such importance to the quality of life of her constituents and that of all the people of Scotland. Like Mike Rumbles, I regret that the Tories are not here to defend the indefensible 1985 deregulation. Perhaps that shows their commitment to devolution.
We have travelled a considerable distance in parliamentary terms since the Transport (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday 20 December 2000. I had been a member for about three weeks when I joined colleagues in supporting the bill's passage. At that time, there was a hope that quality bus contracts and partnerships would improve the bus services that were available to all our constituents. Despite the best intentions on the part of the Executive and, indeed, the whole Parliament—the bill was passed nem con—that has not proved to be the case.
In a recent letter from the vice-chair of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the case is made for a return not to full and comprehensive regulation but to a
"form of franchise whereby the … transport authority has ownership of the bus routes, and offers them to companies on a contract basis with conditions that less lucrative routes would have socially needed transport provision."
In my view, that way of proceeding has much to recommend it. It is not revolutionary, but it is potentially a good reform.
As the motion puts it, the Executive should consider
"new and greater forms of regulation … so as to guarantee all Scottish communities the bus links which they need and deserve."
That is correct. From talking to my constituents and from my constituency postbag, I know that there is widespread and growing concern regarding the continuing withdrawal of services by private operators, with no consultation or thought being given to the negative social impact of such cavalier behaviour.
The experience of the past six years, despite the significant progress that has been made because of welcome Executive support for investment in bus infrastructure, has clearly shown that persuasion in the form of quality bus partnerships is not the answer for the provision of decent local bus services. My constituents are telling me loud and clear that the growing number of withdrawals of bus services by commercial bus companies, leaving many communities increasingly isolated–as Sandra White said—especially at weekends and, in Glasgow, in the evening, is no longer acceptable. They are correct.
The situation has been well documented by the Evening Times in its commendable campaign. I recently decided to launch a petition in my constituency to garner support for a change and to allow local people to register their legitimate concerns about the present unsustainable situation. I can tell Parliament that the petition has attracted almost 1,000 signatures in a few weeks, and that I intend to present the petition—I hope with thousands of signatures—to the Minister for Transport at the end of the month.
It is time for the Scottish Executive to require bus operators to provide good services to every part of Glasgow and throughout Scotland at all times in return for the many millions of pounds of public money that they receive in grants, subsidies and reimbursement. Let us seriously consider targeted reregulation and the use of franchising. The need to provide decent local bus services is a matter of elementary social justice. It is time to act to make that worthy aspiration a reality.
I congratulate Bill Butler on his excellent speech and I thank Pauline McNeill for securing the debate.
As a regular—almost daily—bus user in Glasgow, I thought about my experience in order to prepare for the debate. One of my most interesting experiences on Glasgow buses is of being recognised and falling into conversation with other bus passengers. They are often surprised that MSPs do not take taxis everywhere. I am sure that that is a mistake on their part and that many other members are also regular bus users. However, it is interesting that they are surprised, and I find those conversations much more useful and valuable than the average conversation with a taxi driver.
What are the experiences of people who use buses? I accept entirely what Bill Butler said about the withdrawal of existing services, but there is also the question of the quality of existing services. For many years, fares have been rising steadily in relation to the cost of driving, and are far too high. There is often little prior notice when fares change, and people are expected to turn up with the right change—oh, yes, because it seems impossible to run a bus service and give people change—without knowing the fare. There are also periods when prices are bizarre: odd numbers with sevens and threes, and no expectation that people will get their change.
Information is lacking at bus stops. Information about what buses turn up and when should be really easy for bus companies and SPT to provide. The information is not always missing because bus stops have been vandalised, but often because nobody bothered to put it up in the first place. There is also the question of incorrect information on the inside and front of buses, including electronic systems that do not work properly and which show passengers where they have just left rather than where they are going.
As well as routes being lost, some are being doubled up. Some of the smaller operators genuinely add something to the service in Glasgow, but others just hover in front of the FirstBus service in the hope of catching a few stray passengers as the queues lengthen. Such smaller operators do not add anything to the quality of the services.
I also have to say with regret that I have seen appallingly racist, sexist and homophobic behaviour from drivers on Glasgow buses. That is not acceptable.
What is the solution? In the 20-odd seconds that I have left, I do not propose to revisit all the recommendations that the Local Government and Transport Committee made in its report last year. However, some recommendations have not been acted on, and I look forward to hearing the Minister for Transport say when we will see a proper response to the recommendations. Some form of regulation or reregulation should be appropriate, and we should not shy away from that.
We should also remind the Executive that it invests £500 million in building motorways in a city where most people depend on buses to get around because they do not have access to a car. Until we get bus services higher up the priority list, I am sceptical about whether we will see much improvement.
I have frequently spoken in the chamber about train services—my obsession with the Airdrie to Bathgate line is legendary—so I am grateful to my colleague Pauline McNeill for giving me the opportunity to redress the balance by discussing bus services, or the lack of them. My constituency—Linlithgow—is not rural in the way that Mike Rumbles's constituency is, but it has distinct communities and some of the villages have significant problems with their bus services, or the lack of them.
Like many members who have spoken, I am disappointed in the results of quality bus partnerships. We had high hopes for them and thought that they would make a difference but, unfortunately, they have not. The bus companies have refused to take the risk. In any discussions that they have had of which I am aware, they have expected local authorities to take the risk, which means that the public purse subsidises bus companies that make private profit. At present, bus companies run only profitable routes and expect us, through local authorities, to subsidise routes that are needed but which are not as profitable.
All the complaints that we have heard this evening are repeated throughout Scotland. I recognise them from my constituency, from which I will give two examples. The X1 express service from Armadale to Edinburgh was a good service on which, for no apparent reason, the times were changed so that they did not suit people who were returning from Edinburgh in the evening. Passengers were not consulted about a service that they thought was successful, although it is frequently run with buses that are old and of poor quality.
In Boghall, pensioners with heavy bags and people with children in pushchairs must struggle uphill to the local supermarket because the bus company will not take the bus into the car park, as to do so would add a minute to the journey. Is that really a reason for not running a service? I hope that the bus company concerned will respond to the local people who are trying to bring that service into line.
I want a bus service that is more responsive to passenger needs. I recognise that private bus companies are about making profits, but I am not happy to subsidise their profits, although I am happy to subsidise routes that are needed.
A memorable achievement of the Labour-Lib Dem Executive is the free bus pass, but how many constituents tell us that it is no good to have a free bus pass if they have no bus to catch or because there is no service in the evening, at the weekend or early in the morning? I say to the minister that we must take that seriously. The number of members who have spoken tonight shows what an issue this is. If we do not act, further demands, which we will be unable to ignore, will be made for reregulation of bus services because we must offer services for social reasons and for the good of the environment. I hope that the minister will take on board those comments.
I thank Pauline McNeill for prompting the debate. Tories are like buses; when we want one, we cannot get one, and when we do not want one, they all come along at once—but there you are.
As other members have said, speaking towards the end of a debate means that everybody has covered the points. As has been said, before 1986, bus services were licensed and regulated by local authorities. Cross-subsidies enabled poorer areas to receive services that would otherwise not have been commercially viable. That all changed after the Transport Act 1985. We were told that privatisation would lead to increased competition, which would lead to improved services and would mean that we required to pay less subsidy. At that time, 75 per cent of buses were in the public sector but, 12 years later, only 7 per cent of buses were under public ownership.
These days, a handful of companies has a huge stake in our public transport and in our buses. It is obvious that deregulation has severely disrupted services and that bus companies are focusing more on their legal duty to maximise profits for their shareholders than on their responsibilities on transport, social inclusion, meeting communities' needs or environmental protection.
Too often, areas are starved of services. As other MSPs have said, we all receive letters about that. Services are withdrawn because they are not profitable and in many areas evening and weekend services have been withdrawn, which leaves people unable to attend hospital visits, to see their friends or to visit family. That isolates people and, with other negative initiatives, is a precursor to forcing people into cars.
There has been ticket-price hike after ticket-price hike in services in Glasgow this year. I cannot remember how many there have been, but those hikes have not translated into better services around the city—in fact, the opposite has been the case.
It has been pointed out that Glasgow has the lowest car ownership of the major British cities—around 40.5 per cent of households in Glasgow have access to a car—but we want to reduce that number. The Scottish Executive has promised to reduce emissions, but what is it going to do? Recently, Tavish Scott said:
"We want to identify the best mechanism to get more people out of their cars and on to public transport".
That is absolutely brilliant—it is an excellent idea. Pauline McNeill's motion asks for better terminuses and for priority bus lanes, and she rightly points out that urban and rural areas do not have adequate services.
Patrick Harvie mentioned that the Scottish Executive is willing to plough millions of pounds—probably £500 million—into the M74 northern extension. Imagine what could be done by investing that money in public transport.
Our bus services should benefit the many and should be cheap, clean and efficient, but that will never happen while profits come before people. Unless the minister promises a radical overhaul of the public transport system and a reversal of the deregulated and fragmented service, it will be business as usual, and—unfortunately—it will be bad business.
I, too, congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing the debate and endorse much of what Mike Rumbles said about experience on his patch, which mirrors what I have experienced.
The absence of Tories speaks volumes about their complete lack of commitment to public transport in Scotland. We should make that plain to the rest of Scotland outside the chamber.
I agree with much of Pauline McNeill's motion, although I thought it obvious that she had not been to Perth bus station recently when I read what it said about significant investment in better terminuses. I hope that she will visit Perth bus station if she thinks that there has been wonderful investment in it. Much has been promised, but there is rarely anything suggested in the way of delivery.
Many people come to complain to me and other members about service changes, reductions in the frequency of services and timetable and route changes. My particular bugbear is the removal of a number of express pick-ups to roundabouts in the middle of nowhere that people need a car to reach, which is an interesting development in many rural areas and is clearly an issue. The result is that the very people one might think ought to be serviced by buses in the first place are excluded as passengers. That must be addressed.
Everybody warmly welcomed concessionary passes, but there are issues relating to them. People thought that they would have hop on, hop off bus services, which they are not getting, and that has led to complaints.
I listened to Patrick Harvie's complaints about Glasgow buses. He ought to come to rural Perthshire. People in huge chunks of my constituency have no buses to complain about in the first place. I could travel by bus from Crieff to Perth once every hour, but if I wanted to travel from Crieff to Auchterarder, leaving aside school buses, I could do so only on a Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday, and not on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. Many rural bus services are similar. Even when a service exists, it is so infrequent that it is not much use to people. There is little integration of such services, not only with other bus services, but with rail services. A person can arrive at a railway station and have a 45-minute wait until the next train arrives, which is crazy. Public transport is letting people down massively throughout Scotland.
I agree with Pauline McNeill. We must readdress many issues to do with the delivery of public transport and bigger issues to do with how public transport will work in an integrated way for Scotland in the future, which it is not currently doing.
I, too, commend Pauline McNeill for securing this important debate. I have been heartened by the growing consensus that decisive action is needed if we are to make lasting and effective improvements to Scotland's bus services.
There is general agreement among members that the wholesale deregulation of the bus industry in the 1980s created significant problems and that the time has come for change, although that general agreement might be because the Tories are not represented in the chamber this evening.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have been contacted by constituents who are angry about unscheduled changes to their bus services, the cancellation of routes or the fact that they have been left isolated during the evenings and at weekends by their service provider. Judging by some of the speeches that have been made tonight, other members share my frustration about that type of complaint.
I want to raise two constituency issues. First, a crucial section has been cut out of a bus route because waiting times at a particular set of traffic lights do not suit the bus company. Instead of making a five-minute bus journey to reach the post office, shops, dentist, library and pharmacy at Whifflet, my constituents in that area—many of whom are elderly—now have to make two bus journeys that take up to half an hour and involve a 10-minute walk between bus stops. Not only is that unfair on my constituents, it is ridiculous considering the geographical area. However, because the bus service does not receive subsidy from SPT, there seems to be little that can be done.
Another issue is the fact that, in the Townhead area of my constituency, no buses are available before 8 o'clock in the morning or after 6 o'clock at night. The area is on the outskirts of Coatbridge. It has a high level of unemployment and a low level of car ownership. The lack of bus services therefore has a significant impact on the local community: it affects access to employment and it prevents people from being able to visit relatives, go shopping in the evening or make hospital visits. It hinders their ability to access leisure and recreational activities in the wider Coatbridge area as well, and it therefore adds significantly to social exclusion.
I wanted to talk about the dial-a-bus service, but I do not have much time. It is a good resource although, unsurprisingly, it is oversubscribed. There are also problems such as people having to wait half an hour on the phone to order a bus, which have to be addressed.
I would have liked to talk about hospital services, as my workload has been dominated by the reconfiguration of accident and emergency services in Lanarkshire this year; however, I do not have time. Suffice it to say that the reconfiguration will create further considerable challenges for public transport in the area and major problems for my constituents.
I recognise the fact that SPT alone cannot improve the situation; it is already operating under considerable pressure and budget constraints. Also, the onerous nature of quality contracts is a barrier to their use, so they are not the answer. I think that we know that, as they have not been used. Undoubtedly, we need more decisive action at Government level to redress the imbalance that has been caused by deregulation. We need to ensure that we put people rather than profits first, where bus travel is concerned. I am pleased to support Pauline McNeill's motion and I await with interest the minister's response.
I, too, congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing a debate on such an excellent motion. Decent local bus services are vital to Scotland's communities, and such services are integral to cutting road congestion and safeguarding the environment. Furthermore, the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is not working. I call on the minister please to promise to revisit the act and see how we can improve it.
Timetabling frequently does not work to the advantage of passengers. In the past month, I have received letters complaining about services from Biggar to Hamilton, from Lanark to Wishaw hospital, from Lanark to Biggar, and around Dumfries and Galloway. Problems exist with services right across the country.
Timetable information is too often not displayed; it is not available at bus stops or at obvious local venues. When it is available, it is frequently wrong. I have here the McKindless Group's bus timetable for service 31, which serves the Clyde valley. It is an excellent-looking, comprehensive document. It says, "No Sunday services". That simply is not the case; the fact is that there are no McKindless Group Sunday services. However, there is no indication that there are any services apart from what is in this booklet. That situation is replicated across the region and the country. Timetable information needs to be a priority. I have a letter that Alistair Watson of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport sent to one of my constituents that states:
"I can assure you that the provision of information has indeed been at the top of my agenda for quite some time and has been raised by myself with the Minister on no less than three occasions."
That issue must be looked at urgently.
Fares and ticketing integration—which is generally non-existent—is another area in which the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has failed. We need some mechanism to ensure that local bus companies integrate and standardise fares to allow for through-ticketing.
The result of favouring the bigger companies and those that offer the cheapest services, which are frequently of the poorest quality, is that it encourages companies—as has happened on many occasions in Lanarkshire—to flood routes with extra buses either to prevent the entry of competitors or to remove the existing operator altogether. Once that objective has been achieved, the quality and regularity of service declines badly and the public are left with a service that is worse than it was previously. That is another issue that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has failed to address and we need to look at it again.
I ask the minister to recognise the strength of opinion that, as has been said, exists among members of almost every party in the chamber. In a range of regions, this is a real problem that needs to be addressed urgently.
I join others in congratulating Pauline McNeill on securing a debate on a subject that I know has been dear to her heart.
Although it seems an incredibly long time since deregulation took place, I remember the images that newspapers carried of the buses in Glasgow's Hope Street, where people could not only not see for the buses, but could not move because so many buses were on the same street simultaneously. Pauline McNeill is right to make us think back to then and to ask ourselves whether deregulation has served our communities well.
We know that local bus services are vital to communities across Scotland in urban and rural areas alike. In some areas, buses are the only public transport available and often act as a lifeline connection to essential services such as hospitals. On balance, my community is not badly served by public transport. We have a great train service. We have a bus service, although it could do with improvement. We even have integration between the two services, as FirstBus services link directly with the First ScotRail timetable.
However, it is clear from listening to members today that there is a problem. We should strive to have the best possible bus services and not simply settle for second best. Constituents regularly raise with me a number of areas for improvement, which are very similar to the concerns that other members have highlighted.
On the issue of quality, buses in some areas are getting older. The most profitable routes are given the newer buses, but suburban routes can be essential, especially where the bus is the only option for public transport. On accessibility, the need for new low-floor buses is felt acutely by disabled people, parents with buggies and older people alike.
Frequency, however, is the issue on which most of the problems arise. Are there enough buses serving the right routes or are the most profitable routes simply picked off? Do all the buses come at the same time? Do people need to wait for half an hour and then watch—usually, it is raining at the same time—as three of them come simultaneously?
Another issue is the availability of buses at night-time and weekends. Throughout Scotland, there are bus-free zones at night-time. In my local community in Bonhill, such a service was removed but thankfully—with subsidy from SPT, to which I am very obliged—subsequently reinstated. However, the service was provided again by the previous operator. Given that, again and again, the cost falls on the public sector, I am not sure whether that is cost-effective or represents value for the public purse.
Pauline McNeill is right to say that the issue is not just about more money for subsidy. Money should come with obligations. We need to place obligations on bus operators to deliver services appropriately.
In closing, on the basis that good things come in threes, I echo other members in making three suggestions to the minister. First, he should give people the right to be consulted and to have an input into route development. Secondly, he should give them a right to lodge an objection when routes are changed or reduced. Thirdly, he should give them the right to have a reasonable bus service. If that requires a degree of regulation or an alternative franchise model, as outlined by Bill Butler, I encourage the minister to consider that seriously, so that the bus service is indeed a service to all our communities.
This has been a useful debate that reflects the quite understandable concern about bus services that exists across the chamber and throughout Scotland. I acknowledge Pauline McNeill's leadership of the debate and the fact that members of all parties, except the one that colleagues have mentioned this evening, have taken an interest in the issue.
I want to deal with the three central points in Pauline McNeill's motion: the arguments around greater accountability; the arguments around the need for a review of quality bus partnerships; and the need for better forms of regulation that she and other members articulated this evening.
I acknowledge at the outset that bus services are an essential component of Scotland's public transport system. Buses are flexible, cost-effective, high-occupancy vehicles that provide sustainable mass transport. They assist us in our climate change objectives to reduce congestion and promote both economic growth and social inclusion by providing links that enable people to get to and from employment and to access shops, leisure facilities and public services. Paul Martin has argued before that we should pay more attention to planning our health care services and schools estate in relation to transport infrastructure and services, and I assure members who share that concern that that work is on-going both in the national transport strategy and in discussions with my colleagues with responsibility for health and education.
Buses are the principal, most frequently used and most widely available form of public transport, and I would like to pick up some of the points that have been made this evening, starting with Paul Martin's point about the competition authorities. As Mr Martin knows, the Competition Commission has considered the competitive nature of the bus market across Scotland on a number of occasions since 1985. Hitherto it has concluded that there is no monopoly, but members who examine closely the situation in their area will recognise that there are probably around eight companies, out of some 300 operators, that share the majority of the bus market across Scotland, so there must be some competition issues. That is one of the matters that I have sought to tease out in the consultation on the national transport strategy and in the specific questions that I have asked of members about the bus industry in their areas. The perception is that there is too much competition in the west of Scotland, driving down the quality of service and standards, and that has certainly come through in the representations, which I read carefully last night.
I will address some of the other points made in the debate. I understand Rob Gibson's points about the far north. I take his point about journey times, because that is the issue that we are addressing in the context of the consultation. The bus route development grant has, and will have, an essential part to play in that, but we also need better management and better communication among public bodies and commercial companies, and we must demand responsive transport in both rural and urban Scotland.
A number of members mentioned the concessionary travel scheme. If there are constituency or regional concerns about the scheme, it is important to ensure that Transport Scotland is aware of the issues and to take up the matter quickly and directly. We will do our level best to sort that out.
Mary Mulligan raised an essential point about buses versus trains. It is a serious point, because in the context of the number of passengers involved and given the contrast between the amount of money that we put into the ScotRail franchise and Network Rail in Scotland and the amount invested in public bus services across the country, there is at least a debate to be had about the Scottish Executive's relative spending in those areas. I will reflect on that in the national transport strategy and in policy.
I thought that Patrick Harvie was a touch harsh on Glasgow taxi drivers, but he can take that up with them, I guess. However, he did make a fair point about passenger information, and other members also reflected on that.
On the structure of the bus industry in Scotland and what we can do to address the legitimate regulatory issues that members have raised, it is important to recognise—as some members did—that passenger numbers have grown in recent years. Local bus services carried 465 million people in 2004-05, which was an increase of 2 per cent over the previous year. Passenger numbers have grown in the past six consecutive years.
However, there are serious issues to address. The bus action plan that I am having prepared as part of the development of the national transport strategy will focus on specific bus issues. It will build strongly not only on tonight's debate but on the representations that members made in the consultation on the national transport strategy.
I take seriously the points that members have drawn out on all three of the central themes that Pauline McNeill introduced at the start of the debate. In developing the action plan, informal discussions have been held with a range of key stakeholders. We will ensure that the points that arose are addressed when we produce the national transport strategy towards the end of the year.
There is a real need to continue to drive up transport service standards if we are to achieve an aim that several members picked up on this evening, which is modal shift from cars to public transport. I also take the point that several members made that for many the car is not an option as their household does not have a car, so the issue does not apply to many people in both urban and rural Scotland. In that sense, bus services are an essential public investment. We must tackle that properly.
As members have pointed out, the current bus regime is market led with light regulation by local and central Government. The underlying principle that was established all those years ago—that private bus companies are best suited to seek out and develop market opportunities while driving down costs—must be considered carefully. It is the right time to consider the effectiveness of that approach.
Significant concerns remain about the provision of urban and rural services and the basic quality and reliability of transport planning, bus infrastructure and services, particularly in the west of Scotland, as has been highlighted. Concerns have also been expressed about safety, congestion, overcrowding and late running. As part of the regulatory regime, we must examine our enforcement standards and consider what we can do to improve them. Therefore, we will review the policy, financial and regulatory framework within the bus action plan to examine the appropriateness of current legislation and the implementation of the regulatory regime by all the authorities concerned.
Scottish ministers take seriously and will act upon Pauline McNeill's central three points of accountability, quality bus partnerships and the forms of regulation when we present the action plan later in the year.
Meeting closed at 18:13.