Bus Wars (Edinburgh)
The final item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2247, in the name of Mr Kenny MacAskill, on congestion and pollution caused by Edinburgh bus wars. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
In a few seconds, I will ask Mr MacAskill to open the debate—we seem to be taking a long time to get a clear chamber. I note that none of the members who are leaving the chamber has taken my hint. As long as the last one leaving does not turn the lights off, we can risk Mr MacAskill starting now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the escalation of the "bus wars" in the city of Edinburgh, a situation which is detrimental to routes, services and passengers and which results in congestion and pollution in some areas, at the same time as routes and services are lost in others, and urges all responsible parties to take appropriate action to address this situation and to allow Scotland's capital city to develop an integrated transport network in the 21st Century.
I am grateful for this opportunity to debate an issue of significant concern to Edinburgh: the on-going and escalating bus wars in the streets of our capital. As the motion says, the situation is
"detrimental to routes, services and passengers and … results in congestion and pollution in some areas, at the same time as routes and services are lost in others".
The situation is conducive to neither the health nor the welfare of the capital's citizens.
I should perhaps digress somewhat at this point to provide a history and background to bus services in this city. It might also be appropriate for me formally to declare that I am the holder of a Lothian Buses RidaCard, as are some other members. However, like others in the city, while I am a supporter of our publicly owned bus service, I reserve my right to criticise it and I often do so. Having said that, I think that the city has benefited from having had a publicly owned bus—or, historically, omnibus—service since the late 19th century. Lothian Buses is the line successor to the Edinburgh Corporation Tramways and the Leith Corporation Tramways, which commenced operations in the 1890s. The service became Edinburgh Corporation Transport—I am old enough to still talk about corporation buses—before becoming Lothian Region Transport and, ultimately, Lothian Buses.
Thousands may have criticised the service on occasion, but it is our service and our buses. We have earned that right.
Would Kenny MacAskill welcome, as I would, moves by Lothian Buses to reintroduce the services that were provided in West Lothian until approximately five years ago?
That is a matter for Lothian Buses to discuss with the local authority, but I certainly agree that an improvement in services that ensures the development of the travel-to-work area around the city of Edinburgh should be considered. I am aware of the differences in perspective. Perhaps in West Lothian, and indeed in Midlothian and East Lothian, there are different views of Lothian Buses and the other companies that provide a service. From a city of Edinburgh perspective, which I am addressing today, what we want is an end to the bus wars. From the point of view of the whole of Lothian, we want an improvement in services full stop. I will turn later to how I think that should be achieved.
As I said, we have earned the right to criticise—it is a Scottish characteristic to be harder on one's own than on others. Lothian Buses is still a publicly owned company: 91 per cent of it is owned by the City of Edinburgh Council, and 9 per cent is split between East Lothian Council, West Lothian Council and Midlothian Council. It is the only remaining publicly owned bus company in all Scotland, and is one of the few that is left in the United Kingdom. It resisted privatisation under the Tories and it will, I believe, resist commercial attack under the current Administration.
Lothian Buses may be our service, but it is not a big player in national terms. It is only about 2 per cent of the size of FirstGroup, the other combatant in the current situation. But what is the current situation? For a decade, FirstGroup has eyed Lothian Region Transport, and then Lothian Buses, the jewel in the crown of the city of Edinburgh. Overtures were rebuffed. A back-door attack, through the failed, but not lamented, city of Edinburgh rapid transport—CERT—project, was repelled. FirstGroup is still a huge conglomerate. It is the biggest operator in Scotland, and has not a national, but a multinational, stature.
When that wooing failed, it was time for FirstGroup to adopt bully-boy tactics. Since the summer, FirstGroup has stepped up a commercial attack on the services historically run by the public bus company for the public benefit in our capital city. FirstGroup entered, offering bounties to drivers, cut-price fares to passengers, shiny new buses and an unprecedented service for the city. Across Edinburgh, passengers on key routes were met by a flotilla of buses competing for a limited number of passengers. However, as I pointed out at the time, that was—and still is—unsustainable. Bus wars cost routes and services. The bounties to drivers were unsustainable and prices have risen. The new buses in the city are there only because old buses are running in the country, particularly in the Borders. Transferable tickets between operators are no longer available.
Most important, although we have more buses than we need at key times on key routes, we are losing essential services at off-peak times on the less profitable or unprofitable routes. Some of the cutbacks have come from Lothian Buses, which has been pilloried by the public. However, we have to remember that Lothian Buses, although it is publicly owned, is not publicly subsidised. It uses the money it makes on profitable routes to support the unprofitable services. There is no such quid pro quo for FirstGroup, which chooses profitable routes to boost shareholders' profits. As a result, services have declined. The new year has brought no respite. As at Monday, further key, profitable routes operated by Lothian Buses have come under commercial attack. It will not be a bounty of buses; it will be the death knell for less profitable routes.
If we have in excess of a bus a minute going up Leith Walk, we have reached an absurd and ridiculous situation. If it continues any further, it will be easier and quicker to walk on the roofs of the buses gridlocked on the Walk than it will to travel inside them. That is not just absurd in transportation terms but unhealthy in environmental terms. Complaints come not just from Leith Walk. Members can go and speak to residents on Torphichen Place, where a public highway has become a public bus park.
What is the solution? Doing nothing has not worked. FirstGroup is in for the kill and condemnation from a united front will not suffice. FirstGroup will not be persuaded; it must be dealt with. Some cling to the hope of the cavalry coming over the hill in the form of the Office of Fair Trading. That organisation's ability to protect Scots was clearly exposed in its failure to protect them from charter flight supplements for flights from Scottish airports. That aside, the situation in Edinburgh would take months to consider. That delay is unacceptable for our citizens, and it will be too late for Lothian Buses. In any event, a fine and a slap on the wrists will not stop a multinational with deep pockets; only regulation will.
I do not wish to pre-empt the minister's response to the debate, but I wish to address the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and the quality contracts. They provide no salvation, which is probably why the City of Edinburgh Council has not even bothered to take preparatory steps. If a quality contract were to be invoked, it would be easy to write the script for what would occur. The organisation with the deepest pockets—the multinational—would put in an artificially low tender and would win, and Lothian Buses would lose. Lothian Buses would pay off its drivers and sell off its buses, as there would be no alternative. When the tender came round again, as we have discovered with cut-price fares during the current price wars, the cost would rise, but there would be no competition, as there would be no Lothian Buses. The same thing happened with privatisation of environmental services in many English local authorities.
The best and only solution is bus regulation, which is supported by Glasgow City Council Labour group. That is what happens in London, England's capital city. The increased passenger numbers there put any pride that we have in our bus service well into perspective. With bus regulation, FirstGroup or any other company would have an opportunity to operate services. However, it would have to provide a package of routes, not cherry-picked routes—a balanced service for all our citizens, rather than just for those travelling on profitable routes at peak times. A bus service is by nature a public service. That must be reflected in the area that it serves and the times at which it operates.
My purpose is to highlight the importance to the city of Edinburgh of our publicly owned bus company, Lothian Buses; the congestion, damage to the environment and loss of routes and services that have been caused by FirstGroup's predatory attack; and the need for action to be taken before prices rise again and routes are lost once more. A capital city deserves a capital bus service. Action must be taken. If the minister cannot offer a solution to the problem, I ask that the Executive support my member's bill to regulate buses in this city. The error of the Tories in the 1980s must not continue under the Lib-Lab Administration a generation later.
Nine members have indicated that they wish to speak. I ask them to keep their speeches to four minutes.
I will try to be a bit briefer than that, to give others a little more time.
Like Kenny MacAskill, I must declare an interest. I am very grateful to Lothian Region Transport for providing me with a RidaCard. I would be even more grateful if it could run the 35 service rather more frequently. It is not unheard of for buses to run 40 minutes apart on that route. The bus wars have not benefited the 35 service greatly.
It is important to emphasise that this is not just an Edinburgh bus war, but a Lothian bus war. All our constituents in Lothian are affected. Infantile competition on profitable and congested routes in and around the city of Edinburgh is having a detrimental effect right across the region—not only in the city, but in East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian. Some passengers are getting short-term benefits from competition, in the form of frequent services and low fares. However, that sort of predatory competition is not sustainable. If it continues, there must be very serious concerns for the future.
Routes outside the competition areas—in East Lothian, for example—are getting worse services, as the bus operators switch resources on to busy routes. Passengers on routes to and from North Berwick and Dunbar, and on subsidised services to small villages, are getting worse timetables, high fares and clapped-out buses. Frequent changes to timetables have caused serious problems to people travelling to and from work. We do not even have integrated ticketing. Life is very difficult for passengers from the constituency that I represent.
This sort of free-market competition is idiotic. It is to the credit of the Scottish Executive and the Parliament that we passed the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which provides for the establishment of quality partnerships or, where necessary, binding quality contracts. Local authorities can enter into agreements with bus operators to provide services for local passengers. Mutually assured destruction among bus operators cannot make sense for bus services in the Lothian region and the city of Edinburgh. These shenanigans must be stopped. They are causing chaos in the city and great difficulties in areas such as East Lothian.
I hope that local authorities will begin the process of establishing quality partnerships or, if necessary, quality contracts, under the terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. That cannot come soon enough.
Kenny MacAskill is right to be concerned about the congestion impact of the present battle for market share on certain city routes. However, it is important to stress that fair competition and choice are vital to ensure that a good-quality, good-value bus service is available to commuters in Edinburgh and Lothian.
Operators that seek to gain access to the market—whether First Edinburgh in respect of city routes or Lothian Buses in respect of its operations in East Lothian and Midlothian, or wherever companies seek to operate—and want to provide choice to commuters should be allowed to compete fairly with one another. I welcome the fact that the situation is being examined by the OFT, and I hope that its report will shed some light on the matter and on the welter of claims and counter-claims that have been made by the rival companies that are involved in this debate.
The matter must be resolved. It is essential that the operators and the council, as the transport authority, work in partnership with one another. In defence of FirstGroup, it is fair to say that it already has a good track record in that respect. In Glasgow, FirstGroup has worked with Glasgow City Council and is committed to substantial funding of quality bus corridors as part of the public transport funding project, with infrastructure funding and £10 million allocated to the provision of new vehicles. In Aberdeen, which is the original home of FirstGroup, the company is working fruitfully with the council to deliver a quality service, with large-scale investment in vehicles, integrated ticketing and bus priority measures.
Is the member aware that, in Aberdeen, which he rightly identified as the home of FirstGroup, the company was challenged to provide a similar fare structure to that which it offers in Edinburgh? However, it declined to do so, saying that it would not be commercially viable. I would argue that that fare structure is not commercially viable in Edinburgh and that the company is merely adopting the predatory pricing policy that some other multinational bus companies have been found guilty of using in the past. We have lost quite a number of smaller bus companies in Scotland because of such policies. Does the member agree?
Whether unfair competitive practices and predatory pricing are going on is a matter that will be investigated and adjudicated on by the OFT. For a company to be in breach of the Competition Act 2000, it would have to be demonstrated that the party complained of is abusing a dominant position in the market. The market share in Edinburgh and Lothian of Lothian Buses is some 85 per cent, while that of First Edinburgh is barely 15 per cent. How the company can abuse a dominant position from a market share base of 15 per cent is an interesting question. However, no doubt all that will come out as a result of the OFT report.
In addition to the examples that I mentioned of Glasgow and Aberdeen, it is fair to say that FirstGroup has similar partnership arrangements with cities in England, in Leeds and Bradford. It is more than a little significant that there is no evidence of so-called bus wars going on at present in any other part of the United Kingdom in which the company operates.
I fear that there is little prospect of long-term progress being made to address the present situation as long as the dominant operator within Edinburgh and Lothian—namely, Lothian Buses—remains in municipal ownership. I was quite interested in Mr MacAskill's comments on the city bus service's origins in the Edinburgh Corporation. As Mr Adam acknowledged, the origins of FirstGroup were in the municipally owned Grampian Transport, which was privatised in 1989 through a management buy-out. At the time of privatisation, the company operated fewer than 300 buses, had an annual turnover of £11 million and employed 650 staff. Today, FirstGroup's turnover exceeds £2 billion. It employs 50,000 people worldwide and carries 2.7 million passengers a day on 10,000 buses operating across 28 UK operations. I say to Mr MacAskill that that is an outstanding success story of privatisation. It is a Scottish success story in which I would have thought that the Scottish National Party would have taken some pride.
By contrast, Lothian Buses was originally a much larger operation than Grampian Transport. In 1989, Lothian Buses was running bus services in Edinburgh and the Lothians and, 13 years later, it is doing exactly the same. Under municipal ownership, the company is standing still. Lothian Buses has missed the bus and relies on political protectionism to sustain its domination of the Edinburgh market.
The City of Edinburgh Council has an ambitious and expensive programme of proposals and plans for improving public transport in the city and Lothian. If those plans are to become reality, funding must be found from other sources, without burdening our motorists with city entry tolls of £3 a day. I believe—and I have said before in the chamber—that Lothian Buses should be sold off.
Will David McLetchie give way?
No, Mr McLetchie is over time.
To sell off Lothian Buses would raise some £100 million for a city public transport fund that could turn many of the dreams, plans and visions into practical reality. It would also end the inherent conflict of interest in which the council finds itself as a transport authority on one hand and the major shareholder in Lothian Buses on the other, and would enable the council as transport authority to work in even-handed partnership with all those who wish to provide services to commuters in the city.
Mr McLetchie, you are well over time.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I seriously commend that proposal to the City of Edinburgh Council. I know that it has examined it in the past and I hope that it will give the proposal serious consideration again.
I congratulate Kenny MacAskill on securing the debate.
Although David McLetchie might want to advocate the needs and interests of multinational companies, our duty and responsibility as members of the Parliament and representatives of the Edinburgh and Lothian areas is to represent the needs of the travelling public. The situation in Edinburgh is causing havoc. If it is doing so now, the prospects for the future, should the Lothian bus war be to the detriment of service from Lothian Buses, could be far worse.
Will Fiona Hyslop give way?
No, let me continue.
I have severe concerns that the Conservatives have a misconception. Lothian Buses operates privately, although the local authority is the majority shareholder. Surely it is a David-and-Goliath bus battle. The situation is one of a multinational against a small company. Interestingly, in Edinburgh, the smaller company has the majority share.
Will Fiona Hyslop give way?
No. I would like to continue, if Brian Monteith does not mind. I am sorry that I did not recognise him in his new attire. Indeed, I am not quite sure whether the minister and Bristow Muldoon are wearing Lothian Buses ties. In fairness, I am sure that they are not. It is probably a Heart of Midlothian uniform.
I will address the serious matter of the reliability of the bus service and provision where and when it is needed. In wars, there are casualties. I will not use that horrible term "collateral damage". There are casualties beyond Edinburgh, as John Home Robertson mentioned, and there are casualties in Edinburgh. Edinburgh Central has one of the lowest car-ownership rates of any constituency in Scotland. There are children who are subject to the pollution that the congestion is causing. There are pensioners in the Grassmarket who cannot get about late in the evening because the 36 service has been cut. Young women who are working late in the city centre face fear because there might not be a bus to get them home as bus services are being cut. The fear that women in the city are facing is serious and we should address it seriously.
Because of what it is doing in Edinburgh, FirstGroup is cutting services in West Lothian. Is it any coincidence that the Linlithgow-Bathgate via Torphichen service was cut in November or that in the south of Livingston the bus services have been cut substantially? Indeed, the EX1 Armadale-Edinburgh service has been rerouted, which has led to commuters setting up their own service—the AX1—to address the situation.
I will address some of the points that have been made and were touched on by my colleague Brian Adam. If the bus war is not a predatory price war, why is the £1 fare that FirstGroup introduced, which is now £1.50, different in other cities in which it operates? In Sheffield, it is £2.30; in Huddersfield, it is £2.70; in Glasgow, it is £2.10; in York it is £2. The bus war is clearly predatory.
I do not have the confidence that David McLetchie has that the OFT report will offer a solution. It may come too late. Points have also been made about the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and quality contracts. Those too might come too late to give any solution in the situation.
We must identify what we can do. The people of Edinburgh will not thank us politicians if we do and say nothing about the situation. We heard the Tory dogma of privatisation. The Tories seem to be pursuing a scorched-earth policy on the matter. Their former leader said, "There is no alternative." There is a practical alternative. It is about regulation and re-regulation. Regulation could allow competition but much fairer competition, as has been seen in other cities.
Mr MacAskill did not spell out for us the difference between the re-regulation that Fiona Hyslop described and the quality contracts that have been introduced under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I would be interested to hear whether Fiona Hyslop could spell out the difference.
My first concern is that the quality contracts would, as I have said, be too late to be effective. In London, there is regulation but also competition and a far more integrated service. At the end of the day, we want a better service. Let us keep our eye on the ball: our duty and our responsibility is to act for the people of Edinburgh to ensure that they have a proper and decent service. The bus wars are not serving the people of Scotland and the politicians are not serving the people of Edinburgh if they sit on their hands and offer either the scorched-earth policy of the Conservatives or the do-nothing policy that has been the Executive's policy so far.
I am grateful to Kenny MacAskill for choosing buses in Edinburgh for the topic of this end-of-day debate. I suppose it is an easy target for him as he hits out at what is happening in Edinburgh with the so-called bus wars, but both he and Fiona Hyslop missed many of the points. It is ludicrous to say that the biggest problems with transport in Edinburgh are the pollution and congestion caused by buses. Everyone who lives in Edinburgh Central knows that the main problems of congestion and air pollution are caused by cars snarling up our roads because of the difficulty of attracting people on to buses.
I actually think that it is good that we have lots more buses in Edinburgh. Questions about how long the large number of buses on routes will last arise, but that is an issue for the operators to sort out. I will come on to talk about possible solutions.
Kenny MacAskill's speech did not contain a great deal of recognition of the positive changes that have taken place in Edinburgh over the past few years in the quality and range of bus services. Greenways deliver faster bus times and mean that there are more passengers on buses; new routes link people with their work and with where they want to go for leisure opportunities, whether at the Gyle or at Ocean Terminal; and there are newer and more attractive buses across Edinburgh with low floors so that pensioners and people with disabilities can now get wheelchairs on and off. The latest buses that Lothian Buses are introducing are entirely automated so that the drivers do not have to get out of their seats.
Big changes are taking place. Next year there will be free bus travel for pensioners. All the changes are causing more people to use buses—we know that from the year-on-year increases in Edinburgh.
There is a degree of hypocrisy in this debate. I know that we are meant to be touchy-feely at members' business debates, but I remember Kenny MacAskill's comments last year when he criticised the Executive for spending money on new bus routes. He said that the bus was a mode of transport for the last century. I think that buses are a key part of any transport strategy and that there is a lot to be praised in Edinburgh.
Some of Mr MacAskill's speech was intriguing to say the least. Anyone who had to sit through the endless debates in the Transport and the Environment Committee had the opportunity to consider a new regulatory framework for buses. We did that in great depth, but the nationalists did not propose any alternative regulatory framework. We had rigorous debates about the timing of the introduction of contracts. In response to comments from a number of people, including the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers in Scotland, we brought forward the time at which contracts could be introduced and we changed the nature of the terms of contract introduction. I still feel that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 took a balanced approach, but no alternative was proposed by the nationalists during those extensive debates.
I concede many of Sarah Boyack's points. If we are now magnanimous enough to say that we perhaps should have proposed an alternative and that we did not recognise that quality contracts were not going to work, will Sarah Boyack now accept that quality contracts are not going to work and will she accept that we should now introduce regulation? Mr Home Robertson has issued a press release indicating that quality contracts do not work and that regulation will have to be considered.
You are drifting into a speech, Mr MacAskill.
Why has the City of Edinburgh Council not gone for quality contracts? Because it knows that they will not work.
Mr MacAskill would have to put that question to the City of Edinburgh Council. The regulations on the buses were published only towards the end of last year. They are lengthy and will require a great deal of thought.
The debate over bus partnerships and bus contracts centres on the fact that they should be used where appropriate and in the public interest. That judgment is one that only the City of Edinburgh Council can make. It will then be able to put its case to the Executive. I think that the framework provided by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is absolutely appropriate.
Part of what I found intriguing about Mr MacAskill's speech was the notion that, having spent two to two and a half years debating transport in this Parliament, we should now totally disregard the new transport act, set up a totally new framework of regulations that ignores the regulations in the act, and pretend to people that a new tender process—or a new regulatory process, as Mr MacAskill described it—can be triggered that would be quicker than setting in place the contracts that we already have and that have the detailed guidance that the Executive has produced. That is a ludicrous position.
The nationalists are trying to con people in Edinburgh and the Lothians into believing that they have a solution for transport in Scotland. The real challenge is to use the grinding process of going through the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, working out what is best for us. We need more consultation with bus users so that when bus routes are taken away we can campaign on them. The challenge is to put the tougher regulation that is provided for in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 into place, creating more bus lanes and ensuring more long-term investment. That is a job for local authorities.
I am glad that we have had tonight's debate, but I note that there has been an awful lot of hypocrisy in the nationalist case.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate about the so-called Edinburgh bus wars. One thing is certain: as in most wars, the people who are suffering the most are the civilians of the city who find themselves caught in the middle. This is not just about Edinburgh. The battle is being fought on two fronts: in First Edinburgh's traditional network heartland of West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian and on the streets of the city. Lothian Buses has moved into routes such as those going from the city to Penicuik and Haddington. Correspondingly, First Edinburgh has begun to compete on city routes that are already well covered.
As has been said, Edinburgh is unusual in having the last remaining publicly owned bus company in Scotland. I would put forward the view that both the company and the City of Edinburgh Council—and its predecessors—are to be congratulated and supported not only for resisting previous attempts to privatise the company but for the civic-minded manner in which the company has continued to operate over the years since the Tories introduced deregulation. I am not opposed to competition. In fact, fair competition would perhaps help to address the unfair fares anomaly in, for example, South Queensferry, which constituents of mine have had to put up with for many years. I am not opposed to cheap and affordable fares, but they must be sustainable in the long term.
As the Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson on the council, I was only too aware of the significant profit—close to £1 million—that Lothian Buses made for the council as its major shareholder and the impact that the dividend had when it was recycled back into subsidised services throughout the city. Without that commitment from Lothian Buses and the council, large areas of west Edinburgh would be without early-morning, evening, weekend and Sunday services. The current bus war on our roads threatens the positive ethos and the level of services in such areas. It benefits no one.
First Edinburgh has lost 25 per cent of its market share over recent years and is currently making losses. Lothian Buses also finds itself under threat. Integrated through ticketing has been a casualty and the council as company shareholder and transport authority finds itself in the middle of a no-win situation. The swamping of certain routes has led not only to pollution and congestion, with an estimated trebling of buses on some routes, but to Lothian Buses having to withdraw services from loss-making routes such as the link between Barnton and East Craigs. In certain parts of the city, such as Leith Walk, there is a glut of buses, while in other areas already inadequate services have been lost.
Like other members, I welcome the fact that the Office of Fair Trading is investigating this untenable situation. I am pleased that it will undertake an investigation and is due to report in the autumn. That investigation should not focus simply on the activities of any one company; it should consider both. We must ensure that neither company abuses its position—Lothian Buses as market leader or First Edinburgh as part of a large multinational operation. We need an independent view of the situation and a pragmatic and fair way forward to deliver better services and a solution.
What can be done? The council is to be commended for having brokered a ceasefire between the two sides last October, when each company agreed not to move into new routes. Route 87, which was introduced by First Edinburgh this week, was discussed by the companies at those meetings. First Edinburgh was criticised for that, although it had been negotiated with the council and Lothian Buses at the meeting in October.
The general problem between the companies has led to attempts by First Edinburgh and the south-east Scotland transport partnership—SESTRANS—to move forward with a new integrated ticketing system being derailed in the past few weeks. That system would be of great benefit to my constituents in South Queensferry. Those who have been involved in transport issues in Edinburgh know that it is essential that all sides support initiatives on integrated ticketing.
The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 moved us forward. The problem is that although quality partnerships have a part to play, quality contracts are a step too far. The act gave councils the power to introduce quality partnerships. There are advantages in embarking on targeted formal quality partnerships for certain areas of Edinburgh, but nobody would benefit—certainly both companies have told me that they would not benefit—from a quality contract that would risk the destruction of Lothian Buses, as was outlined by Kenny MacAskill. Neither would anybody benefit from setting in stone for three years a bus monopoly in our city.
While the Executive is to be congratulated on the support it has given Edinburgh recently with crossrail, the west Edinburgh bus system in my constituency and the initial work on the central and north Edinburgh loop, it is clear that for the foreseeable future the city will remain dependent on its bus services. That is why I hope that the Executive will do all that it can to encourage quality partnerships in Edinburgh. The present situation benefits no one. Right now, the people of Edinburgh are suffering from too many buses in certain areas but too few in others, a hold on progress on through ticketing, the loss of certain routes and the threat to the survival of a much loved local bus company. In terms of social justice, the environment and common sense, the situation is not sustainable.
I hope that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning will do all that he can to protect long-term fair competition in Edinburgh—competition that enhances the transport choices for the capital's citizens. Those citizens have shown through recent history that they are prepared to make a modal shift to public transport. We want that to continue against a background of fair pricing, fair competition and a balanced network throughout Lothian.
With the honourable exception of John Home Robertson, members have had a great deal to say in this debate and we will not get everybody in unless someone seeks to move a motion to extend the debate by about 20 minutes. I would be happy to entertain such a motion if someone would be kind enough to move it.
Motion moved,
That the debate be extended by up to 20 minutes.—[Mrs Margaret Smith.]
Motion agreed to.
I too am a proud possessor of a Lothian Buses bus pass. I use it regularly on the 23 bus service, which provides me with an almost door-to-door service from my home to the Parliament. Due to the vagaries of traffic flow, the 23 bus occasionally travels in convoys of up to three. Due to the current competition, there are sometimes convoys of five or six 23s because First Edinburgh's method of competition is to try to put one of its 23s between two LRT 23s. The competition is unfair and my observation is that, so far, most of the First Edinburgh 23s seem to be almost empty, with about two or three passengers.
Can Robin Harper tell me from his observation of the 23 route whose buses are doing the most clogging up? Are the buses mostly LRT buses or are they mostly First Edinburgh buses?
The clogging up is due to the blocking of buses by cars, not other companies' buses. If there is any such clogging up, it is because of the extra buses that have been put on by First Edinburgh. I will address a point that David McLetchie made earlier. If a company with a £2 billion turnover and 50,000 employees being in competition with a company that has a mere £1 million profit is not unfair competition from a monopoly position, I do not know what unfair competition is.
Like many others, I have written to the OFT asking it to investigate the matter, but it may take another four or five months to provide us with its findings. I find that extraordinary. I do not see why it cannot shift a lot faster than that, but that is beyond our control and my ken. An element of urgency should impress itself upon the Executive.
Perhaps I am complacent, but my interpretation of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 was that the Transport and the Environment Committee assisted with the construction of a quality contracts and partnerships system that would provide for a satisfactory element of regulation.
I would like to hear from the Executive an interpretation that can be provided to the council in the present crisis to enable it and First Edinburgh to come to an agreement whereby Lothian Buses will not suffer from unfair competition and will survive to continue to provide the by and large excellent service it currently provides in Edinburgh. I am sure that we will hear about one or two gaps in the services that are provided to Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian. I would like the Executive to address the situation as a matter of considerable urgency.
I shall finish before my four minutes are up.
With regard to provision of the best possible bus services for Scotland's capital, we support fair competition, leading to lower prices and better services.
The City of Edinburgh Council has a conflict of interest, given that Lothian Buses is the only surviving municipally owned bus company in Britain. As David McLetchie said, a dominant bus company owned by the council prevents rivals from entering the market. As well as owning Lothian Buses, the council is the transport authority, which is a barrier to resolving this issue.
The effect of the kind of bus wars that we are seeing locally is increased congestion at various points and higher than necessary levels of pollution in certain areas. We know, for example, that Lothian Buses operates buses at a frequency of about three minutes against First Edinburgh on Leith Walk when such frequency is not necessary. Lothian Buses doubled the frequency of 25s from seven to 14 buses an hour following the introduction of First Edinburgh's six buses an hour. When First Edinburgh had to withdraw, Lothian Buses reduced the service to six buses an hour. In other words, driving a rival out of the marketplace appeared to be more important than the provision of the best service for the travelling public.
Will the member give way?
I will give way briefly, because I have a lot to say.
Who is trying to drive whom out of the market?
If the member has followed the debate closely, he will know that there have been many allegations and counter- allegations. It is for the Office of Fair Trading to sort them out. The allegations on predatory pricing are well known. We believe that the introduction of fair competition, which was advocated by David McLetchie, would have a huge impact on the problem of increased congestion and pollution.
Ensuring that operators maintain links between Edinburgh and the Lothians through the introduction of integrated ticketing and innovative ticketing initiatives would also help to tackle the problems of congestion and pollution. The provision of low-cost public transport will focus on converting car users to bus users. John Home Robertson touched on that. It is worth pointing out that a low-fare introductory offer by First Edinburgh resulted in a 35 per cent increase in passengers, many of whom were car users. Low fares continued—peak and off-peak tickets were up to 64 per cent cheaper than those of Lothian Buses.
If Edinburgh is to have the quality bus service it needs—one that does not have an adverse impact on congestion and pollution—the City of Edinburgh Council should seek to develop quality partnerships with the bus operators. It should make use of the existing service tender powers for socially necessary services. I accept what Margaret Smith said about that. Such action would preserve innovation and investment in the private sector and provide the socially necessary services that cannot be sustained commercially.
I recommend that the council tackle bus frequency, the maintenance of links between Edinburgh and the Lothians and integrated ticketing and other innovative ticketing proposals. Our strong conviction, which arises out of experience from elsewhere in Britain, is that free and fair competition, which leads to lower prices and better services, is the best solution.
I, too, am pleased that the debate has been held. As it has shown, members for the Edinburgh area are well aware of the problems. I am pleased that we have an opportunity not only to identify problems, but to think about solutions.
I reiterate an important point that John Home Robertson made. As the member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh—with a foot inside and a foot outside the city boundary—I think that it is important that we do not consider the issue as affecting only Edinburgh; it impacts on many parts of Lothian.
Many examples have been given today, but I would like to give a few examples that have arisen in my area in recent weeks and months. In Craigentinny and Lochend, which are in my constituency, the bus service has been depleted in the past year to the extent that there is no longer a direct link to any Edinburgh hospital. In addition, the only bus link for pupils at the local Catholic secondary school was withdrawn and was reinstated at the start and close of the school day only because a local councillor and I intervened. On Sundays, the area has almost no service. Those are just a few examples. The situation is intolerable and we cannot allow it to continue.
The bus wars are a symptom and a cause of many of the existing problems. I was struck by the robust defence of competition by David McLetchie and James Douglas-Hamilton, because the competitive environment that the previous Conservative Administration introduced led to the present situation. As other members said, the key issue is ensuring that the marketplace has the appropriate degree of regulation to give passengers the services that they deserve. If I have a concern about the debate, it is that we may have spent a wee bit too much time talking about bus companies and not enough time talking about bus services. In the weeks and months to come, we must get right the services for people in our local area.
I take issue with those who suggested that no action has been taken. The new Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has just been put on the statute book. When I listen to SNP members, I sometimes think that they must have gone to Hogwarts school, because they seem to think that a law can come into force overnight by waving a magic wand. The process takes a wee bit longer than that. Now that the legislative provisions exist, it is important that we do everything that we can. For those who are confused, I say that the reference to Hogwarts was for Harry Potter fans. It may have passed by those who are not familiar with such things.
The legislative provisions are coming into force only now and it is vital that full use is made of them. I am struck and encouraged by what I have seen of the City of Edinburgh Council's plans to develop not only the right bus services, but—crucially—the right transportation system for the city. I have also been struck and encouraged by the work of other local authorities in Lothian. I want them to be given all the support and encouragement possible to ensure that provisions can be put in place to ensure that services and ticketing systems are right, that integration is in place and that information is available for passengers. That is one of the greatest failings—it is frustrating for passengers when they cannot find out which buses are running.
Addressing such matters takes money and time. If I were to make one appeal to City of Edinburgh Council and the Executive, it would be to ensure that everything is done to expedite the necessary decision-making processes. Having had an insight into the Executive's operation in that regard, I am concerned that decisions are sometimes not taken as quickly as they might be.
The situation in Edinburgh is urgent, but much has been achieved, not least through Sarah Boyack's work in putting the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 on the statute book. I want the statutory provisions to be put to work for the benefit of my constituents and others throughout Edinburgh and the Lothian area.
Finally, we come to Margo MacDonald.
I wish the Presiding Officer a happy new year.
I will pick up where Susan Deacon left off. The situation is urgent. The motion refers to the congestion and pollution that have been caused by Edinburgh's bus wars. Sarah Boyack took issue with that and said that buses were not causing the pollution. She is right—the pollution is not caused totally by buses, but it sure ain't helped by the bus wars. That is why we must deal with an urgent problem, which had been building in Edinburgh and of which we were already aware. With all due respect to Sarah Boyack, I think that the motion is in order.
I did not say that the motion was not in order; I said that I disagreed with some of its content. It is a matter of degree. I take Margo MacDonald's point on the matter.
Thank you.
The diminution in the frequency of some of the services in the south side of the city seems to this southsider to be forcing people in an affluent part of the city, where the level of car ownership is high, back into their cars to get into the city to work. That is a personal observation. I have no figures to back it up other than the fact that I am sometimes late for things—as members may have witnessed earlier when I missed the vote. The frequencies of bus services 5, 41 and 42 have been reduced. Anyone who lives on the south side of the city, and I see Angus MacKay agreeing with me, knows that that is where people who go to work in Sarah Boyack's constituency live.
I am concerned greatly about pollution. I have four grandchildren who live in Edinburgh. From speaking to my daughter and her friends who also have young children, I know that there is genuine concern about the level of pollution that is recorded in Edinburgh. Pollution has to be tackled.
I am the link person in the Lothians for the National Asthma Campaign. A survey undertaken for the campaign showed that 81 per cent of people who suffer from asthma cite pollution generated by traffic as a negative contributory factor in their condition. I am disappointed that no one has referred to pollution, as it is an issue now and needs to be tackled urgently.
Many new houses are being built in the city, which is leading to the arrival of new families. In that respect, the pollution caused by traffic congestion is of great importance and the bus wars are not helping. Research has been produced in the Netherlands that shows a close link between the pollutants in diesel fumes and asthma in young children. That is another argument in favour of sorting out bus transportation in Edinburgh.
I realise that the Office of Fair Trading is examining the issue and that everyone has talked about the commercial aspect of bus transport, but I am interested in the health aspects of the issue. We cannot wait for the Office of Fair Trading. It is also not enough to say that we have quality contracts, as they will not sort out the pollution problem. A narrow degree of regulation will not do that—we need to do more.
I pay tribute to City of Edinburgh Council for what it has tried to do, and to Sarah Boyack for what she tried to do to make sense of traffic in Edinburgh, but we need to do more. Strategic planning is required. I will not widen the debate at this stage, but we need to examine the size of the city, as with more houses come more cars. If we want to reduce the number of cars in the city, and get more people on to buses, we must examine the size of the city and we must also examine city-centre workplace parking. That has not been tackled and it must be done.
I am sorry to have introduced two caveats at the end of the debate, as I welcome it and we have talked about important things. However, the debate is wider than what we have managed to tackle tonight.
I am glad to have the opportunity to address the issues that Kenny MacAskill raised in his motion. I will start by outlining where responsibilities lie with regard to the current situation in the Edinburgh bus market.
Members will understand that responsibility for competition policy does not lie with the Scottish Parliament or with Scottish ministers but, as has been said, with the Office of Fair Trading. Following a complaint of predatory practice, the OFT launched a formal investigation. That investigation is expected to conclude in the spring of this year. It will be for the OFT to come to informed conclusions on the competition aspects of the situation in Edinburgh.
My discussions with First Edinburgh suggest that it was led to believe that the OFT investigation will not be completed in the spring or the summer of this year. It will be the autumn before that happens. That is because the OFT has widened its investigations to examine other aspects. Will the minister do all he can to pass on to the OFT the sense of urgency that has been expressed in the debate?
Certainly.
Does the minister agree that there is a sense in which the OFT's findings will be irrelevant because, whether the competition is fair or unfair, it is causing a great deal of disruption? It is not sensible to allow the present situation to continue.
It is important to say that the competition aspects are the responsibility of the OFT. It is entirely appropriate that the OFT should investigate the complaints. I hope that it will do so as quickly as it can. I would also expect it do so thoroughly and to take into account the evidence before it. That responsibility lies with the OFT.
Responsibility for the rules and regulations governing the registration of local bus services lies with the traffic commissioner, who works within a legal framework set by Scottish ministers. Under regulations made in July 2001, Scottish ministers require bus operators to notify local councils of changes in services. I can verify that neither the traffic commissioner nor the City of Edinburgh Council has reported any instance where those regulations have been breached. If that should happen, the commissioner has powers to block any proposed changes in service provision. We would expect him to use those powers, were those regulations to be breached.
As has been said, Edinburgh is a jewel in the crown of the Scottish bus industry. The city has a large network of services that are well used and one of the highest per capita levels of bus service use among the towns and cities of the United Kingdom. It continues to be a centre of buoyant economic growth, creating the possibility of further growth in bus use.
The benefit of improved bus service provision was being demonstrated to great effect in Edinburgh even before the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 with the completion of many greenways and plans for more. The Executive has made more than £15 million available to the city to pursue bus priority initiatives. The greenways have proved that a combination of high-quality buses and bus priority measures to move buses quickly through traffic congestion will help to get people out of their cars, reducing congestion and improving air quality.
A number of speakers have referred to the need for an integrated transport network for the 21st century. That is a high priority in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland. Margaret Smith mentioned an earlier through-ticketing initiative that did not reach fruition, but it is important that we acknowledge the fact that Lothian Buses and FirstGroup work together on a number of initiatives to promote bus use in the city.
In spite of the competition between them, the two operators are currently discussing a new joint ticketing initiative under the auspices of the regional transport partnership, SESTRANS. If those discussions are successful, they will allow passengers with a ticket for either company to access services provided by the other and bring about a significant step forward in public transport integration in the SESTRANS area. I hope that those discussions are successful and that joint ticketing can be introduced in the near future.
My understanding is that those negotiations have broken down in the past few weeks because Lothian Buses has pulled out of them. First Edinburgh, the council and others in SESTRANS are very concerned about that. Those negotiations should not be a casualty of the current situation.
I noted the member's earlier remarks. The discussions to which she refers and those that have recently got under way are separate, although they are aimed at the same outcome.
The reason for developing joint ticketing initiatives, which are being considered further even as we speak, is to encourage the necessary modal shift from car to public transport. I agree with Sarah Boyack that we need to keep concerns about congestion and the pollution caused by buses in perspective. They have to be put in the context of the car congestion and pollution that can be avoided if more people catch the bus.
Traffic commissioners have long had power to apply traffic regulation conditions to cover the routes of bus services and stopping places on the basis of criteria such as road safety and traffic congestion. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 amended those powers to add a further criterion for making a traffic regulation condition to include the reduction or limitation of noise or air pollution. I hope that that will go some way to address that issue generally. In the Executive's view, adequate powers exist to limit the congestion and pollution effects of increased bus provision.
The areas in which ministers have acted to improve local bus services are far wider than that. I am glad that Susan Deacon and others have paid tribute to the work of Sarah Boyack in introducing those provisions under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The act contains powers on road user charging, which City of Edinburgh Council is pursuing, and a whole raft of new powers in relation to local bus services.
Those powers allow local councils to make quality partnership schemes, ensuring that only high-quality buses are used, and to make quality contract schemes, effectively allowing councils to undertake wholesale contracting of local bus services, subject to ministerial approval. Councils can also decide what information should be made available and can charge bus operators for the cost of doing so if they do not deliver what is required. The act also requires bus operators to establish joint ticketing schemes.
What powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 would the minister advise City of Edinburgh Council to use to resolve the bus wars, given that the conflagration started in August, one or two months after the act came into force, and to preserve Lothian Buses?
The objective of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is to preserve and improve services for passengers. Quality contracts are designed to do precisely that and to give local authorities the powers effectively and substantially to re-regulate certain services, if they so wish, to achieve that objective.
In addition, we tightened up the registration requirements that bus operators must observe. As I said, we updated those in July. Operators must now inform local authorities 10 weeks in advance of any proposed service changes, and must also give 21 days' notice to the public of any such changes. In addition, the 2001 act requires new or amended services to operate for a minimum of 90 days from commencement, except in exceptional circumstances. Our bus policy is based on a partnership approach. We want to encourage councils and bus operators to work together to deliver high-quality services to bus users.
Quality partnerships and quality contracts represent a step change in policy in comparison to what went before. It is for local authorities to determine how best to meet their local transport strategy objectives for buses through use of the new powers. The 2001 act gives City of Edinburgh Council, and every other council in the country, a greater say in how to deliver those services, and it assists in promoting a bus-friendly environment.
However, there are also circumstances where bus operators are not willing or able to deliver a suitable and satisfactory level of service within the framework of the partnership approach. That is where quality contracts come in. We have consistently said that our first preference is for a partnership approach, but we have made it clear that if that approach does not deliver the required improvements, quality contracts are there to be used.
I listened closely to members' speeches to discover what alternative to quality contracts the SNP had in mind. Regulation with competition was what one member suggested. I believe that that is precisely what quality contracts can provide. A quality contract allows a local authority to specify either the whole or part of a bus network in its area, including what local bus services should be provided, what fares should be charged and the standard of buses to be used. That would allow bus operators to bid for exclusive rights to provide those services in that context.
The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 enables councils to take control of the bus market through the use of quality contracts, providing that approval is sought from and given by Scottish ministers. As Susan Deacon requested, we are on record as having said that we would do that timeously. We do so because we believe that it is an appropriate way to progress.
We believe that we have increased the role of local authorities in the provision of services to facilitate better and more reliable services. We have provided a framework whereby local authorities and bus operators can work to achieve that, either through partnership or through quality contracts.
I look to the City of Edinburgh Council, and to every other council in the country, to make full use of those powers as appropriate to improve bus services for all.
Meeting closed at 18:09.