Bus Transport
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2121, in the name of Des McNulty, on bus transport.
The key theme that I want to develop is the need for Parliament, and ministers in particular, to focus their attention on bus travel, asking constructively what can be done to improve affordability, accessibility, comfort and journey times.
If we are to address climate change, buses are vital. We can reduce the use of private vehicles only if people have alternative and convenient means of getting about. For most people in Scotland, the main alternative to the private car is likely to be the bus.
The previous Administration made significant strides in increasing bus patronage. The most important single measure was the introduction of free concessionary travel, first through local schemes and then the national scheme. Although some might argue for the smoking ban as the single most popular measure to be introduced by the devolved Parliament, most people would agree that free bus travel for the elderly is the measure that has made the most difference to people's lives. In my constituency, and I am sure in those of other members, the freedom that older people now have to pursue their interests, to meet their friends and to get to and from the shops without having to count the cost of each journey has been a huge benefit—and one that has been enthusiastically taken up.
Increased bus patronage is not attributable solely to concessionary travel, and passenger numbers have increased throughout Scotland, in rural areas as well as in conurbations. Increased patronage is a consequence of joint work among local councils, bus operators and regional transport partnerships. They have worked together to introduce bus priority measures, invest in new vehicles with improved accessibility and lower emissions, and initiate schemes such as the streamline corridors on the busiest routes in the Glasgow conurbation, where operators will be expected to meet higher standards.
However, progress is not universal. There are concerns about infrequent services in some areas of Scotland, especially in the evenings and at weekends, and about uncollected litter and a lack of cleanliness on some vehicles. There are concerns about the number of substandard vehicles still in use and about slow journey times caused by bus congestion, as well as other forms of congestion on some of our city streets. There are also worries about passenger and driver safety from attack or vandalism. It is time to look again at partnership working and at existing regulatory arrangements and enforcement mechanisms to see what improvements are needed to make bus travel a positive choice for everyone, including those who currently opt to drive instead.
I do not think that anyone would claim that the current statutory arrangements are working as intended. There have been no quality contracts, and quality partnerships have tended to be informal rather than formal agreements ratified by ministers. The fact that the main players are working round the legislation raises questions about whether the framework functions properly. It is clear from the work that was undertaken to arrive at the bus action plan in 2006 that there are deficiencies in the implementation of the current regulatory system and in the effectiveness of transport planning. Those matters need to be addressed.
Does the member share my delight at the stronger enforcement action that was taken by the traffic commissioner for Scotland, which has resulted in five companies being taken off the road in Scotland? Does he agree that we should all encourage further strong action on lower-standard operators?
I agree absolutely. That is one aspect of the work that we want to be done, but it is not sufficient on its own—other matters need to be addressed.
Since 2006, two additional factors have come into play. One of those factors is the end to ring fencing and the introduction of single outcome agreements, which I believe will place transport investment and the funding of regional transport partnerships at risk. Councils are likely to be reluctant to allocate resources outside their own boundaries, even when it might be logical in transport terms for them to do so.
The second factor is the massive increase in the cost of fuel, which presents both a threat and an opportunity to the bus operators. The opportunity for operators is that increased fuel prices will be a spur for people to reduce their use of private vehicles. The threat is that the fare increases that were announced recently, which are double the level of inflation, will have the reverse impact.
I am a realist—I accept that fares needed to rise to take account of increased operator costs, the largest element in which is the rising price of fuel, which is driven by pressures in the global oil market. However, in the context of everything that has been said about climate change, congestion and changing people's use of transport, how is it sensible for the Scottish Government to withhold the uprating of the bus service operators grant to offset increases in fuel duty, leaving operators in Scotland with the highest costs in the United Kingdom?
Will the member give way?
No, I will carry on.
In its ruling last month, which was the trigger for fare increases well above inflation, the Competition Commission highlighted the actions of the Scottish Government as the justification for the removal of the cap on fares in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which previously held fares at inflation plus 1 per cent. The Government needs to rethink quickly its position on the BSOG. I am sympathetic to efforts to change the basis of payment to promote environmental objectives, but operators in Scotland cannot be left financially unsupported when their counterparts in England are receiving rebates.
Ministers need to shift their stance on concessionary fares. They have frozen reimbursement for the next three years at a level that will not meet the expected increase in patronage, so what gives? Will we have new restrictions on benefits that elderly and disabled people enjoy or higher fares for paying passengers, or are bus operators supposed to pick up the tab? I do not object to ministers driving a hard bargain, but Parliament needs reassurance that the scheme will continue and that anomalies such as that which affects people who receive the lower rate of disability allowance will be resolved.
On his website, Alex Neil says:
"the eligibility criteria"
for free travel
"should be extended to include those"
disabled people
"who receive the lower rate mobility component".
I agree. Members of all parties have signed motions in the names of Angela Constance, Charlie Gordon and—most recently—Jackie Baillie that declared that it is wrong that some disabled people are ineligible for concessionary travel.
Tonight, members will have the opportunity to vote for a motion that would establish the principle that the people who are affected—many of whom have severe learning difficulties and who previously qualified for free travel under local schemes but have been excluded under the current eligibility rules—should be given free travel. The motion calls on ministers to effect that change urgently.
I believe that the Parliament is at one in wanting further growth in passenger numbers. To achieve that, affordable fares and continuous improvement in service quality are vital. Passengers need to feel safe on buses. If we want people not to pick up the car keys, we need a service frequency that minimises any inconvenience of planning travel via scheduled services.
The debate needs to continue. I expect us to conclude that some aspects of the regulatory regime should be updated or modified. In his amendment, Patrick Harvie makes the important point that we can learn from how regulation works elsewhere.
We need to have better—not more—regulation, partnership working that involves employee and passenger representatives and the determination to ensure that bus travel is a positive choice rather than a last resort.
I move,
That the Parliament believes more effective implementation of regulatory arrangements is needed to improve the quality, affordability and accessibility of bus travel; considers that resources are needed by local authorities and regional transport partnerships to permit them to complete the action points in the Bus Action Plan, vital if more people are to be encouraged to use buses rather than cars; expresses concern about the sharp increase in fares throughout Scotland caused by increasing fuel prices and the SNP government's decision not to increase the Bus Service Operators Grant in line with the rebate provided by the UK Government to bus operators in England and Wales; calls on ministers to promote through-ticketing, to seek a review of the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport and to review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts which inhibit multi-modal travel; determines in principle, in the interests of inclusion and social justice, to extend eligibility for concessionary travel to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability living allowance, and calls on Scottish Ministers not to defer this change until the completion of the three-year review of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme.
Des McNulty is famous for the length of some of his motions and amendments. Today, I can claim to have superseded his record, as I have produced an amendment that is longer than his motion. I was tempted simply to read out the amendment, but as I have only six minutes for my speech, I do not have time to do that.
The Conservative amendment would retain the Labour motion's opening line. We would do so because we share the industry's concern that more needs to be done to deal with the so-called rogue elements in it, which are most obvious in the west of Scotland. The standards that we expect from our operators must be enforced throughout the industry and anyone who fails to comply should be punished.
I do not accept the reference in the Labour motion to the bus action plan. I strongly support the plan and I agree that local authorities need to invest in services in pursuit of it, but I detect in the motion the suggestion that money should be ring fenced. My party believes that local authorities can be trusted to deliver on bus services, and we encourage them to do so, but Labour's heavy-handed approach is not the way forward.
Despite accepting the Labour motion's opening line, I confess to being slightly uncomfortable with its tone, which implies—albeit subtly—that if we want better bus services, we need more regulation. Some Labour politicians—notably Pauline McNeill in her members' business debate in September 2006—have explicitly called for that.
Does the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, intend to deregulate bus services in London?
I am tempted to answer by saying, "Who knows what Boris Johnson will do?" I am sure that David Cameron holds a similar concern.
I am saddened that the Labour motion found no place to celebrate the success of bus deregulation, which the previous Conservative Government implemented. Even a cross-party report of the previous Local Government and Transport Committee, which former Labour stalwart Bristow Muldoon chaired, admitted:
"In many areas, the de-regulated market has provided benefits in the form of increased frequency of service, reduced fares, better vehicles and improved infrastructure."
I was especially disappointed that Labour felt unable to mention in the debate companies such as Stagecoach and FirstGroup—two global giants of the bus industry, whose contribution to the Scottish economy has been immense. In addition to those companies, my amendment mentions Lothian Buses, whose first-rate services are known to many of us; as my amendment states, Lothian Buses is officially
"the best bus company in the United Kingdom".
Some people like to argue that because Lothian Buses is a council-owned company, its success is a reason for reregulation. That could not be further from the truth, as our much-missed former colleague Tommy Sheridan discovered when he questioned the chief executive of Lothian Buses, Mr Neil Renilson, during the Local Government and Transport Committee's inquiry into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Mr Renilson proved to be one of the most passionate advocates against further regulation of our bus services, noting that Lothian Buses is wholly deregulated, thanks to the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989, which required local authorities to establish their municipal bus funds as arm's-length companies.
Speaking of the quality contract approach, Mr Renilson stated:
"Such a contract would take control of the bus network and design of the services and timetables away from the people who run the buses."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 5 October 2004; c 1183.]
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the new money that the Scottish Government has already allocated to the bus service operators grant as a result of pressure that we brought to bear on the Government at the time of the budget. It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to raise the issue when Labour at Westminster has presided over sky-high levels of fuel duty and is therefore at least partly responsible for the terrible state in which many bus operators find themselves. As a result of the massive increase in fuel costs, even since the budget, there is now a strong case for reviewing the entire scheme, with a view to making it much more effective rather than more restrictive.
On the bus service operators grant, the Confederation of Passenger Transport's briefing said:
"To spin this £4 million as an increase to protect fares and services is a complete misrepresentation."
Does the member agree with the CPT on that point?
I accept the member's point, which is why I wish the scheme to be reviewed still further.
I am disappointed that the Labour Party continues to play politics with the extension of the national concessionary travel scheme to those on lower-rate allowances. It has a brass neck for bringing the issue before Parliament again. There is a case for extending the scheme, and we support the review, but the Labour Party excluded such people from the scheme while it was in Government. A little more humility would be welcome from Labour members who speak on the issue with such moral indignation.
I direct the minister to the Scottish Conservatives' contribution to the bus inquiry that was conducted by the previous Executive. He will find many more useful suggestions there for improving bus services in Scotland.
I move amendment S3M-2121.1, to leave out from "considers" to end and insert:
"notes that statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts introduced by the previous administration have failed to produce any meaningful results; notes in contrast that voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an excellent service to passengers across Scotland; congratulates Perth-based Stagecoach and Aberdeen-based First Group on their unparalleled global success, achieved in the de-regulated bus environment; further congratulates Lothian Buses on being named the best bus company in the United Kingdom for 2007 and notes the success that this company has achieved since the de-regulation of municipal bus companies under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989; expresses concern about the sharp increase in fares throughout Scotland caused by increasing fuel prices and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to review the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant in consultation with the industry; calls on ministers to seek a review of the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport and to review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts that inhibit multi-modal travel; notes that Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance when they created the National Concessionary Travel Scheme, and supports the review that may lead to improvements in the scheme as drawn up by Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers."
As members have said, the recent substantial increases in fuel costs present us with challenges, but they are also an opportunity to highlight bus travel—particularly to current non-bus users—as an efficient and effective alternative to many car journeys. I am encouraged by the work that is being undertaken by a number of local authorities in conjunction with bus operators. In particular, the recently publicised work by Glasgow City Council to move towards a statutory quality partnership is an encouraging example of what can be done.
On the subject of the regulated environment, I note the success of London Buses in its heavily regulated environment. I am confident that the successful companies in Scotland would have been equally successful operating in that regime. That is what they are good at.
I and my ministerial colleagues are considering the future levels of bus service operators grant. The budget for BSOG is around £61 million in 2008-09—£4 million more than was allocated in the strategic spending review. We are working with the industry to restructure the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused and we are making good progress. In passing, I observe that Labour in Wales has followed exactly the same path as we have in Scotland.
We are working with the Office of Fair Trading to develop guidance on bus competition. It has given us to understand that bus companies can discuss subjects of joint interest, but not prices, when such discussions are carried out under the oversight of a third party, such as the local transport authority. In due course, we will write to the CPT and the bus companies to apprise them of the results of our discussions.
We are also working with the traffic commissioner for Scotland to ensure that the regulatory regime operates efficiently and effectively for bus users. As part of that activity, joint working arrangements have been developed across Government specifically to target non-compliant bus operators. The police, the commissioner and other parties are also involved, and Strathclyde partnership for transport has also played a valuable part by providing staff resources to gather evidence of non-compliance and punctuality failings. I encourage other local transport authorities to consider whether they can provide similar support.
In line with commitments that the previous Administration made, we will start the major review of the Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people next week. It will review eligibility criteria, delivery arrangements, funding and legislation. I take the opportunity to correct the motion: subsection (v) of section B of part 4 of the form for applying for a pass concerns mental health issues; the form to which that subsection refers—the certificate of eligibility, which can be signed by a wide range of people—clearly covers learning disability, so it is clear that learning disabled people are already inside the scheme. As we go forward, we will consult stakeholders. We have already written to a wide range of equality groups to invite their views on the current operation of the scheme.
The Scottish Government recognises the essential contribution that the bus industry makes and has provided £280 million this year for buses. We have also provided local government in Scotland with record levels of funding and increased its share of Government funding. To encourage more people to consider using buses, we need to drive up quality; we will support efforts that do that. Buses are an important part of the transport solutions that we need to deliver on our climate change agenda, and the Scottish Government will continue to support them.
I move amendment S3M-2121.1.1, to insert at end:
"notes that increasing fuel costs present a significant opportunity for bus transport to demonstrate that it is an efficient and effective alternative for many car journeys, and condemns the failure of the Westminster government to respond to the sudden increases in the price of crude oil which are bringing uncertainty to a wide range of businesses and domestic users of oil and putting at risk the positive developments in the bus industry in recent years."
I thank the Labour Party for allocating this time to a debate on bus transport. At a time when everyone is struggling with the impact of spiralling fuel prices, people must have access to effective alternatives to car travel. Seventy per cent of public transport journeys are made by bus, so let us ensure that the people who already use buses not only continue to do so, but are rewarded by better, faster and more reliable journeys and that more people are attracted to using them for some of their journeys.
In recent years, the most effective and lasting improvements to the bus network have come from partnership working between the industry, local authorities, RTPs and Government. The Labour motion acknowledges that policy levers exist to help bring about that partnership working, but they need to be implemented more effectively. The climate of co-operation and close working must continue to be actively fostered. RTPs in particular can be pivotal in improving bus networks.
Providing first-class bus services involves a package of measures and is as much about what happens off the bus as on it. Improvements that are rightly expected from the industry—such as modern buses, value-for-money fares, consistency and reliability—must be supported by public investment in infrastructure, whether measures to ensure that buses do not get caught up in congestion or schemes such as park and ride. Congestion causes operators to use 10 per cent more buses than should be needed to maintain timetables, which is an unnecessary cost.
Rural areas rely heavily on bus services but are more susceptible to cuts in services as costs rise. Therefore, it is important that established community transport and demand-responsive transport schemes throughout the country be supported and protected. I agree that the concessionary fares scheme should be extended to claimants of the lower rate of disability living allowance, but it is also unfair that its full benefits are not felt in rural areas because community transport services are not currently eligible to take part in it.
The member may recall that I secured a members' business debate on that subject in the previous session of Parliament, so she will know of my interest in it. I take the opportunity to assure her that we will include the matter in our consideration of the scheme.
I welcome that statement, because the issue needs to be resolved. Extending eligibility will cost more, which is why it is important to flag it up now, ahead of the review, to ensure that next year's budget is constructed to support the changes.
The Government said that it would work with the industry to take forward the bus action plan and some of the minister's comments in his speech were supportive of the industry, but he has failed to grasp opportunities to make a real difference. Significantly, at a time when the industry is struggling with the high cost of fuel, the Government chose not to pass on the Westminster-funded fuel duty rebate. Therefore, £7.5 million that should have gone directly to operators to help keep bus fares down was siphoned off to pay for other SNP promises. As a result, bus passengers across the network have had to cough up for higher fares. The minister's hypocrisy is breathtaking. He condemns the failure of the Westminster Government to respond to the increase in the price of oil while his own Government has refused to deliver a rebate from which bus passengers in England benefit.
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change told Parliament this morning that he is working with the industry to create a more environmentally focused grant. Although he is moving on with that, would it not have been fairer to keep the original scheme in place until he had developed his ideas? Is not the reality that the minister needed to raid this budget and did not care to consider the consequences?
Let us be ambitious for bus and coach travel. We have world class home-grown bus operators in FirstBus, Stagecoach and Lothian Buses, besides many good local independent operators. There are exciting developments around, such as FirstBus's ftr, Stagecoach's bio-bus in Kilmarnock and wi-fi on the Fife to Edinburgh corridor.
Innovation and investment from bus companies must be matched by vision and investment from Government.
I move amendment S3M-2121.3, to insert at end:
"recognises that, in rural areas, buses are often the only alternative to car use and that rural areas therefore suffer disproportionately from bus fare increases or reduced bus services; considers that the review of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme should extend eligibility to older and disabled people using community transport in rural areas, and believes that the provision of efficient and affordable bus services must be supported with the necessary infrastructure on both local and trunk roads, including expanded park-and-ride schemes, bus passenger priority measures and accurate and accessible timetable information."
I welcome the opportunity to debate bus transport and I am glad that the issue has been raised. As has been said, Des McNulty's motion is more of an essay, although I can support some of the issues that it mentions, such as the need to cut fares, through-ticketing and better integration. Most of us would raise no objections to any of that, but Des McNulty is essentially arguing for better application of the current regulatory regime. I would like not only the Labour Party but others to go further than that.
The Local Transport Bill at Westminster takes some steps in the direction of regulation, but Labour peer Lord Berkeley goes beyond the Government's proposals with his amendment on so-called "tendered network zones", which would give real power to local authorities to designate an area in which it will design the services that are to operate.
The Labour Party's elected members could have gone in the direction of their colleague Huw Lewis in the National Assembly for Wales. His proposed provision of bus and coach services legislative competence order—the assembly's jargon is even better than ours—would reintroduce a public service ethos to public transport provision and require local authorities to ensure that communities are well served by a regular, modern and safe bus service. That public service ethos and direction towards some form of regulation is something that the Labour Party's elected members in other parts of the UK are working on; I hope that we will see something more in that direction than merely applying the current regulatory regime.
As for the Conservative amendment, the response to Des McNulty's essay is a dissertation from Alex Johnstone, who speaks of an
"excellent service to passengers across Scotland".
I am not sure whether the Conservatives live in the same Scotland as I do. I am not surprised that they extol the virtues of competition, but the reality—I hope that they can accept this—is that the impacts of competition are mixed. There is little doubt that in some areas competition has been beneficial, but there is equally little doubt that in many other areas competition has failed bus passengers and is still failing them.
The Conservative amendment places an emphasis on companies that are enjoying "unparalleled global success". I have no objection to Scottish companies enjoying success, but in this case the amendment seems to imply that the success of those companies should be an objective of transport policy—it should not. Good quality bus services at an affordable price should be the objective. I suspect that political thought in this area still owes something to the misguided words of Margaret Thatcher, who apparently said that any man who finds himself on a bus at the age of 30 can consider himself to be a failure. Too many still see buses as the option of last resort for those who cannot afford anything else.
I am advised that the Liberal Democrats' position of welcoming Labour's reregulation proposal is a federal position, but apparently it does not hold throughout the federal structure. It is possible that federalism is working about as well inside the Liberal Democrat Party as it would if it were applied to the whole country. Alistair Carmichael said:
"David Cameron's Tories are now totally isolated on this issue",
but perhaps he should have said that David Cameron's Tories and the Scottish Liberal Democrats are now totally isolated on the issue.
The SNP's position is interesting. In opposition, it supported reregulation. Kenny MacAskill's proposed member's bill received support from Kenneth Gibson, Linda Fabiani, Nicola Sturgeon and others. I hope that the SNP will revisit and revise its position on reregulation in the interests of bus passengers, not in the interests of bus operating companies.
I move amendment S3M-2121.2, to insert at end:
"recognises the need, beyond the short term, to consider the most appropriate regulatory environment for bus services to operate within, given the mixed impacts of competition in the industry and the positive results that have been achieved in countries and cities which use stronger forms of bus regulation, and calls on the Scottish Government to consult on the full range of options for the future of bus services."
Public transport is one of the most persistent and widespread sources of dissatisfaction among my constituents. With the possible exception of our larger cities, I suspect that that is a common experience among MSPs.
I wish that First ScotRail would give my constituents a better deal. Fares from Falkirk and Polmont to Edinburgh and Glasgow are more per mile than most. A passenger station in Grangemouth would also be exceedingly welcome.
Rail might be expensive and serve too few places, but bus travel is undoubtedly the biggest bugbear. If we are serious about tackling climate change and encouraging people to use public transport, we need better buses, more routes and timetables that meet the public's needs. It is too easy to say that there is no demand when the lack of services has forced travellers to use private transport. It is too easy to say that people would rather use their cars and that buses are uncomfortable, inaccessible and expensive. It is also too easy to say that services are not viable when, if the truth be known, they arrive late, leave early and miss connections, if they appear at all. People need reliable and affordable public transport that is a pleasure to use, not a nightmare. Without it, we will not achieve our targets for modal shift and climate change.
To be fair, some bus companies realise their shortcomings and the better among them attempt to take on board passengers' views, but the bottom line is always profits, not people.
Competition between bus companies is often imperfect, if it exists at all. In such circumstances, we cannot expect companies to provide adequate self-regulation and to achieve proper integration of public transport. We need Scotland-wide regulation. We also need to address the Scottish Government's policies, which have left Scotland's bus operators with higher costs than those in other parts of the United Kingdom and have led to massive fare increases for bus passengers throughout Scotland. We have seen a secret deal to extend the rail franchise and higher-than-inflation increases in rail fares. There has also been outrage among users of ferry services on the Clyde, in the northern isles and on most routes in Argyll because of discrimination in ferry fares between islands.
In particular, we should strive for better provision for older and disabled travellers, and young families with prams and small children. Bus timetables should include information about low-loader and accessible buses. I still hear stories about disabled people waiting an hour or more for an accessible bus. That is not good enough.
Free bus passes have been very well received by the people of Scotland. I have yet to hear a good reason for not extending concessionary travel to those who are on the lower rate of the disability allowance. We must also address the need for a concessionary travel scheme for those who depend on community transport, and I welcome what the minister said about that. It is time to stop dithering and to regain the momentum to improve public transport in Scotland.
I will address themes that are raised in Age Concern's paper on the situation for the elderly, as I suspect that we heroic band of wrinklies have contributed rather more than Mr Johnstone's politicians to the relative rise in the use of bus transport over the past couple of years.
The graph that I am holding up shows that in 1983 there were about 650 million bus journeys a year. Today, that figure has declined to about 480 million journeys a year. That has happened at a time when the pressures on the oil supply have been demonstrated by the price per barrel of oil, which has increased fourteenfold since 1999. In fact, we may now be at a clinch position such that, within the next 20 years, we shall have to say farewell to our conventional notions of motoring. If that means saying farewell to Jeremy Clarkson, I am all in favour. It is dreadful to think that, instead of Clarkson, we once had the marvellous cultural phenomenon that was—alas no more—the Central Scottish clippie, who could do wonders for fashion with hairpins and dayglo ties and things like that.
Today, the situation in Scotland is that on average we travel about 120 times a year by bus. In Germany, where people do not have concessionary fares, they travel about 240 times a year by bus. The Swiss—not a nation noted for impoverishment—travel anything up to 420 times a year by their enormous and varied forms of public transport. In my town of Tübingen in Germany, our bus patronage increased by 300 per cent between 1995 and 2006, from 6 million passengers to 18 million passengers. If we compare that with the Scottish situation, we realise how well Europe has been doing on bus transport.
How do those countries do that? They have co-ordination and accurate timekeeping. Here, anyone who attempts to take the number 35 bus will have a good saga of what we might call wilfulness on the part of bus routes. There, the buses turn up on time and the driver's cab includes a thing that goes "Ping!" to show the driver which stop he ought to be at. They also have interavailability of tickets.
Does the member recognise the irony in the fact that what most delays Edinburgh's buses at the moment is the construction of the tramlines?
We have a common cause, although I think that even Mr Johnstone supported the trams. When we have a tramway, we will have the natural progress of a rise in bus patronage because buses will have to become more efficient.
An important point is that 80 per cent of German bus passengers travel on season tickets, so buses need to spend seconds, rather than minutes, at each stop. A bus that is paused, like a tram that is paused, is a piece of totally useless metal; buses need to be in circulation all the time. That happens in Germany but not here.
I agree with Help the Aged's programme: we need convenience, effective timetabling and good toilets. Alas, I have reached the Mr Godfrey stage, where that last point is becoming very important.
The skill and dedication of our bus crews are undeniable—anyone who takes an X95 out on the A7 needs the reflexes of a battle of Britain pilot—but we must have better management. We must also look at competition policy as a way of, if necessary, banging heads together. However, co-ordination can also be achieved in that way.
The bus is our future. If we miss it—thinking in global terms—there will not be another one along ever.
Before I start my short speech, I associate myself with Christopher Harvie's views on Jeremy Clarkson, as I agree that the deification of petrol heads as role models for our young people is not good in the current situation. On the issue of intelligent bus stops—those that tell passengers when their bus is expected—I point out that we had hoped to introduce such stops in Dumfries but, unfortunately, they have been delayed by more than a year due to the clawback of a considerable amount of funding from the south-west of Scotland transport partnership. I still need to get to the bottom of why SWESTRANS has lost out on hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been invested in improving public transport in Dumfries and Galloway.
Some of the most acute transport problems are faced by residents of rural Scotland, where public transport services are much less frequent and where, because of the low population density, a higher proportion of bus routes require subsidy—by passenger transport partnerships such as SWESTRANS—to be viable. The provision of integrated public transport is a significant challenge in rural Scotland, which results in greater reliance on the private car. However, demographic changes in rural areas mean that an increasing number of rural residents are elderly and that the private car may become untenable for financial or health reasons.
The increases in the price of fuel have been mentioned. There are difficult political views on how the issue could be addressed, but I doubt that there is any disagreement about the fact that they have caused a particular problem in rural Scotland, where prices at the pump are generally higher, distances travelled are greater and traveller numbers are lower than in urban areas. In such areas, it is difficult to sustain low fuel prices. The Scottish Government's decision not to pass on the bus service operators grant to compensate for rises in fuel duty will hit rural services harder, as they have higher mileages and lower passenger numbers.
Bus operators in Scotland now have the highest fuel costs in the UK. Unfortunately, there has been a huge percentage increase in fares in Dumfries and Galloway, where, as in other parts of Scotland, many people are reliant on buses. As fares go up, the attraction of using public transport is reduced, especially to families and larger groups. Recently a lady came to a surgery to complain to me about the cost of bus services from Brydekirk to Annan and from Annan to Carlisle. Sadly, there was not much that I, as a local member, could do about that.
I was encouraged by the minister's response to questions about the national concessionary travel scheme, especially as that may relate to community transport. The capping of the scheme at a time when ticket prices are rising raises concerns that it will not be possible to develop it as many of us hoped, so I am gratified by the minister's response to Alison McInnes. I, too, would like concessionary travel to be extended to community transport schemes, which provide a tremendous service in places such as Dumfries and Galloway.
There is an extremely successful community transport scheme in Annandale. Transport is provided by volunteer drivers, who take elderly people to day centres and general practitioners and on supermarket trips, days out and visits to leisure facilities. Vehicles have been purchased through a variety of capital funding schemes, including the Scottish Executive's rural community transport initiative, but generally revenue costs must be met by users, many of whom are entitled to concessionary travel but are currently unable to use it on community transport buses. The previous Executive committed itself to consider extending the scheme to community transport after the first two years of its operation. I add my voice to those of Cathy Peattie and Alison McInnes and ask the minister to give careful consideration to including voluntary transport schemes such as community transport initiatives in the new concessionary travel scheme, so that those passengers, too, may access the scheme.
I intended to open my speech with the same quotation that Patrick Harvie used a short time ago—Margaret Thatcher's dictum that anyone over the age of 26 who is on a bus can consider themselves a failure. It is a mark of progress that these days most people would indulge in self-reproach if they found themselves not on a bus, but the lone person in a car driving to work.
A few years ago, Scotland's parties recognised the importance of bus travel by coming together to set up the national concessionary travel scheme for older people. Once again, they followed where the innovative and pathfinding SNP council in Clackmannanshire had led. In fact, the national scheme was a step back for Clackmannanshire. In 1999-2000, when we received a genuinely bad local government settlement, as even the Labour opposition agreed, we introduced a completely free concessionary travel scheme that operated not off-peak but throughout the day—the best scheme in Scotland before or since.
Scotland already recognises and values bus travel more than any other part of these islands. Scotland spends 20 per cent more per head than England on the bus service operators grant and almost double what England spends on concessionary travel. That is real money, and it makes the carping from Labour and the Liberal Democrats look a bit sour. We have heard accusations that the Government treats its time as starting from year zero. That is certainly true of the Liberal Democrats and Labour as far as this debate is concerned. It is as if nothing had gone before; as if the refusal of those parties to make the changes that they are now calling for had never happened.
By contrast, it was a positive development when the Parliament came together on the concessionary travel scheme. People could point to something good coming from the Parliament and see how politicians could work to improve their lives. In an ideal world, we would give free transport to everybody but, as David Hume first observed, when a society is not in a state of total abundance and does not have unlimited resources, it must prioritise.
In government, Labour prioritised not to give the groups concerned free travel. In opposition, Labour members have apparently changed their minds. That is their prerogative, but if they now want the Government instantly to pre-empt its own review to introduce a measure that the previous Administration did not, and which Labour did not propose at the time of the budget, that is at the very least presumptuous.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No, I will not. It is certainly hypocritical of Labour. To be fair, Alison McInnes should consider where the breathtaking hypocrisy in the debate lies.
One of the underlying problems is the cost of fuel, which has been mentioned. We spoke about the effect of that on food prices in a Conservative-led debate a few weeks ago and it is an inseparable part of the issue that we are discussing now. Even with the spending by the United Kingdom Government, bus fares are going up throughout the UK, including in Reading, east Yorkshire, York, Bolton, Eastbourne, Sheffield and Oxford.
The SNP at Westminster has proposed that any increase in VAT revenue derived from rising fuel prices should automatically be spent on a corresponding reduction in fuel duty. That fuel regulator proposal is thoughtful and revenue neutral, and it has the support of just about every industry group going. It would have been nice to have heard some views on the matter from Labour members.
People are obviously concerned about increasing bus fares. I have had correspondence from people in Kinross about the above-inflation increases on the Kinross to Edinburgh route. Perhaps that is another reason for a direct Perth-Kinross-Edinburgh rail link—but I am sure that I will be told that that is a debate for another time. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change reopened the rail link in Clackmannanshire just recently and we have undercut the bus journey to Stirling. Together, rail and bus, with a through-ticketing system promoted by the Scottish ministers—which the motion calls for—can help us to address Scotland's needs.
Figures released yesterday from the annual Scottish household survey say that the percentage of people going to work by car increased from 67 to 69 per cent between 2006 and 2007—although I heard on the news last night that there has been a 20 per cent reduction in fuel use for private travel. Better bus transport can help us to reduce the percentage of car commuters, which would contribute to making Scotland wealthier and greener. I would much rather be here debating a range of constructive, and even original, ideas than a motion that is just an anti-Government wish list calling for more money and more central control. I support Stewart Stevenson's amendment to Alex Johnstone's amendment.
Not so long ago, I led a debate on the 20th anniversary of bus deregulation, asking whether it had served the country well. We had a good, balanced debate that evening. Although deregulation has brought some clear benefits, communities that have had their services changed or withdrawn or that have no service at all have been disadvantaged. It is extraordinary that neither central Government nor local authorities have powers to challenge that. Instead, the public purse has had to subsidise services that have been reinstated by transport partnerships. That is why Des McNulty is correct to raise the question of funding for transport partnerships, as they are often the safety net for remote or poorer communities whose services have been withdrawn. In some cases, the bus operator that withdrew a service has put in a bid for the same service in order to get a public subsidy. There are no powers to prevent that, or the cherry picking of the best routes.
We need to consider some powers of direction if we cannot achieve the necessary agreement or partnership with the bus industry. The Conservatives call such an approach heavy handed, but in government they presided over deregulation. Alex Johnstone failed to point out that there is now virtually no regulation at all and no restriction on competition. I feel passionately that we must get the balance right. We must continue to make changes to the current system.
The motion in Des McNulty's name also refers to
"the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling".
If we cannot achieve agreement on such issues, we might need stronger powers over the bus industry. The Parliament and ministers must be able to give bus users the services that they need and want, ensuring that bus operators co-operate on timetabling and through-ticketing. Indeed, any issue that gives the public the service that they should have—even if it slightly interferes with competition—must win through.
It may be helpful if I tell the member that I am absolutely confident that we will be able to create a structure for timetabling co-ordination between competing companies.
I am pleased to hear that. Progress has been too slow, and we all know where we need to be on that.
In fairness, the attention that the Parliament has been giving to the bus industry is beginning to provoke a response from bus operators, largely because they do not want any form of regulation to be introduced. I welcome the discussions that I have had locally with bus operators who have responded to service change and the withdrawal of services. However, we cannot slacken in our determination to see change in the bus service framework, or the bus industry will slacken, too.
Every member has experienced services being withdrawn from their communities and it is a priority for the Parliament to make progress on that. There are some great examples in the Strathclyde partnership for transport area, where the use of compliance officers and the five-point action plan demonstrate that we can achieve things through working in partnership.
Through the concessionary scheme bus subsidy, bus operators get one third of their profits from public money, so they must be accountable to the public in some way and it is up to us to ensure that they are.
The SNP Government must please say whether it will extend the concessionary scheme to those who are on the lower level of incapacity benefit.
If bus travellers today were asked what they want from their bus services, not many would come up with
"effective implementation of regulatory arrangements",
although I am willing to give that a wee try tonight by asking a few passengers on the bus home from Glasgow to Kilmarnock. If anything is needed in the industry, it must surely be stability in costs to operators and improved quality service at an affordable price to the public, which would allow them comfortably to switch from their cars to buses and trains.
The improvements that have been made in bus services in Ayrshire over the past few years have been very impressive, and passenger numbers are on the up. The quality of the buses is first class, and service frequency is responsive to passenger demands. Service improvements are encouraging people on to the buses, so we must try to build on the successes that have been achieved.
One of the biggest threats to the industry is the rise in fuel prices. As has been mentioned, Lothian Buses has estimated that its fuel costs are 83 per cent higher than they were a year ago. We must not forget the rising utility bills that are also faced by the industry. Stagecoach in Ayrshire estimates that its utility bills have risen by 40 per cent year on year. To its credit, Stagecoach has pegged back its price increases to date, but it expects that increases will be required in August, which is when it has its annual fares review. If fuel prices continue to rise, Stagecoach will inevitably have to think about further fare rises during the course of the year. Those are the real factors that are influencing what is happening, and they present significant challenges to Government as it tries to respond effectively. They are the real threats to the gains that have been made over the past few years.
The fuel duty regulator, which has been mentioned by my colleague, is a practical response to the currently increasing fuel prices. The proposal would see extra taxes from higher pump prices being used to cut fuel duties. Why should the Westminster Government rake in £4 billion in additional North Sea oil revenues yet do little to alleviate the damaging effects on the bus industry and the wider transport industry in Scotland?
I turn to some of the points that are made in the motion and the amendments to it. The SNP Government has invested about £260 million a year in buses and has increased the bus service operator grant by £4 million. Local authority budgets will increase by 13 per cent over the next three years. All those measures will help to drive down costs, encourage new routes and offer the travelling public a real choice.
The congratulations that have been offered to Lothian Buses, First Group and Stagecoach are well made and certainly merited, as are congratulations for the Stagecoach bio-bus in my constituency, which was mentioned by Alison McInnes.
The Labour Party excluded from the concessionary fares scheme people who are on the low-grade disability living allowance. I hope—as do many members—that something can be done in the forthcoming review of the scheme to address that to ensure that people who deserve concessionary travel receive it.
We are living in a time when serious choices have to be made. Those choices are about how we go about our daily business and, in the context of this debate, how we get to work and back. The daily commute that sees hundreds of thousands of motorists heading in one direction in the morning and then in the opposite direction at night every working day is a crazy situation that is not sustainable in the long term.
Perhaps we should reflect on new ideas to encourage motorists out of their cars and on to buses and trains. We have to keep improving the services with more park-and-ride opportunities to make the switch easier for people to make. Perhaps new incentives are required, too. I made the journey from car to bus and train a few years ago and it was a great decision—no more endless traffic jams and frustrations about being late for appointments. Instead, I could look forward to the calm and relaxing atmosphere of the buses and trains, the opportunity to work and to relax and the chance to meet people going about their business. That is the real challenge behind the debate. I have great pleasure in supporting the Government's amendment.
Des McNulty began by asserting that free bus travel was perhaps the best measure that has been taken by the Scottish Parliament. It is a strong contender for that crown, not least because, unlike the smoking ban that we supported with few exceptions, the policy of free bus travel can be further progressed. That is why it will continue to grow in popularity.
Des McNulty acknowledged that aspects of the policy are not working, but they are not just failures in quality partnerships and contracts; I argue that they are also failures in competition. I suspect that Des McNulty and many of his colleagues would agree. He talked about the cost of fuel and the changed relationship between central and local government as two new factors. It is right in new circumstances to look again at the regulatory environment, not just to enforce and apply it better, but to change it and truly achieve transformation in our transport system.
Des McNulty also talked about climate change—we all talk very well about that these days. We call for transformation in our energy system, in housing, in industry and in transport. However, we are not seeing the required transformation. We are seeing a wee bit of change in the right direction but sometimes, too, a wee bit of change in the wrong direction. Road traffic levels are still rising, so buses must be seen as more than merely a supplement to the car or a choice for people who do not own cars.
Alex Johnstone emphasised the fact—it is a fact—that competition has brought some improvements, which I accept. Those of us who advocate reregulation accept that. It is true, but it is insufficient because aside from the improvements, too many people are still putting up with expensive, dirty and unreliable services that are not designed to meet their needs. I continue to regard public transport as a public service: therefore even if–as they are in many cases—the services are operated by private companies, they should be designed and configured in the public's interests.
Stewart Stevenson made a general defence of the Government's policy. There is no great surprise in that; it is his job. He acknowledged the essential contribution that bus services make, but I did not get the feeling that he regards them as part of the public service ethos that I am trying to describe. He also said that buses could make a contribution to climate change, but I regret to say that as with almost every announcement on climate change from the SNP Government, there was no specificity about what will be achieved on climate change and how.
As for the minister's amendment, we all know what he is calling for when he says he wants the UK Government to take measures or to make a response to fuel price rises. We know what he means and I cannot support it. I suspect that no one who has an eye on the long-term consequences could support it, either.
Cathy Peattie spoke clearly in favour of reregulation. I suspect that many members in both major parties hold the same view. The number of Scottish National Party members who signed Kenny MacAskill's bill proposal on the matter in the first session of Parliament supports that view. I had hoped that Sandra White would speak in the debate—perhaps it was decided that no member who had signed the bill proposal should be called. I would be disappointed if that were the case.
Labour and the SNP should be natural supporters of stronger regulation of bus services. Both parties can make progress towards such a position and I hope that they will do so. The amendment in my name invites the Government merely to begin the process that was supported by Kenny MacAskill and others in a previous session of the Parliament.
Time is tight, so members must stick to their allocated time.
I always say that to myself as I stand up to speak.
I welcome Willie Coffey's remarks about calm and relaxing bus travel, although that is not always how it feels on the number 5 bus in the morning. Indeed, Mr Renilson, whom Alex Johnstone mentioned, was on the receiving end of a sharp e-mail from me yesterday about why the number 5 never seems to run on time, although maybe that is just a personal impression.
I agree with Alex Johnstone that many more of us are using buses. Members of all parties have talked about the reality of rising fuel costs and changing travel patterns: that has been the flavour of the debate. I agree with Patrick Harvie—although we agree on little else—that travel patterns are changing.
Christopher Harvie was most unfair to Jeremy Clarkson. Professor Harvie and Mr Clarkson are two of a kind in many ways: they are both hugely entertaining, and although we might not agree with everything they say, they certainly enliven debate. Professor Harvie and I serve on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and no meeting is complete without an illustration of the problems that Professor Harvie has encountered on the morning bus from Melrose. The committee is none the worse for that and it is always useful to hear from Professor Harvie.
I was intrigued when Patrick Harvie rubbished the SNP on climate change—he used a word that I will not try to pronounce—given that I thought that the other day he and Mr Stevenson had made a joint announcement on climate change. Mr Harvie seems to be in a slightly difficult position.
The tenor of Keith Brown's remarks was a little difficult to understand, given that the Government motion mentions the risk to
"the positive developments in the bus industry in recent years."
Mr Brown should perhaps have thought about what he was signing up to before he made his speech.
Yesterday in Parliament Alex Johnstone and I took part in a good old-fashioned ideological debate about tax and spend in relation to business rates. I thought that today's debate would be about regulation versus deregulation—there has been some of that.
I acknowledge what the minister said about the bus service operators grant, but it is important to note what bus companies and the Confederation of Passenger Transport say. I am sure that the minister pays a great deal of attention to the CPT—he would be well advised to do so. In its briefing for members of all parties, the CPT said:
"The £4m allocated to BSOG during the debate will only cover a shortfall in funding that has been apparent since the publication of the Scottish Spending Review. To spin this £4m as an increase to protect fares and services is a complete misrepresentation."
Those are not my words or those of Labour or Conservative members; they are the CPT's words. I am sure that the minister will reflect on them, and that he has ideas on how to improve the situation in the coming years, but he should not tell Parliament that all is well when the industry says clearly that that is not the case.
I understand and sympathise with many members' comments on concessionary fares. It is important to reflect on the budget lines that Parliament considered earlier this year, which cut the budget in real terms by the end of this parliamentary session. The minister might say that he plans to change that, but parliamentarians can go on only what is in the spending review, according to which the budget will reduce from £189.4 million in 2007-08 to £181.4 million in 2008-09. Members who argue for a widening of the concessionary fares scheme, which is a fair and reasonable argument, must also ask the minister why the budget is being cut and how eligibility for the scheme can be widened while the budget is being cut. That seems to be a difficult circle to square. We look forward to hearing from the minister how he will do that.
Clearly, bus travel is extremely important in Scotland today and it will, and should, become even more important in the future. Scottish Conservatives welcome the debate that the Labour Party has brought to the chamber today.
Before I move on to address some issues that have cropped up in the debate, I will dwell for a minute or two on the response that we made to the former Scottish Executive's inquiry into bus transport in 2005, "Bus Policy: Scotland's National Transport Strategy Consultation". I understand that the Scottish Conservatives were the only parliamentary group to submit a response.
I turn to gaps in provision that have resulted from deregulation. Deregulation has been hugely successful, but I accept that there are gaps and that we need to address them. One idea that we referred to in our response in 2005, but which has not been raised in the debate thus far, is stakeholder boards. That ambitious alternative is based on the model that the Oxford Bus Company has put in place south of the border. Its stakeholder board sits separate from the company board and is tasked with a monitoring and advisory role. Membership of the stakeholder board includes employees, customers, local business and transport user groups. Crucially, although it sits to the side of the company board, it is chaired by the company's managing director. The stakeholder board is not simply a talking shop; it is an integral part of the company's operations. If that model can operate successfully south of the border in Oxford, perhaps something like it can be part of the solution north of the border, too.
It is also worth looking at the fact that voluntary partnerships between bus companies, local authorities and transport groups have been more successful than the statutory partnerships. Des McNulty made the point that no statutory partnerships were set up as a result of the legislation. We have to ask why. Perhaps too much red tape was involved or the costs were too high. By comparison, voluntary partnerships such as the one between Stagecoach and Perth and Kinross Council have been relatively successful. In its evidence in 2005, the former National Federation of Bus Users—now Bus Users UK—stated that bus users are
"best served where there are voluntary partnerships".
If the voluntary approach is deemed to have been more successful that the statutory approach has been, instead of simply harking back to the 1980s and saying that regulation is the answer, we need to learn that lesson.
I was looking forward to hearing what Patrick Harvie would say in the debate on regulation. His amendment is intriguing: it suggests that he was going to tell the chamber about lots of "countries and cities" where regulation is extremely successful. He made two speeches in the debate, but said not a jot on that subject. He simply stated that regulation would be successful, but gave no examples. Certainly, he gave no example of where a country or city has successfully gone from deregulation to regulation. It was a pity that Parliament did not hear about that—perhaps there are no such examples.
We welcome the review of the bus service operators grant, albeit that the process should be speeded up. Of course, the additional £4 million was welcome at the time, but I accept the point that various groups have made that it covered only a shortfall and that it leaves Scottish bus companies at a relative disadvantage to companies south of the border, particularly since the 2p increase came into effect in October 2007.
Scottish Conservatives do not want to turn the clock back; we want to move forward with the ideas that we have proposed. We welcome the concessionary scheme review that is to commence next week. I reiterate the point that we made earlier that we cannot ignore the fact that the former Executive did not open up the scheme to other categories of disability: the Labour Party is wrong in what it said on that. Perhaps in its closing summation, it will address why it did not do that.
I am not grossly offended by having remarks that Margaret Thatcher made directed at me in the debate. Two members may have quoted her, but I speak as a minister who has been out and about in Edinburgh this week on the number 1, 22 and 36 bus. Heigh-ho—that is how it goes.
Cathy Peattie made some particularly valuable remarks on disability. Both of us share a strong interest in ensuring that disability is not a barrier to participation in transport and wider society. I know of her long-held position on the subject and I agree that there is a big challenge to be met in respect of all transport modes. I am glad that more and more buses are becoming accessible for wheelchair users. That is one aspect of improvement, but we must do more.
Chris Harvie referred to patronage levels in 1983. Interestingly, patronage levels started to rise—albeit slightly—before the introduction of the concessionary fares scheme, so members have slightly misunderstood the issue. There is a complex mix of factors. The preliminary figures for the past few months suggest that, at least for the time being, car usage is falling for the first time in recent history, which presents a challenge and opportunity for buses and other modes of public transport.
On the more environmentally focused BSOG, we seek to reach a situation in which only 25 per cent of what is paid relates to mileage.
Will the minister give a date for when the negotiations on that will come to a conclusion?
I cannot give a date at this stage. We are having positive discussions on the issue with the bus companies and the CPT. We want a scheme that helps companies to improve the quality of their fleets and to move up to the Euro 4 and 5 standard buses that are coming. The proposals are geared to promoting that. We are engaged with the companies and we will make the best progress. We have had comments on partnerships and regulation, on which I will say a little more if I have time.
The Labour motion talks about
"more effective implementation of regulatory arrangements".
We are making real progress on getting people working together, including the police, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and councils. The motion mentions the need for resources for regional transport partnerships and councils to complete the bus action plan. Those resources are available, in the increased share of public spending for local government.
The motion expresses concern about fare increases. We should all be concerned about that, but the biggest contributor is undoubtedly the additional tax on the rising fuel prices. People know what can be done about that; I hope that members at Westminster will take it on the chin and do what is required.
The Labour motion highlights through-ticketing. Last week, we announced moves on integrated ticketing. With the completion of the roll-out of new equipment in buses and ScotRail, we are moving ahead on the aim to have one ticket that enables people to access multiple modes of transport. I referred to the discussions that we are having with the Competition Commission, in which we are making good progress.
The point in the motion about
"penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts"
is a total misunderstanding. There are, in the contracts, no constraints that materially inhibit good connections, although there are significant issues for the industry as a result of other players, such as Network Rail and the charges that it imposes for use of train stations. We are working on that, too.
Are high fuel prices a threat or an opportunity? The answer is that they are both. They are an opportunity for public transport to show what it can deliver. It is rising to the challenge effectively, as there is increased patronage and reduced car use. However, high fuel prices are also a threat in that they put pressure on the cost base, which is an issue that we will need to watch carefully. In reviewing the concessionary travel scheme, we are continuing measures that our predecessors put in place. We support the Green amendment, because improved regulation has a role. Mr Johnstone should note that we have far from bought into the idea that everything that is good in buses stems from the deregulation that the Tories introduced.
Improving bus services matters a great deal to many ordinary Scots, but one might not think so from reading the Government's amendment, which in effect says that high oil prices are a significant opportunity for the bus industry, but that it cannot take that opportunity because of high oil prices. Yesterday, the Great I Am, also known as the First Minister—that former oil economist who predicts a rosy future for an independent Scotland because of high oil prices—skipped his day job so that he could complain at Westminster about high oil prices. No doubt, we will hear more of that today at First Minister's questions—ad nauseam, if not ad infinitum.
Ordinary Scots mainly want to hear the Scottish Parliament address issues such as the one that is raised in Labour's motion—issues that are within Parliament's competence. Bus services really do matter to the man on the Cathcart omnibus. To be fair, Stewart Stevenson made a substantially constructive contribution to the debate.
The Government's informal coalition partners—the Tories—are Thatcherite about buses. According to them, everything in the garden is rosy thanks to Maggie's Transport Act 1985, which deregulated the bus industry. The reality on our streets is somewhat different. Recently, an academic travelled to Glasgow for a seminar on bus deregulation. He had never been there before. He took a train to Glasgow Central and went to a bus stop on nearby Hope Street, where he asked a Glasgow woman, "How do I get to the university?" "Stick in at yer exams, son," she said. He soon boarded a number 44 for Glasgow University. After 10 minutes, the bus had travelled 200 yards up Hope Street, which is always congested with buses. Agitated at the thought of being late for his seminar, the academic remonstrated with the bus driver: "Can't you go any faster?" "Aye, pal—but Ah'm no allowed tae leave the bus unattended."
That is just one way in which market forces are failing Glasgow bus users, but there are others. High emissions are caused by bus congestion. In March, eight operators were reported to traffic commissioners by Glasgow City Council for 158 breaches, and 10 firms were reported the following month for 108 breaches. The city council seeks agreement to a tough new code of bus standards. In a poll on 9 June, 95.7 per cent of Evening Times readers who replied agreed that bus companies should be forced to agree to such a code.
Evening Times readers are not the only people who hunger for a better deal on the buses. In its briefing for this debate, Help the Aged puts emphasis on, among other things, better accessibility on vehicles and the need to allow community transport vehicles into the national concessionary scheme.
The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's inquiry into ferry services has heard plenty of evidence of poor integration of buses with ferry services. Integrated or through ticketing involving buses is still a rarity.
Of course, plenty examples of good practice exist through voluntary partnerships between bus companies and local authorities—for example, quality bus corridors and real-time information schemes. Bus lanes are being combined with higher-quality bus service inputs.
I want to make a central point: it can be argued that councils that invest in bus infrastructure are gambling with council tax payers' cash because bus companies are under no legal obligation whatever to co-operate in the use of such infrastructure. It seems that provisions for quality bus partnerships and quality bus contracts under the terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 are dead letters, as they have never been used. Perhaps the provisions should be enlivened by having them address some of the issues that have been mentioned in today's debate, such as the co-ordination that Professor Harvie talked about, service integration, through ticketing, fare levels, emissions, vehicle accessibility and community transport. Many issues are reserved powers, but there are ways around that. Another issue to consider is the trade union rights of bus workers.
Despite the mean-spirited points that were made by Alex Johnstone and Gavin Brown, the cost of concessionary travel for the vulnerable groups we are concerned about was already in the Scottish Government's base budget of last year. I ask the Government in all conscience to restore, please, those vulnerable people's travel cards. Let us stop playing politics with vulnerable people.
We note the revelation from the minister that people with learning difficulties are eligible and that the Government will advise them all to reapply. As Patrick Harvie pointed out, legislation on a degree of regulation is being mooted in both England and Wales. At this stage, no one is advocating a return to municipal bus operations or London's bureaucratic and expensive bus franchising system, but we must act on the concerns of bus passengers, which means that leaving them at the mercy of market forces is no longer an option.