Public Transport
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01824, in the name of Richard Baker, on public transport.
09:15
Scottish Labour has selected bus travel for debate because we are concerned about the erosion of bus services across Scotland, which is often accompanied by higher fares, and about bus operators’ prediction that allocations in the Scottish budget for 2012-13 will exacerbate the situation.
The previous Scottish Executive introduced the concessionary bus fares scheme for older people and all the parties supported that because we understood how important bus services are, particularly to older people who might no longer wish or be able to run a car. That applies to people who are on low incomes, too. Of course, in rural areas, bus services might be so infrequent that not owning a car is not an option.
It is unfortunate that increases in fuel prices and other pressures have led in the past few years to a reduction in bus services across Scotland. Buses have become less frequent; routes have been shortened, which means that passengers must walk further to reach a bus stop; and fares have risen substantially. Fares rose by an average of 7.3 per cent above inflation between 1999 and 2010.
Research by Strathclyde partnership for transport in its area of operation revealed that cuts in bus services were most acutely delivered in the 15 per cent most deprived areas and in semi-rural areas. A week ago, Richard Baker and I asked colleagues to advise us of proposed cuts that they knew of to bus services in their constituencies and regions. It is clear that the reduction in services is escalating. Services continue to be cut and withdrawn. I have been provided with examples from East Kilbride, Aberdeen, Coatbridge, Dumbarton, Kilwinning and Airdrie, and I know of some in my region.
A major concern of the bus companies is the cut to the bus service operators grant, which has been reduced in every year since 2009-10 but which will fall sharply—by £10.3 million or more than 17 per cent, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre—between this financial year and next year, when it will be £50 million. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK points out that the cut means that that budget will be 25 per cent less than the £66.5 million budget that the Scottish Government originally agreed with the bus industry back in 2010.
The CPT also points out that diesel prices have risen by nearly 15 per cent in the past year and that it was advised only as late as November last year that the bus service operators grant was to move from being a payment based on fuel consumption to a payment based on the distance travelled. To be fair, that change was intended to assist rural services and to encourage fuel efficiency. I cannot argue with either of those aims but, unfortunately, the late notification of the changes has made it difficult for bus operators to adjust to them.
Scotland is not alone in reducing the bus service operators grant. The United Kingdom Government made a similar announcement in October 2010 and its reduction will be introduced in April. That has already created outrage, as two thirds of authorities in England have decided to cut back on their subsidised services. Communities outside major urban centres will be most severely hit, and petitions on the subject have been submitted to the UK Parliament and others. Transform Scotland predicts a “wave of cuts” similar to those in England as the consequences of the Scottish Government’s cut are felt.
The member mentions the consequences of the cut. Does she realise that such cuts are the consequence of the cut that we have had from Westminster and of the situation that the departing Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury described when he said that there was no money left? Will she confirm that, if she thinks that the cut is wrong, she will move an amendment to the budget to reinstate the money?
As Keith Brown knows, the Labour Party cannot lodge amendments at stage 2 of a budget bill, when only the Scottish Government can lodge amendments. Liam Byrne was making a joke for a friend. As I develop my argument, I will tell members more about what we can do with bus services in Scotland.
The problem is not just the effect on the bus companies, but the pressure that is put on local transport authorities, which subsidise socially necessary but commercially unviable routes. As fuel prices are high and central Government subsidies are reducing, bus companies are asking transport authorities for ever-increasing subsidy to match the shortfall. The public sector can ill afford that funding at present.
Moreover, some marginally commercially viable routes may become unviable as the costs to operators increase, with further pressure on transport authorities to subsidise those routes, too. Local government finance is highly constrained, and consequently subsidised routes may have to be discontinued or reduced in frequency.
If bus services deteriorate in frequency or route, people are more likely to use their private cars. That is not a green solution, but people in rural areas who do not have cars become more isolated where bus services may already be very infrequent. Older people may have a bus pass, but no access to any bus to use it on.
That is where demand-led transport solutions such as community transport can make such a difference, and I am pleased that the Government seems to agree with us on that in its amendment. I will make one suggestion. I know that there are pressures on community transport initiatives: two in Dumfries and Galloway had to go to the council for crisis funding last year. I ask the Scottish Government whether there are other ways of supporting those valuable social enterprises, perhaps through including them in the concessionary transport scheme. As it stands, older and disabled people living in remote areas cannot exercise their entitlement to concessionary bus travel.
I know that it may seem as if I am asking for yet more spending on the concessionary travel budget, but it is just a suggestion. The Finance Committee heard yesterday from the Auditor General for Scotland, Robert Black, that £34 million is currently used in funding concessionary travel for people over 60 who are working and using their bus pass to go to work. Retired people living in rural areas who cannot use any type of public transport are possibly more entitled to that funding than people who probably could afford it because they are still in work. I am just asking the Government whether it would be prepared to look at that.
I have referred to the concerns of bus operators with regard to the reduction in the bus service operators grant and the cap on the concessionary travel budget. However, I am not saying that the solution is simply to give more money to large bus companies; the issue of market failure and the role of regulation must be addressed.
Public subsidy—as we have said in relation to other areas—should be used to purchase public goods, and regulation is a mechanism to define the nature of those public goods and to ensure that the public receive value for money. If the market is dominated by a small number of powerful operators and it is difficult for smaller companies or new ventures to enter the market, it is hard to ensure value for the public pound.
At one time, the Scottish National Party believed that some regulation of bus services was necessary, but for some reason it changed its mind before the 2007 election.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have only a few seconds left—I am sorry.
In support of regulation, I draw the Government’s attention to the Competition Commission’s report, published in December, which used Fife as a case study. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into the report, but it indicated that one operator controlled 95 per cent of the services, which I do not think ensures competition or that fares are kept low. I urge the Government to look at regulation. My colleague Patricia Ferguson will introduce a bill on regulation of the bus industry, and I hope that the Government will consider supporting it.
On the two amendments, the Conservatives have obviously not moved on since the 1980s when they deregulated the bus services; and as for the Scottish Government, I do not understand how its members do not all have sore arms from perpetually congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the importance of local bus services, particularly for people on low incomes and older people; is concerned at the withdrawal of bus services and sharp increases in fares in a number of communities across Scotland and believes that these will be exacerbated by the proposed cut in the Bus Service Operators Grant; notes concerns regarding the proposed cap on concessionary fares in 2013-14 and 2014-15; urges the Scottish Government to consider ways in which it can support demand-led transport solutions such as community transport in rural areas; notes the SNP’s 2003 manifesto promise to “bring forward legislation to allow the regulation of buses”, and believes that further legislative action is required to ensure effective regulation of the industry for the benefit of passengers.
09:23
I was surprised by the tone of Labour’s motion, not least because the Scottish Government supports the bus industry. Our annual funding for the sector still stands at nearly £0.25 billion, which is a generous settlement when one bears in mind—as I have mentioned already—the swingeing cuts to our capital budget. It is interesting that Elaine Murray rightly identifies the other side of the issue, which is what local authorities can do. In England there has been a 28 per cent cut in local authority budgets, which has not been reflected in Scotland.
I will say something positive about our plans for bus, which we will work closely with stakeholders to develop. I will start with a bit of context. Why do we value bus? Well, it is flexible, it carries a large number of people, it promotes sustainable economic growth and it helps with our climate change targets. What do we want from bus in return for our investment? As Elaine Murray said, we subsidise things to achieve a public good. We want affordable, innovative, good-quality bus services and a competitive marketplace that delivers such services, with appropriate but not burdensome regulation. There is currently regulation in the bus industry.
In his discussions with bus operators about the bus service operators grant, what action did the minister take to ensure that fares would not increase, particularly for people on low incomes who rely on buses? In my city, Aberdeen, there is a fare increase of 8.5 per cent.
The largest part of a fare is comprised of labour and fuel costs. Elaine Murray talked about the cost of fuel; Labour’s fuel duty escalator has added to the burden over the years and the 15 per cent increase in diesel costs also adds to it. The reduction in the bus service operators grant would justify an increase in fares, if any, of about 1 per cent, not the 7 or 8 per cent increases that are happening elsewhere. That is a decision for the bus operators.
I will talk a bit more about our aspirations for bus. We want to improve connectivity, improve the quality of service, maintain the bus network and increase modal shift, through patronage growth. We can do that in part by maintaining global funding levels for the sector and in part by better partnership working. That is why I am bringing forward to March the inaugural meeting of a new bus stakeholder group. Members of the group will include the regulator, local authorities, operators, customer representatives and the Community Transport Association. We want to ensure that we move forward on partnership working. Some of the best innovations in the bus industry have been the result of close partnership working.
I will talk about specific initiatives. We want to regulate—and we do regulate—service changes. I will take further advice from the traffic commissioner for Scotland and others on whether we should alter the short-notice period for service changes and the fact that such changes can be made throughout the year. We need greater stability of services. On radical service improvement, I want our commitment to, for example, £40 million for the Glasgow fastlink project to showcase what can be achieved when the public and private sectors come together to crack the infrastructure problems that often hamper growth and patronage of the network.
On technical innovation, I want us to have a stronger low-carbon bus fleet in Scotland. Our green bus fund has delivered 48 new low-carbon vehicles and we recently announced a second round, to the value of £2 million this year. There will be more to come, thanks to the Scottish future transport fund. I very much welcome the associated investment by the operators.
Elaine Murray talked about demand-responsive transport. We have been talking about doing some of the things that she mentions. We want better community services. As of April, I intend to allow demand-responsive transport services that are available to the general public to be registered as local bus services and thereby qualify for BSOG and concessionary travel. We will continue to work with the Community Transport Association on affordable bus services in more remote areas.
We can develop the area further. A constituent of mine is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair. He cannot access any bus or taxi that is available and he relies on a dial-a-journey service, which, because it does not provide a service to the general public, does not attract concessionary travel income. We are willing to look at that matter.
I was surprised to hear that there is a proposal—if that is what it is—to take away concessionary travel from people over 60 who are in full-time employment, many of whom will be low-paid employees. Richard Simpson made such a proposal before the election, and I have asked in the past whether it is the Labour Party’s position. I understand the rationale and I am not suggesting that the proposal is not worth looking at. The Labour Government took such an approach in England. It is good to have clarity.
The bottom line is that overall bus funding for the spending review period is about £248.5 million per annum. To put that in context, there is a reduction of about £7 million on the current figure.
The bus service operators grant is paid as a direct subsidy to operators. For a number of years we have been discussing the need for change to the approach, and the changes that we are making this year reflect those discussions. The aim of the grant was always laudable. It was intended to help to keep fares down and support the bus network and community transport services.
Why, then, are we changing the scheme? BSOG payments currently track the amount of fuel that each operator uses, and more fuel means more subsidy. So, we are removing fuel from the calculation and substituting route length. We are also taking away payment for dead mileage, when there are no passengers at all on the buses. We believe that those moves will incentivise greater fuel efficiency and emission reductions; they will also tend to benefit rural services, as Elaine Murray acknowledged, providing a degree of protection for our vulnerable rural communities. BSOG will also continue to provide additional incentives for low-carbon vehicles and for some biodiesel fuels.
We are reducing the BSOG funding to £50 million, but we are adding a £3 million investment fund for bus infrastructure. The reduction therefore represents about 1 per cent of fare costs. It does not justify significant fare rises or withdrawal of services.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
However, I have agreed that for 2012-13 only the £3 million investment fund will be used to make a transition payment to operators who are most affected by the changes in May 2012. That will give them adequate time to adjust, which is fair, right and sensible
The national concessionary travel scheme is of course the other main funding mechanism, which is rightly celebrated and retains—I think—cross-party support. We have seen its funding increase over the past three years, and we have maintained the annual cap at £187 million for the spending review period. That figure was reached in discussion with the CPT, and we will continue to work with the bus industry to ensure that the scheme remains affordable in the long term.
I believe that the Government has worked hard to provide adequate funding for the bus sector. I look forward to continued partnership working through the new bus stakeholder group in the years ahead.
I move amendment S4M-01824.4, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:
“welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to maintain funding for concessionary fares in 2013-14 and 2014-15, despite the public spending cuts imposed by the UK Government; approves the development of a more environmental focus for the Bus Service Operators Grant and the introduction of a new bus infrastructure; welcomes partnership working between the Scottish Government and industry to invest in hybrid buses; urges the bus sector to minimise the withdrawal of bus services and increases in fares, and urges the Scottish Government, the bus sector and local government to develop demand-led transport solutions such as community transport in rural areas and more effective use of legislation and partnership working through provisions such as statutory quality partnerships.”
09:31
The opportunity to discuss bus services does not arise as often in the chamber as it might. I welcome the fact that the Labour Party has brought forward this debate. In preparation for the debate, I reread the similar debate on a motion in the name of Des McNulty, which I thought had taken place perhaps a couple years ago, but it turned out to have been in June 2008. We are all getting older, but that is how it goes.
I suspect that many of the same arguments will be rehearsed today, but of course in the intervening time things have moved on. As has been said, the Conservative Party is quite proud of its record of deregulating bus services in the 1980s. Scotland has a great deal to be proud of in what has happened since then, not least that as a result of the deregulation two of the world’s largest transport companies evolved in Scotland: one in Perth and one in Aberdeen. We should never forget that a proper regulatory environment is absolutely essential to the development of good business in the future.
However, we are here to talk about the services that those companies and others provide right here in Scotland. Since the previous parliamentary debate on the subject, there has been plenty of evidence that bus companies continue to invest in higher-quality and more comfortable buses, that they are achieving greater fuel efficiency and that a great deal has been done to improve access for those who find difficulty in accessing public transport. For example, there are buses that can be lowered to allow people to get access. We should do more of that kind of thing, and the evidence is that that is happening.
During the debate so far, we have heard about the changes that are being made to the bus service operators grant. Having read the objectives that have been set out for that grant, I continue to be open-minded and believe that there is evidence that the changes will be positive, particularly in ensuring that we get greater fuel efficiency in our bus fleets and better value for money from the Government.
However, one or two things have not changed since the debate three and a half years ago. It seems to me that we see the differences in a party’s position when it is in opposition compared with when it is in government. The Labour Party, while it was in government, was keen to avoid the regulation of buses, while the SNP was keen to regulate; now, we find that the Labour Opposition wants more regulation and the SNP Government is resisting the calls to move towards a stiffer regulatory environment.
The truth is that flexibility generates good bus services. We all have mailbags that are full of complaints about individual services, but overall the service satisfies a large number of people. Unfortunately, the satisfied customers do not bother writing to us.
Is it not the reality that, when in the previous Executive, we legislated to introduce quality contracts and quality partnerships? We very much regret that none of those has been introduced. They would give more importance to accountability and having fully operational services in local communities.
There was a fear that quality contracts and quality partnerships might add costs, so I am not in the least surprised to discover that none of them has been employed. If a thing is not fit for purpose, it will not be used. Therein lies the evidence.
In the time remaining, there are a couple of issues that I need to cover, one of which—bus passes or free transport for the elderly—I was almost afraid to raise but, luckily, Elaine Murray raised it for me. I am not opposed to free transport for the elderly; in fact, I think that it is one of the Parliament’s great achievements. However, it is inevitable that the cost of maintaining it will increase over time, and the question must be asked—Elaine Murray has already asked it—whether increasing that budget is an appropriate use of funds for the provision of bus services. As we talk more generally about the increase in the retirement and pension ages, does it make sense for us to continue to give everyone over the age of 60 free bus travel?
There are those who suggest that, to preserve that system and ensure that our pensioners continue to benefit from it in the long term, we must consider whether people at the lower end of that age scale are an appropriate target for those resources. I want that debate to continue in the Parliament, and I would like the Government to engage in it in a more practical way.
The Government is taking other measures that are improving bus services in Scotland. In the past, I have praised it for its persistence in improving our road network. We must always remember that buses need roads and that, as the roads improve, the bus services that run on them can become more reliable, more cost effective and, above all, more punctual.
My final point is about budget.
It will be your final point, because you need to wind up.
Indeed.
Within global budgets, bus services continue to receive a fair deal. The cost of maintaining any service is high and, given the pressure that the Government is experiencing, we must accept that tough decisions will have to be taken. It is essential that we recognise that we must make bus services affordable. The one thing that the Labour Party has failed to recognise is that it has some responsibility for the budget pressure that we are experiencing. Even the Labour leader Ed Miliband says that he would not change the funding arrangements that are currently in place, so we all have to learn.
I move amendment S4M-01824.1, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:
“encourages the Scottish Government to explore innovative solutions to the provision of cost-effective bus services such as demand-led transport in rural areas, and believes that the dogmatic demands to re-regulate bus services are inappropriate and potentially counter-productive.”
09:37
I welcome the commitment to ensure that we will still have concessionary fares in 2014. Concessionary fares were a big issue during the election campaign, particularly among older and disabled people in places such as Paisley, who were keen to ensure that they remained in place.
It is important that we work within the current framework, because the most important people are the users of the service. As others have mentioned, nine out of 10 bus users belong to vulnerable groups or have less capital.
If we look at the history of what has happened with the buses, we find that in Scotland, after regulation, we have an east-west divide. That is largely down to the fact that, in the east, an element of local authority control was retained through councils still having a stake in the bus company, whereas, in the west, the predecessor of SPT, in effect, sold all the corporation buses to whatever commercial company was available.
We need to look at where we are now. I assume that members get up to date with all the relevant political facts and issues before a debate, but I can inform them that there is a statutory quality partnership out there. Believe it or not, ladies and gentleman, it is in existence in Paisley. It has taken Renfrewshire Council only 12 years to use the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to get to that position. Mr Baker mentioned that it was the Labour Party that brought that act into being, but it was part of the problem and one of the reasons why it took 12 years for Renfrewshire Council to set up a quality partnership.
If the problem was the ability to introduce such schemes, why did the previous SNP Government oppose our proposed bill to make it far easier to introduce them? I am afraid that the member is making no sense whatever.
I think that the sense of the situation is that Labour introduced legislation to try to make things better, but it made things extremely difficult. However, the good news is that, in Renfrewshire, we had the political will to stick to the plan and, in 2007, when the SNP-led administration came in, we worked towards achieving the establishment of a statutory quality partnership, which has made a massive difference in Paisley and given a better-quality service to the people of Paisley.
Does the member agree that, in the wonderful area of Renfrewshire, where we both come from, the public have huge concerns about the proposed takeover of the Arriva services by McGill’s, and that there is a great fear that service levels will suffer and services will be cut?
I expected that question from one of the Labour list members for West Scotland. The whole idea of the statutory quality partnership is that we have a control mechanism within the process that enables us to ensure that we can still get the delivery of service. That is the important thing. The Opposition parties’ scare tactics are causing fear among the elderly, the disabled and the users of those services.
It is important that we have control in such situations. The statutory quality partnership gives us control over the type of buses, the quality of those buses, their cleanliness and other issues that users regularly complain about. In Paisley—in, as Mrs Fee says, the wonderful world of Renfrewshire—we are making a difference and are changing things.
It is important that the service user is the main factor in all our decisions. We have to ensure that we can deliver for the bus users in our communities. Thankfully, in Paisley, we are doing that, and we ask that other authorities do likewise. We can deliver a better bus service in Scotland if the political will exists at a local level to do so. We must serve the public good and find the solutions to problems, not create further problems. Working in partnership, we can achieve that.
09:42
This debate matters to my constituents in a direct way. Coatbridge and Chryston has one of the lowest levels of car ownership in the country—nearly 40 per cent of households have no car. Also, as Labour’s motion intimates, people on low incomes rely heavily on public transport. Unfortunately, as has been proven time after time, services for the poor are often poor services. That is clearly shown in the case of buses in my constituency.
For people who cannot afford a car, reliable and affordable public transport is a necessity. If the buses are unreliable, non-existent or overpriced, those who can do so will choose not to use them. However, those with no choice depend on buses to get to their work, the shops or their leisure activities and, without buses, they are trapped. Also, the better the bus links, the more accessible an area becomes and the easier it is for people to find work. The opposite is also true, of course, which is particularly worrying during this time of rapidly rising unemployment in Scotland.
Because of the bus issues that have been brought to my attention, I undertook to campaign for bus reregulation, and thousands of my constituents joined me in signing a petition for better buses. One thing that was perfectly clear during that campaign was that the current, deregulated system is not working in terms of providing those lifeline services in my constituency.
I understand the points that the member is making. If they are true, they must lead to the logical conclusion that she intends to put more money into buses. Is she able to quantify that or to say what model of reregulation she would have, and how much it would cost?
I will come to the model that I would recommend in order to reregulate the buses, but one thing is for sure: they certainly are not working. I will give the chamber examples of that, in case members are in any doubt.
What is happening in Coatbridge—about which the minister should not be in any doubt, as I have written to him about it often enough—is causing concerns due to services being cancelled or altered at short notice, which causes major problems for commuters. For example, when the Moodiesburn bypass was suddenly opened early, the buses just bypassed my constituents and left them standing at bus stops. Similarly, in Carnbroe and Townhead last year, people were left with no buses at all. On that occasion, I contacted Councillor Fagan at the SPT, which ensured that bus services were quickly provided. However, the SPT cannot always step in, as it has a fixed budget.
Bus timetables and routes are often changed at short notice with no regard for the needs of passengers, and in Coatbridge there is little or no information at bus stops. In November, I addressed a public meeting on buses that was organised by Coatbridge Federation of Tenants & Residents Associations.
Excuse me. Mr Hepburn, a member is speaking. Can you calm down?
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
At that meeting, the SPT advised a further withdrawal of services from Coatbridge by private operators this month. The 62 service, which connects Coatbridge with Glasgow, will cease, cutting off south Coatbridge in the evenings and at weekends. That is completely unacceptable.
Following the 2003 manifesto commitment, which is mentioned in the motion, the SNP conference in 2006 pledged to take bus services out of the control of private profiteers, but that promise was dropped. The Scottish Government is not standing up for ordinary people on the issue. The sad reality is that the SNP seems to be on the side of the big bus companies. If it wants to change that perception, it should immediately evaluate the privatised bus industry and ensure that its focus is on accountability, affordability and service provision. That would show us that the big private profiteers operate simply to boost their already swollen coffers, not to provide a public service.
It is obscene that we allow a few massive private operators to follow a systemic impulse to produce wealth for themselves at the expense of the travelling public. As Karl Marx put it:
“Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!”
09:46
Imagine the restrictions that a fixed budget puts in place. Imagine having to deal with a fixed budget that one cannot increase or grow—just imagine that. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I am having a bit of trouble getting on with my speech while members are attempting to instigate a conversation with me.
Mr McDonald, I think that you can cope. Just get on with it.
The minister, rightly, has called for an emphasis on innovation. Yesterday, while other members were discussing matters here, I was at a full council meeting of Aberdeen City Council at which the council agreed unanimously to proceed with a hydrogen bus project. Its delivery is contingent on agreement with partners, but the council has nailed its colours to the mast on that and is looking to progress with a move that could release a number of hydrogen buses into the Aberdeen bus fleet. They would create zero carbon emissions; therefore, that is an important step forward and the kind of innovation that the minister talked about.
Will the member consider an innovation that the SPT and Councillor David Fagan are considering? It is a franchise arrangement, like London Buses, which would not necessarily cost the earth.
I am always interested in best practice from other areas. I am, however, not familiar with the scheme that the member highlights, so I cannot give her any firm commitment on that. Also, the decision does not rest with me.
On the bus service operators grant, the minister has rightly highlighted the fact that, where subsidy is provided, it must follow the passenger. Too often, it has not done that, but the changes that the minister has identified will mean that that will happen. As has been identified in the debate, passengers in rural areas should be a priority given the specific pressures that rural areas face, such as high fuel costs and the distances that people are required to travel to access services. The change to the bus service operators grant will mean that funding is targeted more at rural services, which are in need of that assistance, as are rural communities. That is important.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
The managing director of FirstBus said in the Evening Express yesterday that the reason that FirstBus is hiking its fares by 8 per cent is entirely down to changes to the bus service operators grant. FirstBus—a multibillion-pound multinational corporation—has a bit of a cheek if it is claiming that the only way in which it can run a viable bus service is with Government subsidy.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I do not have the time.
I welcome the clarity on the bus pass that there now seems to be. I simply note that whenever the Government has considered the bus pass, usually with a view to extending its provision, Labour members have run to the communities howling that we are going to take away folks’ bus passes. It is a little rich for Labour members to turn around and say that the Government should perhaps consider taking away folks’ bus passes when that is the scaremongering that they have used in communities during previous reviews.
Will the member take an intervention on that?
I am in my last 30 seconds.
I will make the point to Alex Johnstone on why I think that universality on the bus pass is important. In rural areas, people who might not qualify for a bus pass under a means-tested system often use the bus pass to access a route that would cease to be viable without the subsidy that the bus pass provides. If changes were made, the people who access the route without a bus pass could lose that service. That is an important consideration: what would be the impact of changes on bus services, many of which are dependent on bus pass users to keep them viable, and what would be the impact on the communities that lose such a service?
There is much that we need to look at in discussing the bus system in Scotland. The minister has identified key areas for consideration, and I think that we should move forward on that basis.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to make a clarification, in case it was not absolutely clear from my speech. The point that was raised at the Finance Committee yesterday—
Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of information. You have made your speech; you can ask your colleague to make the point in his summing up. You are wasting time.
09:51
I disagreed with almost every aspect of Alex Johnstone’s speech, but I agreed with him that the Parliament has not contributed effectively to the debate on bus services and the concerns of communities throughout Scotland about the serious issues that face them in connection with those services.
Even though we have conducted various inquiries into local government and transport in parliamentary committees, we have not considered the fact that something has to be done about the bus deregulation legislation that was passed in 1985. As a result of that legislation, we have seen our local communities being abandoned by bus companies that care little about their needs, despite the fact that those communities and their local authorities have been going out of their way to build an infrastructure that assists bus companies in dealing with the challenges that they face in delivering bus services, for example in areas such as traffic congestion. Indeed, I cannot help but observe that, in a perverse way, we appear to be encouraging the big bus companies to cherry pick in the first place by providing bus lanes, sometimes to the detriment to the needs of local people, who also need services delivered in their communities.
The time is right for the Parliament to take action to protect our communities from the cherry-picking activities of bus companies throughout Scotland. I do not know what world Alex Johnstone lives in, but I ask him to pay attention to the concerns of my constituents in the Glasgow Provan constituency. In Cranhill, they face serious challenges in accessing bus services. In the Dennistoun community, people face challenges with bus companies cherry picking routes. That is the real world of the challenges that our constituents face throughout Scotland.
As Elaine Smith mentioned, we also need to recognise the impact that the withdrawal of bus services has on vulnerable communities, in Glasgow in particular. In Glasgow, where the car ownership rate is among the lowest in Scotland, people depend on bus services as a lifeline to get them to employment opportunities and hospital appointments. Not to take action would be an attack on those local communities and the most vulnerable in our society. For many of those people, as Elaine Smith said, it is not a lifestyle choice to take the bus. Being able to attend a hospital appointment or an employment opportunity is a necessity.
I believe that we are elected to the Parliament to ensure that the vulnerable are represented. That is why I sought election in 1999 and that is why I believe that we need to put in place a more robust system to deal with bus companies and to bring forward proposals to regulate them. If regulation is good enough for the bankers, it is good enough for the greedy bus companies. Let me clear about this: bus companies need no protection. Stagecoach had half-year profits of almost £80 million and those of First reached just under £60 million, so I hope that the Scottish Government will not seek to protect those companies.
I say once again that it is becoming clear that the time is now right for real action, not just talk about partnerships. We have sought to engage through partnerships for many years. The time is right for those bus companies to recognise that the current legislation favours the cherry picking that has been done for many years.
I welcome the minister’s commitment to community transport. I hope that he will commit himself to community transport associations such as the North Area Transport Association, which covers my constituency, and I hope that we can continue to develop such associations. I call on members to support the motion in the name of Elaine Murray.
09:55
I start by thanking the Labour Party for drawing attention to public transport issues in Scotland. It does Parliament a service by bringing such a debate to the chamber. Even if I do not agree with the terms of the Labour motion, it is important to say that I appreciate its bringing up the issue.
I was slightly perplexed by a lot of Elaine Murray’s speech. At one point, she said that she did not want to give money to the big bus operators, but then she bemoaned the fact that the bus service operators grant was being cut. Increasing the BSOG would give additional money to the largest bus operators, and it is fair to put that on the record. I would be delighted to hear what Elaine Murray says about that.
Our motion draws attention to concerns about and possible outcomes of the current situation. The solution that we are proposing is not just to throw money at the problem but to reregulate and ensure that the public pound purchases the best possible value.
I am delighted that Elaine Murray has made that intervention, because she has just emphasised the contradiction in her thinking.
I also want to look at the change from using the amount of fuel used by bus operators to the distance travelled as the basis on which payments are made. That is quite important. When I think about it, the idea of giving a fuel duty discount might have been slightly wrong-headed. Why should a Scottish Parliament have to give a tax break to bus companies to provide a public and social service when the huge oil and fuel revenues and taxes flow down south to London? It is simply wrong-headed. Perhaps the Labour Party should look at itself and take a deep look at that issue.
I point out that forms of bus regulation already exist, and I note that the minister is looking at ways of implementing further regulation where appropriate if it is needed.
I commend my parliamentary colleague George Adam, who spoke about the statutory quality bus partnership success in Paisley. I am aware that similar proposals are being developed in Glasgow, and I hope that they will come to fruition shortly. Indeed, I hear talk that part of that regulation might extend to the fastlink scheme that is being supported with £40 million from the Scottish Government. I do not think that we should pretend that no regulatory levers are being used currently.
That said, I want to be reasonable. I hear that Patricia Ferguson is going to introduce a bill on bus regulation. I supported her bill on factoring, so I will look at her bill on bus regulation. However, I am deeply worried about the unintended consequences of the steps that the Labour Party would take, so I would take some convincing.
I want to look at the community transport aspect of the Labour Party’s motion.
Will the member give way?
I want to develop my point. Labour mentioned rural community transport but, in Glasgow, it is inconsistent on community transport. In the north of Glasgow, which is in the region that I represent, the main community transport provider, the North Area Transport Association, has had its funding cut by £48,000—a 100 per cent cut—by the Glasgow Labour Party.
Will the member give way?
Absolutely.
Ms Ferguson, I am sorry but the member is in his final 30 seconds.
I have heard from disability groups in north Glasgow that are worried about the success and future of the service. Primary schools are also worried. Perhaps the best way of finishing off is—oh, I have lost it. Perhaps I will intervene on Ms Ferguson—oh, I have found it. A small child—
Mr Doris, just get on with it.
I apologise, Presiding Officer. When a small child sends me a picture, which I have here, of the local bus company, which has lost £48,000, and the child is worried that they will not be taken to their playgroup, I say that Glasgow Labour should be consistent on community travel. It is clear that it is not.
10:00
Presiding Officer, you might recall, as I do, debates all the way back in 1999 rather than in 2006. If my memory serves me correctly, you took part in some of them. Murray Tosh used to lead for the Conservatives, Kenny MacAskill used to lead for the Scottish National Party, and Sarah Boyack was the transport minister. I think that the general view across all the parties, including among the nationalists, was that, if we shut Murray Tosh and Kenny MacAskill into a room at the back of the chamber, the rest of us could have got on with a pretty decent transport debate.
Time has certainly moved on, but the debate about quality partnerships or regulation versus competition has not. It is clear that the current minister is dealing with that in the same way that all his predecessors did.
What works and what does not work has been referred to; George Adam was interesting on his council’s experience of that. I recall Elaine Smith making a strident speech, which was entirely justified, on that issue many years ago and members of other parties making exactly the same arguments. I also recall that, even in those days, the big bus companies, which have been broadly attacked throughout the chamber, used to get it in the neck about profiteering, cherry picking, which Paul Martin has just spoken about, and other things. They are still getting it in the neck in 2012.
The conundrum for the Government is where it should or should not legislate in seeking to discover the right balance between regulation and competition. Does competition work? As Elaine Smith and Paul Martin illustrated—Bob Doris hinted at this—there is considerable competition in Glasgow and the west at certain times of the day, but there is not the breadth and depth of services that many members want. That is the challenge that the minister has to consider and find a way through. Has the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was passed by those of us who were members in that session, worked? On the basis of George Adam’s evidence, if there has been only one statutory quality partnership in Scotland since then, it is clear that that legislation has not provided the fit-for-purpose model that is needed. If Patricia Ferguson, members of other parties and, indeed, the Government are going to bring forward new thinking on the matter, I welcome that, as I recognised in the role that I had, which Mr Brown now has, that there are no perfect answers. That is why the complexity of the issue is challenging.
I do not think that there should be a one-size-fits-all policy throughout Scotland. As other members have mentioned, there are different circumstances in rural and urban areas and also within cities that do not lend themselves to having one binding piece of regulation. We need a system that recognises the different challenges in different parts of Scotland.
Mr Scott may recall that, in the previous session, a bill on the same issue in the name of my colleague Charlie Gordon fell because it could not attract support from other parties in the Parliament. Is Mr Scott in a position to commit his party on the matter at this stage?
I am happy to commit to reading whatever proposed legislation members bring forward. I recall Patricia Ferguson taking me to her constituency to show me the challenges that she and her colleagues in all parties faced on the issue. I would therefore be happy to look at any proposed legislation.
In concluding, I want to make a point about the concessionary transport scheme. I see that there is a clear requirement for a review after seven years. I am sure that Mr Brown will tell me if I am wrong about that, but that is my recollection of the system. The benefit of a review is that it allows the Government of the day to consider carefully not just the eligibility points that Elaine Murray and other members have rightly raised but the whole basis of the scheme. I hope that there is a review, as such reviews are the purpose of good government.
10:04
I am pleased to be able to highlight the part of our motion that
“urges the Scottish Government to consider ways in which it can support demand-led transport solutions such as community transport in rural areas”.
Across South Scotland and elsewhere, robust and well-organised community transport initiatives are evolving, and they are increasingly developing an interface with public transport. I stress that they are not a reason to cut services, which should be developed, but are an essential complement to what is often a limited service in terms of routes and times. For people of all ages, community transport is a new lifeline that is helping to end rural isolation and bring communities together.
When the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence on the issue, we heard from the Rural Development Trust in Clydesdale, which runs its minibuses on waste fat from school kitchens. I say to the minister that I hope that support will indeed be forthcoming for such initiatives. As a teacher, I was able to book a minibus to take pupils swimming 15 miles away. It was driven by our headteacher, who became a volunteer driver, thus keeping the costs down. There are also community transport groups in Annandale and Tweeddale, and I am sure that members know of others in their regions.
There are several different models for community transport because such initiatives are demand and community led and they have been developed to suit a range of needs, but that must not be—and does not have to be—a barrier to the interface with public transport and other provision.
Last week, I attended a rural transport solutions event, with Elaine Murray, in Kirkcudbright, at which it was stressed that transport is a crucial element of community structure. The project is funded by the European Union northern periphery programme and it works with a range of local partners—Dumfries and Galloway Council, the south west of Scotland transport partnership, Wigtownshire community transport, NHS Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Ambulance Service. I welcome the minister’s remarks on partnerships of that kind.
The downtime issue is being addressed. Its most ludicrous manifestation is the school bus sitting idle through the summer holidays. There is potential to save a lot of money by enabling community groups to use school buses. The requirements to train volunteer drivers, pass buses from one group to another and share maintenance costs do not have to be insurmountable barriers and they should not be an excuse not to develop new partnerships. The approach is already working.
Wigtownshire community transport is working towards becoming self-financing through procurement. I stress that reregulation is essential if local community transport initiatives are to seek procurement in that way. There are also small charges for community bookings.
Further to Elaine Murray’s remarks, I note that constituents have approached me as well to request that concessionary fares be extended to community transport. I welcome the minister’s remarks on that. One person stated, “Free bus passes are great, but they are useless if there is no bus to catch.”
Community transport addresses many rural challenges. It prevents people from having to stay in town all day if there are infrequent public transport services. It enables households that do not have a car to get to their nearest public transport service, which is particularly important for people who live in very remote places. It prevents parents with small children and carers with elderly family members from being left trapped in the house when the only car user has left—in the case of one-car households—hopefully to go to work or training. It enables people in remote places to which public transport will never come to get to appointments, and it enables groups to get together in such areas.
It also stops the branding of transport for groups who feel isolated and enables them to become more integrated in their community, and it enables managers in places such as day centres to get on with their jobs rather than working out the complexities of bookings.
I would be grateful if you would close now, please.
Community transport is meeting the needs of schools, hospitals, healthcare, social services and tourism by developing sustainable systems, and it will also help us to meet our climate change targets. I commend the model to the Scottish Government and ask it to give community transport as much support as it can.
10:09
Like my colleague Bob Doris, I welcome the debate and thank the Labour Party for bringing the subject to the chamber. I suspect that I am like every member in that many of my constituents rely on the provision of reliable, regular bus services, so it is a hugely important issue. In my constituency, there are some good examples of such services. The Abronhill area in Cumbernauld has good, regular bus services—although we are always willing to see further improvements, of course.
However, some areas, such as the area of Cumbernauld north of the M80, have a particularly poor bus service. It is often assumed that everyone in Cumbernauld has a car but, judging by my postbag, I think that that is not the case in that part of the town. Many people in that part of the world would like to have a decent, regular bus service but do not. I have consistently raised the matter with the relevant authorities. For all the bluster from certain members, it is interesting that the two pertinent authorities in this case—SPT and North Lanarkshire Council—are dominated by the Labour Party and have refused point blank to intervene.
Aw.
It is wonderful to see Ms Baillie arriving in the chamber and welcoming my contribution so readily.
You are deluded.
It is an interesting posture—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
I hesitate to say it, but I think that the member is deluded this morning.
I hesitate to point out that Ms Baillie delivered that as well from a sedentary position as she did when she intervened. Welcome to the debate, Ms Baillie.
The posturing from Labour members is interesting because, when they have the opportunity to intervene on the ground, they do not do so. It was also interesting to hear Elaine Murray speak about funding levels for the bus service operators grant. Bob Doris made an excellent point. We hear Labour bemoaning the fact that public money is being funnelled into large bus companies—I understand that point—while in the same breath bemoaning the cut to the BSOG. That position is inconsistent.
As ever, the issue of public transport is raised with no context whatever. Every time we hear a party—usually Labour—bemoaning cuts to individual budgets, no context is given.
That is a bit rich considering that, if we do make a suggestion—for example when I pointed out what the Auditor General said—it is immediately translated as being Labour Party policy. It makes us rather anxious. I would rather put ideas out there and have them discussed than have other parties immediately say, “That’s Labour Party policy.” Let us listen to what others are saying.
I am always willing to listen to discussion, but allow me to make my point. The context is that the Scottish Government’s budget has been hammered by the Westminster Administration. That process began under Labour, and we hear that the current cuts are supported by Ed Miliband. If Elaine Murray gives us a little context whenever the issue is raised, we may be more willing to listen to her ideas.
In response to the minister’s intervention, Elaine Murray said that it is only the Government that can lodge amendments to the budget at stage 2. Procedurally, she is correct, but, earlier in the budget process, at the committee stage, when the various subject committees report to the Finance Committee, the Labour Party could quite easily have suggested the reinstatement of the bus service operators grant. I am on the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee and—I am glad to be corrected—I do not recall a Labour member doing that. It is a bit disingenuous to raise it now.
Before we move to closing speeches, I apologise to members whom I was unable to call in the debate due to its being oversubscribed.
10:13
This has been a constructive debate, and one or two positive issues have arisen. In fact, if the Government had been a little more careful when it drafted its amendment, it could even have found itself with Conservative support for it. As it is, though, we may have to abstain on that one.
Karl Marx has been mentioned—it has been a while since we had him in the chamber. A number of members talked at length about regulation. I suspect that some on the benches opposite had nationalisation on the tip of their tongues, but perhaps that was still a step too far.
In both amendments, the opportunity was taken to remove the most attractive bit of the Labour motion, where it mentions demand-led services. In rural areas, there are no shortages of examples of empty buses running while, not far away, there are no bus services to cater for people who desperately need them. We should be looking at demand-led services. Claudia Beamish explained the concept quite well but, unfortunately, at a time when budgets are tight, having both kinds of service is a step too far.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I have only four minutes.
Innovative solutions are out there and we all need to work together to ensure that the Government pursues them.
As for the unintended consequences that Bob Doris mentioned, there will certainly be such consequences if we go ahead with some of the changes that have been discussed this morning. Reregulation—with the aim, I hope, of providing better services—will inevitably add to costs, which, given the finite budget, will mean that services will have to be reduced. We must target resources where they will be most effective, but the Government already has the power to do that without having to tighten regulation.
I have listened to members’ comments about the delivery of services. The problem of services being changed without notice is particularly annoying and certainly appears in my mailbag. However, it can be dealt with through tighter management by the companies that provide the service. After all, it is not always the management’s fault if a driver decides not to take a particular route.
Mark McDonald seemed to suggest that I was proposing the removal of bus passes from some people and perhaps the introduction of means testing. That is not the case. We should make long-term decisions that allow us to manage costs over time and ensure that those who already have bus passes can continue to have them in future.
Mr McDonald also said that the bus pass system is a subsidy mechanism. Although I fully accept that, in many respects, it is such a mechanism, I am not entirely sure that it should be.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am just coming to a close.
Given that, in these times, budgets must be targeted at where they will deliver the greatest benefit to those who require support, I have every sympathy with the Government’s position. I believe that it is managing its resources to the best of its ability and is delivering the best service that it can under the current circumstances. We need innovation and new ways of using resources to deliver more. At the moment, we simply do not have the unlimited resource that the Labour Party appears to be wishing for.
10:17
I am struck by the substantial degree of agreement on many of the issues that have been discussed this morning, but I have to say that Alex Johnstone’s final point about resources is pertinent—indeed, crucial. Given Elaine Murray’s intervention late in the debate, I think that it would be useful to hear from either Ms Murray or Richard Baker exactly what is being suggested. Are they suggesting that we consider taking bus passes away from over-60s in full-time employment? Is that a suggestion or is it a policy proposal?
For the record, the suggestion was made by the Auditor General, Robert Black, at yesterday’s Finance Committee meeting. When someone such as that makes such a suggestion, the very least that we can do is to look at it. Indeed, I have asked Mr Black to break down his calculations.
I take from that and previous comments—and indeed from the comment made before the election by Richard Simpson, who is not in the chamber, that he thought that it was wrong that he received a bus pass—that it is a suggestion that should be considered. There is nothing wrong with saying that such proposals should be considered. However, as Mark McDonald pointed out, these issues have been used in the past as political footballs and, sometimes, to strike fear into people that they will lose their bus passes. Nevertheless, I take the proposal in the spirit that Elaine Murray has suggested.
We think that our funding of around £250 million a year demonstrates a real commitment to bus services. I did not have time to mention it earlier, but hard shoulder running on the M77, which Jackson Carlaw, who was in the chamber at the start of the debate, has mentioned in the past, is an extremely important initiative. I certainly disagree with Paul Martin’s comments about bus lanes. I believe that they tend to help bus services by making them quicker and therefore more attractive to people, more of whom then use the services. We want to look at what we can do to take that process further.
I have no concern about bus lanes, which we should encourage, but that should not be to the detriment of local communities if services are not delivered in their areas. There should be a quid pro quo—if services are delivered for bus services, they should also be delivered for local communities that are affected by the cuts.
I am not sure that I get Paul Martin’s point. If he is saying that bus lanes should be created elsewhere, we can obviously consider that on a case-by-case basis.
Tavish Scott asked for a review of the concessionary travel scheme, but we have had such a review. People often use the cliché that something is constantly reviewed. The scheme is not constantly reviewed—nothing is constantly reviewed—but we are looking at it on regular basis. That approach has led to changes. For example, the cap that kicks in when the budget level is reached, which was agreed with the transport operators, was one thing that came from the review. However, I give a commitment to Tavish Scott that we will continue to review the scheme. That is only right, because it involves a large amount of public expenditure. Elaine Murray’s suggestion could feed into that debate.
Another change in the scheme is that it has been extended to make it easier to access for veterans who have been injured in active service—they can now access the scheme much more quickly and with much less hassle. We extended the scheme in that way before the Westminster Government did so, although it has now done so, too. That is a welcome change. Therefore, changes have happened to the national concessionary scheme and it has been reviewed.
There are issues to do with the proper management of the scheme, which come down to matters such as driving out abuse of the system. A great deal of work has been done on that. It perhaps does not create headlines, but Alex Neil and I have done quite a bit of work with operators on that. As several members have mentioned—and not only those on the Government back benches—there is a drive to ensure that we get the maximum possible effect from the money that we commit. Obviously, the amount that we can commit is constrained.
Jamie Hepburn made the important point that we are not the only players. We give money to local authorities so that they can subsidise bus routes. We provide the BSOG, but we do not subsidise bus routes. At local authorities’ request, the money is no longer ring fenced. Some local authorities have been good at ensuring that the money is passed on, but others have not. That is where responsibility lies. It is not always down to the Government when the service that might be expected on a particular route is not in place. The local authorities and, sometimes, the regional transport partnerships have a role in that.
There has been fairly general agreement on the need for further consideration of demand-responsive transport. As I said, we have considered that already and we will continue to do so, particularly in relation to the example that I gave earlier about allowing voluntary organisations that cannot currently access the concessionary travel scheme—even for people who would otherwise qualify for concessionary travel—to do so. That is entirely right.
The motion mentions the SNP’s 2003 manifesto, which must have made a big impact when it was produced. Equally, we could refer to Labour’s 1983 manifesto commitment to abolish nuclear weapons and various other things that have gone by the board. Our 2003 manifesto was three manifestos ago, but we are still discussing it. Paul Martin rightly mentioned fundamental problems in his constituency. Those are deep-rooted and long-standing problems. Between 1997 and 2007, the Labour Party had the chance to do something about them. It was in power in this Parliament for eight years. Labour members concede that the problems started before then and lasted right through that period. That is just another issue on which the Labour Party thinks that the long-standing problems that it has left subsequent Governments to deal with are all the responsibility of the current Government. The Labour Party must take some responsibility for those problems.
As Jamie Hepburn said, we must see the issue in context. We have maintained local government expenditure, whereas in England it has reduced by 28 per cent, which produces knock-on effects including, in some areas, the abolition of concessionary travel. We have not done that. We have stuck by the bus industry and, in particular, the bus passenger—that is who we are trying to help in all this. The measures that we are taking and will continue to take demonstrate that. Therefore, I ask members to support the amendment in my name.
10:24
Several members have mentioned that this is not the first time that Labour has brought the issue of bus services to the Parliament. We make no apology for returning to the issue, because we have heard again today, sometimes in feisty discourse, how important bus services are. So often, they are lifelines for communities. That applies in rural communities, such as those that Elaine Murray and Claudia Beamish referred to, as well as in urban areas, as Elaine Smith highlighted.
Members have discussed the many reasons why bus services are vital, but a key reason is their importance to excluded groups and to older people and the disabled. The concessionary travel scheme has been important for those groups. Too often, they have been financially and socially excluded, but there are now no financial barriers to their using buses, whether it be for shopping trips into town or to visit friends and family. That is why the continuation of the scheme is important to us. We also hope that, in future, consideration will be given to extending it into areas such as community transport.
Of course, it is not only older people and the disabled who rely on bus services; they are vital for our economy because they are the method that many Scots use to get to work. There should be unanimity in the Parliament about encouraging more people to use public transport for such journeys. Affordable bus services are also crucial for those in our society on lower incomes, for whom times are particularly tough right now.
That is why we are so concerned about what is happening in Scotland. A number of important services are being withdrawn from communities throughout the country and, following decisions by the Scottish Government, there are hikes in bus fares as well.
In this debate, I clearly do not agree on every point with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, but its briefing raises important issues. It makes it clear that the Scottish Government was made aware that its decision to cut the bus service operators grant by 20 per cent would lead to fare increases. I am not persuaded by the minister’s maths on that issue. In Aberdeen, the cut has resulted in fare increases of some 8.5 per cent, which will start on Sunday. Such increases particularly affect those who are on low incomes, and there is no evidence that ministers made any attempt to take account of that fact in their decision or to mitigate its impact.
Given what he has just said, will Richard Baker say whether he is committed to reinstating that cut during the budget process?
We will vote on the entirety of the Scottish Government’s budget. As Elaine Murray said, the Scottish Government is able to lodge amendments at stage 2, but we are not. I very much hope that the minister will lodge an amendment, because the 8.5 per cent fare increases in Aberdeen will hit the poorest, will hurt others in other parts of Scotland and are totally unacceptable.
The situation was made all the worse because of the late notice that operators were given of the cuts. That will be a great disappointment for those who will have to pay higher fares. How will that contribute to the Scottish Government’s stated aim of encouraging more people to use our buses?
The Scottish Government says that it wants to use its budget to protect Scotland from the coalition’s reckless spending cuts but, again and again, the rhetoric does not match the reality. The situation that I outlined is yet another example of those in Scotland who are least able to afford increased charges having to pay more.
Let us be clear about local authority budgets as well. For councils, the Scottish Government has doubled the cut that it received. It is making the situation doubly bad for local authority budgets, so to say that they have been protected is simply untrue.
We part company with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Conservatives and the SNP on regulation. Paul Martin made an important speech on that. Tavish Scott made some thoughtful comments on the issue, too. Deregulation has not worked. Too many areas have, in effect, monopoly services and no accountability.
Will Richard Baker give way?
I am fond of Mr McDonald, but he must learn that, if I am to take his interventions, he must take mine in future.
Is it not a bit rich for Labour to bemoan the deregulated framework when, in government, it did nothing about it? Will Richard Baker also reflect on the fact that the traffic commissioner for Scotland, the bus service operators grant and the concessionary travel scheme are all forms of regulation?
We introduced more legislation for regulation. In opposition in the previous session of Parliament, we proposed a further bill, which the SNP opposed. However, to judge from George Adam’s comments earlier, we can look forward to the SNP supporting Patricia Ferguson’s bill when she introduces it, because the party has indicated that it favours more regulation. On a UK level, we acted on the matter through the Local Transport Act 2008.
Elsewhere in the UK, more regulation is working effectively. We are also starting to see at least some bus quality partnerships in Scotland. We wonder why the SNP, having previously supported reregulation, opposes it so vigorously in government. The more cynical among us might wonder whether Mr Souter had a word in the SNP’s ear. As I am not a cynic, I will leave others to muse on that.
It is clear from increasing bus fares and the loss of key services that the Scottish Government is letting down bus passengers and communities across Scotland. We would have thought that a party that aspired to run an independent country would want to show that it could run the buses properly first—right now, it is not managing that. Most Scots would prefer the Government to get on with the job of ensuring that vital bus services are available when people need them, at a price that they can afford.