8/10/2019 12 Edward J Smeall

1/3

Response to Consultation 0n Proposed Members Bill

I write in a personal capacity as an over 60 year old, who is a regular user of bus services. I

have been concerned about the declining role of public bus transport in my area

(Cumbernauld-Glasgow), and more generally in the Greater Glasgow region for a number of

years. I have travelled on buses in a number of overseas countries and have seen what a

modern bus transport system can look like. I also have a professional interest in the area

as I taught economics in the field of public policy for a number of years.

Q.1. Yes, I support the general aim of the proposed Bill. Anything that is intended toimprove the quality of bus transport services, as I believe this proposal will do, is to be

welcomed. Bus services have, for far too long, been the poor relation of public transport in

Scotland. As your introduction suggests, a modern forward looking society should have a

modern transport policy.

Q.2. The proposal envisages a greater degree of regulation by the public authorities. We

should not be afraid of this approach. I believe greater direction will be necessary to ensure

improved services The proposal draws attention to the fact that bus transport has been in

decline, when there are growing concerns over the impact of environmental degradation

e.g. impact on emissions by increasing travel by car. It draws attention to the dearth of

provision in rural, particularly remote rural areas. Living in rural Scotland involves challenges

that go beyond getting around e.g NHS and educational provision, and it may well be that

these are challenges that have to be lived with, if people choose or are obliged to live in

remote areas. The extended use of community transport may help. Would there be any

consideration given to linking up with other service providers in these areas eg Royal Mail

as happens in Alpine countries?

Q. 3. Reregulation will involve local transport authorities having a greater say in the way in

which bus services are run. It should permit/make possible greater integration across

regions. It should allow franchising bundles of services as proposed and the imposition of

conditions such as minimum levels of service and more realistic penalties for breaches.

The concept of market failure may be relevant in other areas of public service provision but

it is difficult to pin down in bus transport. It would be better for the authorities to establish

standards of service which they wish to have provided and work to these criteria rather than

8/10/2019 12 Edward J Smeall

2/3

to some nebulous notion of appropriate market conduct, especially since what is an

appropriate level of service will vary between areas.

Q.4. See comments on Q.2.

Q.5. On the face of it, there would seem to be a case for imposing financial penalties. The

relationship between the RTAs and the providers is important. To a large extent, bus

services and individual routes across Scotland are run by private monopolies. Direct

competition on routes, even in urban areas, is unlikely to be profitable for the bus

companies as the overall level of demand will be insufficient. In the early days of

deregulation, there was a plethora of companies chasing business on the most popular

routes but this soon changed as intense price competition from the largest firms drove the

smaller providers out of the market. There is a danger, of course, that the threat of heavier

penalties and more stringent conditions will discourage firms from tendering, especially the

larger companies. They may also be frightened off by the bundling of profitable and non-

profitable routes. These firms may be accustomed to cherry pickingand they may have

other business priorities which they want to pursue such as rail services or services

elsewhere in the UK.

Q.6. The financial significance of the proposed changes would affect the budgets of the

funding authorities. Expenditure is likely to increase if the proposals, as is likely, lead to

increased costs to the public purse. The extent to which they would be prepared to accept

this would depend on their political priorities. A better but more costly bus system might

not be among the highest of priorities as in Moray. This would possibly include the use of

more local authority fleets, costs associated with introducing Quality Contracts, and also

improved information about services both centrally and along routes.

Bus companies would likely incur increased costs if the issues in Para.81 of the consultation

are to be addressed. Whilst there has been some improvement in the quality of the bus

stock, there are still problems with the physical condition of some buses and some recent

additions to the stock are poorly designed and cheaply constructed.

The use of a smart card top up system available elsewhere is, I believe, long overdue. A

modern transport network really needs something like this.

Q.7. I do not foresee any significant new equality issues, other than those which currently

exist. There is intergenerational inequality in terms of the free bus travel enjoyed by the

8/10/2019 12 Edward J Smeall

3/3

over 60s, while those of working age have to pay. This is clearly a controversial policy

matter which goes beyond the remit of the current proposal. However, it does have

implications for the costs incurred by central government in the subsidy given to operators,

which has been reduced, recently, in percentage terms. This had had knock-on effects for

the provisions of services as indicated in the consultation and local authorities e.g. Falkirkare having to fill the gaps. This ultimately falls back on the local taxpayer.

Q.8. I see a clear necessity for the proposed bill, as bus transport is responsible for the

bulk of passenger journeys in Scotland. Controversially, I believe savings could be made to

public subsidies if some categories of passengers would be prepared to pay more. As an

over 60 year old, I can see no good reason why, if I wish to travel from Glasgow to Inverness,

I should not make a contribution to the cost of the trip. A system of graded subsidies, for

example , offering free travel within a limited local area and progressively less generous

subsidies for further afield would surely be acceptable to most travellers. This would deal

with the objection that the poorest elderly should be encouraged to get out and about,

since local trips would still be free.

The improvement of bus services might also happen if there was a greater input from users.

In the early post deregulation era it was commonplace, for example, for First Bus Glasgow to

hold open days/ surgeries where passengers could infom and be informed about service

changes desired and proposed. These now appear to have stopped but it would certainly be

helpful if there was timely feedback .

All in all, there is certainly a case for legislation to put bus services at least on a par with

train services with greater financial support and tighter regulation.

Edward J Smeall