Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 01 Jun 2005

01 Jun 2005 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Transport (Scotland) Act 2001

Jackson, Dr Sylvia Lab Stirling Watch on SPTV

As Des McNulty said, the importance of the report is that it attempts to monitor the implementation of previous legislation. When the other Deputy Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, was convener of the Local Government Committee, she said that that was an important function of any committee.

It is important that we identify the difficulties and try, as far as possible, to make them good in new legislation. The big chance for us to do that is the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The example that many speakers have quoted is the quality contracts and partnerships. None has been set up yet. John Scott spoke about them negatively, but we heard evidence about the difficulties in setting them up. We also asked how the voluntary partnership arrangements are working and whether we need quality contracts and partnerships. If they are needed, as many members have said, what are the barriers and how might we overcome those?

We got a mixed picture when we considered the voluntary partnerships that are now working. Margaret Smith talked about the variety throughout Scotland. Good examples of partnership are operating, which the minister notes in his response to the committee's report. We heard from John Home Robertson, Paul Martin and the people who came to the committee's seminar in Glasgow that all is not well in places such as Glasgow. It was decided that in future quality partnerships and quality contracts might be needed. We raised that with the minister, who suggested in his letter that there might be a role for the regional transport partnerships, which are part of the bill. At stage 2, we spent time considering the functions of the RTPs. There might be further amendments on that issue.

I turn to some of the other issues from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The big success story is concessionary fares, as Margaret Smith said. Although they have been a success, certain issues have arisen. I believe that there was a sigh of relief when the minister announced that the 16 schemes would be replaced by a national scheme. We also know that, in the early days of those schemes, we had to make special pleas to ensure that express services, such as the ones from Stirling to Edinburgh or Glasgow, would be included in the concessionary scheme, even if that meant that a small amount of money had to be paid.

The evidence also revealed that there is no point in having a concessionary fares scheme if there is no service for people to use. In some areas, that is a problem, but that is balanced in other areas. For example, Arriva ran more buses between Glasgow and Largs than previously and had better buses overall, showing that concessionary fares can make a service better.

We also considered whether the ownership arrangements of a bus company affected its ability to operate effectively and invest in improvements and examined issues such as flexibility and how bus companies had been able to adjust in order to meet factors such as a new hospital opening up. In certain cases, the service had not been flexible. For example, we found that, even though a health centre in Glasgow had been closed, a bus service was still going there.

We found examples of innovation. In my constituency, the postbus that runs in Killin and some of the rural areas has been welcomed. We asked about low-level buses and the various investment procedures that companies are using. Brian Souter, FirstGroup and Lothian Buses were all clear about the ways in which they were investing and modernising.

We heard about the franchising system in London and were heartened to receive a letter from the minister that indicated that he will be talking with the Greater London Authority about its proposals.

We examined deregulation and heard about cherry picking. We also heard about the competition that followed deregulation and about the fact that facilities in some areas did not allow some companies to expand as they might have wanted to.

A question that has come out of this inquiry is how we can deal with market-based issues alongside the social aspects of a bus service. It cannot be said that there is a lack of input from the Scottish Executive. In one of his letters, the minister talked about the funding allocation of £235 million under the Executive's public transport fund. He also spoke about the £2.6 million that is being invested in the current financial year through the local government settlement for transport authorities to support socially necessary services. Bringing those two aspects together is the main issue before us.

I was pleased with the part of the inquiry that dealt with the Bus User Complaints Tribunal. Hopefully, with the minister's help, we will be able to examine how the tribunal's remit can be extended and how it can be given more teeth.

I commend the report to Parliament.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 01 Jun 2005

In the same item of business