Bus Regulation (Scotland Bill) Response by SCOTS

1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate
yes/no/undecided and explain the reasons for your response.
The answer is very much geographically dependent as current patterns of service,
operation and funding vary widely across Scotland. For example, in major urban areas,
where there is mostly commercial provision, there are still significant gaps and instances
of commercial service contraction over recent years. In rural areas, where the vast
majority of services are subsidised by the public purse or indeed provided by the
voluntary and community sectors, there remain many communities who receive a poor
service or no service at all.
However, the principles of the Bill, namely to provide greater stability, co-ordination, and
integration of bus services, and better quality, and for transport authorities to have
greater influence, are to be welcomed.
2. What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What
would be the disadvantages?
SCOTS welcomes the principle of ensuring transport authorities have the flexibility to
have greater control over bus services in their area as they see fit, which would reflect
the significant investment made by transport authorities in bus.
Transport authorities having more powers in setting minimum service levels and
standards is to be welcomed, although SCOTS would ask that it is noted that in areas
where the majority of the network is already subsidised, this is already the case.
Greater powers for the Traffic Commissioner are to be welcomed in principle, however,
there may be resource implications for the TC in doing so.
More legislative flexibility to maximise the effective utilisation of local authority fleets in
providing public transport services is also welcomed.
The proposal to remove the need to demonstrate market failure prior to a Quality
Contract is a welcome move towards more positive and meaningful partnership in the bus
industry, although a robust basis for implementation of a QC must be retained and more
clarity is required on what exactly this would entail.
The proposal regarding bundling (cross-subsidy) of profitable / non-profitable routes and
the potential for franchising is attractive, but nevertheless would come with range of
significant caveats e.g. potential costs (and risk allocation), legislative challenge, urban /
rural approaches (as mentioned in our response to Q1), potential market distortion.
Clarity would be required on all of these to aid understanding of the exact model being
proposed and the implications of doing so.

Page 1 of 3

3. In what ways do you envisage reregulation being used to improve bus services?
Full re-regulation i.e. a return to the pre-1985 Transport Act model is now likely to be
price-prohibitive in terms of cost to the public purse, although the concept of franchising
or a more effective agreement model is most certainly worthy of further consideration
but as noted above would come with significant caveats.
It is increasingly evident that there is a momentum for change within bus in Scotland. Any
potential interventions must be subject to robust, objective analysis of costs and benefits
prior to their adoption. Of utmost importance is the need to ensure that the people and
communities of Scotland get the level of bus service they need to fulfil their economic and
social potential wherever they are.
4. How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communities and
particularly low passenger volume routes?
The Community Transport sector has a crucial role to play in the future of bus service
delivery in Scotland, but it is important that this is done in a manner which is effective, coordinated, and has appropriate governance, safety, training and quality standards in
place.
5. Do you agree that the Traffic Commissioner should be able to impose greater
financial penalties on operators who a) fail to meet the terms of the franchise or b)
walk away from the franchise altogether?
The business case for the imposition of financial or other - penalties under any future
regulatory regime must be robust and justifiable, and it is therefore vital that more
analysis and greater detail is available regarding the proposals within the Bill to assess
this.
6. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to
you or your organisation? What other significant financial implications are likely to
arise?
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this response, more detail and analysis is required
about the proposed regulatory model and framework and its impact on the ground prior to
being able to provide a comprehensive assessment of the financial implications.
However, at this stage, it could be said that the likely costs associated with bringing in
greater regulation through a franchised model of service provision could be significant for
the public purse.
Furthermore, there would need to be clarity about where the funding to support effective
and equitable implementation of any proposed changes was coming from.
It is also worth noting that there is the potential for significant and lengthy - legal
challenges from those negatively impacted by the proposals and the costs of dealing with
these issues could again be significant.

Page 2 of 3

7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications
for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this
be minimised or avoided?
A more effective regulatory regime has the potential to deliver a more stable,
comprehensive, integrated, and socially responsible bus network, which in turn could only
benefit all equality groups and excluded communities. Indeed, the impacts of an ageing
population, and the fact that not everyone can access a bus it is estimated that there
are 300m unfulfilled bus journeys in Scotland each year should be considerations as
the debate continues on the future of the bus market and associated regulation.
8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need for or
detail of this Bill?
SCOTS would welcome the opportunity to discuss our response further.

Page 3 of 3