Building 25

Inverness Airport
IV2 7JB

02 December 2014

Tel: 01667 460464

Fax: 01667 460468
info@hitrans.org.uk
www.hitrans.org.uk

Dear Mr Gray,
HITRANS RESPONSE TO PROPOSALS FOR A BUS REGULATION (SCOTLAND)
BILL BY IAIN GRAY MSP
The Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership (HITRANS) welcomes the opportunity to
contribute to the consultation on proposals for a Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill.
Please find a copy of HITRANS submission attached to this covering letter.

Yours Sincerely

Ranald Robertson
Partnership Director

Consultation on proposals for a Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill by Iain Gray MSP

The Highlands & Islands Transport Partnership (HITRANS) welcomes the opportunity to
provide comments on the proposal for a Bill to provide transport authorities with greater powers
to set service levels for local bus services, including power to group profitable routes with nonprofitable routes before they are put out to tender with operators.
HITRANS is the statutory Regional Transport Partnership for the Highlands and Islands of
Scotland. Working with its five constituent Councils (Highland Council; Moray Council; Orkney
Islands Council; Western Isles Council and Argyll and Bute Council).
The HITRANS area covers more than half of Scotlands land mass. Despite the geographic scale
of the region it is home to less than 10% of the nations population. The area includes the fast
growing city of Inverness and other major settlements such as Elgin, Oban, Fort William Thurso
and Nairn. A sizeable and growing population resides in our island communities. The area is
particularly reliant on all modes of transport and journeys are often longer than elsewhere in
Scotland for people seeking to access services and travel to work and education.
HITRANS is charged with developing and delivering a strategy and promoting improvements to
the transport services and networks that serve the region. The organisation takes an integrated and
inclusive approach by consulting with partner organisations, stakeholder groups and the business
community to achieve its objective of enhancing the regions viability by improving the
interconnectivity of the whole region to strategic services and destinations.
HITRANS works closely with our partner Councils and other stakeholders including transport
operators to deliver initiatives that ultimately aim to bring the best possible transport services and
networks to the region. We are currently working closely with a range of partners to develop a
project that we hope will lead to the implementation of a Statutory Quality Partnership on bus
services in Inverness. This will aim to build on successful voluntary quality partnership working
in the area.
We have considered each of the questions posed in the consultation paper and our response to
each is detailed in the points below:
1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill?
Yes. HITRANS recognises that the current arrangement for delivering bus services can fail to
protect those that depend on local services. We recognise the significant social problems that
can occur due to lack of public transport provision and the isolation and lack of opportunity that
can result, particularly in rural areas but also in towns and urban areas, particularly in the
evenings and at weekends.
HITRANS generally supports the principles and aims of the proposed Bill, to provide transport
authorities with the power to enter into franchising agreements with bus operators to deliver bus
services, however we are unclear how the proposals would be implemented in practice, what

they would deliver beyond mechanisms currently available and the cost implications of
franchising.
2. What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed?
The main advantage of the proposals would potentially be a more stable bus network. Greater
stability in the network would provide greater clarity to the travelling public as well as the
maintenance of bus links that may otherwise be lost. Greater integration of services and
reducing the barriers to the introduction of multi-operator ticketing arrangements would also
have significant benefits. Opportunities to specify other factors of the bus network such as fares
and the quality of vehicles could also help to contribute to wider objectives, such as improving
air quality as well as potentially improving the perception of bus travel.
However, whilst these advantages could all be achieved, they could only be delivered through
potentially significant increases in public funding for bus services. The example of London is
given with the recognition that the system there is supported by a high level of public subsidy.
Local authorities currently have powers through tendering procedures to take more control in
determining what services should be provided and specifying the routes, standard and quality of
services and fares. HITRANS supports the aim to provide transport authorities with greater
powers to require operators to provide a minimum level of service, however this power is already
available through provisions for statutory Quality Partnerships and Quality Contracts and we are
unclear how the proposals would add to or change these powers. The main barrier to securing
better bus services is all too often a financial constraint.
HITRANS agrees that greater clarity or a relaxation of the requirements around proving market
failure would perhaps be helpful in terms of not waiting until the complete failure of a service
before efforts can be made at initiating improvements, however we dont believe that this is the
only barrier to establishing Quality Contracts. The cost and risk to the local authorities of taking
on the delivery of local services in this manner is also a significant barrier.
There is also a risk that private sector innovation, for example in the areas of marketing and
promotion, may be stifled unless franchise agreements can be set up to retain some degree of
operator flexibility and incentivisation.
3. In what ways do you envisage re-regulation being used to improve bus services?
Re-regulation could bring greater service integration and greater network stability as well as
improvements in vehicle quality and greater control over fares charged, all of which could
address wider objectives of the public sector such as improving air quality, reducing social
exclusion and encouraging mode shift. However, as stated above, such changes would come at
a potentially significant cost and risk to the franchising authority.
We support the aim to provide transport authorities with greater powers to compel operators to
provide a minimum level of service, however powers to specify services and fill gaps in provision
are already available to local authorities through the tendering process.
4. How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communities and
particularly low passenger volume routes?
Community transport and demand responsive transport both have a key role to play in the
overall public transport network, particularly for people in rural areas and those who are unable
to use other public transport services.

A number of demand responsive and community transport services operate in the Highlands
and Islands. Many of these services are supported by the local authorities. There is a wide
range to the size, scope and scale of these community transport services across the region.
What is common across all these services is that they are very flexible and local in their nature
and focus. There is a clear role for them in the provision of rural transport services and more
can be done to increase this role in terms of developing social enterprise operations that can
feed into the commercial network. To do this requires nurturing and support and ultimately this
will require financial support.
Although we support the statement that the importance of community transport and dial a bus
services must also be considered when thinking about how transport can operate more
effectively for everyone it is difficult to envisage how discretionary powers to transport authorities
to enter into bus service franchise agreements would have any material effect on community
transport.
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?
Any franchise agreement would require a contract between the franchising authority and the
operator with appropriate contractual elements to be included within it to account for such
situations with appropriate penalties to ensure compliance. It may be appropriate for the Traffic
Commissioner to have a role in the enforcement and arbitration, in the case of dispute, of
agreements although this should not be the only means of redress available to the contracting
authority who should be able to impose sanctions using the appropriate provisions within the
contract.
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 HTRANS does not operate or tender any public transport services nor does it have access to
detailed financial / cost information on the commercial bus network we do not have a detailed
insight into the likely financial implications of entering into franchise agreements. However,
based on experience from elsewhere, significant additional cost would be anticipated and be
dependent on the scale of the franchise, the level of service / quality specified, the infrastructure
required and the level of interest shown by prospective operators. Increased bus monitoring
would also be required to ensure operators are adhering to the terms and conditions of the
agreement and this would require additional resource from the franchising authority.
Currently our partner Councils have a duty, under sections 63-64 of the Transport Act 1985, to
secure the provision of such passenger transport services as it considers appropriate to meet
any public transport requirements in its area which would not, in its view, be met apart from
action on its part. In many areas, including the Highlands and Islands budget pressures mean
that there has been a reducing budget available within local authorities to provide these services
and a consequent reduction in the level of service provided.
The comparison provided in the proposal of subsidy in the rail industry in comparison to bus is a
stark statistic and, along with the comparison with the London system, highlights a key issue
which is lack of funding both at a national and local level for provision of bus networks.

7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for
equality?
If the proposals were to result in more comprehensive bus networks, providing services to areas
and parts of the community that do not currently have good access, enhances the quality of the
fleet in terms of accessibility and addresses current local concerns regarding fares, then this
would have significant positive benefits for equality of access.

8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need for
or detail of this Bill?
As outlined at the beginning of our response HITRANS is currently developing proposals that we
hope will see the first statutory Quality Partnership delivered on bus services in our area. This
project if achieved will follow on from a long period of partnership working on a voluntary basis.
The catalyst that has given confidence to HITRANS, Highland Council and operating partner
Stagecoach to seek to develop this approach has been the announcement by Government of the
Bus Investment Fund. This has bred optimism and confidence to focus on the development of a
project that if successful in a bid to the Fund will deliver a quality framework through which each
partner will have a strong role to play in a partnership approach that will focus on delivering
better, more punctual and more efficient bus services to passengers. To a degree this highlights
the important role finance and public funding has on the quality of passenger transport services.
This is likely to be even more acutely the case in a franchising environment.
Budget constraints have already been given sharp focus by the difficulties faced by local
authorities in enacting the existing tools they have at their disposal to mitigate against the impact
of the withdrawal of commercial bus services in their areas. The introduction of franchising
powers may very well lead to an expectation that bus services will inevitably improve however
this might not be the case within the confines of existing funding arrangements.