Type of Services

We sought opinion on our proposal to include in scope of the proposed regulations all bus services registered with the Traffic Commissioner, or the Local Authority/Regional Transport Partnership for a franchise area. This would include all commercial public bus services, either running to a fixed, regular timetable, bus services which have the option of missing out or including parts of a route e.g. demand responsive transport, and some community bus services which may or may not require a fare be paid. This would mean that some types of bus service would be outside of the scope of the legislation, for example, the majority of ‘closed door’ school buses, substitute buses (for example, replacement rail services) and long-distance coach services, where the stops are over fifteen miles apart.

We asked:

The question then listed six other types of bus service which do not require registration with the Traffic Commissioner to operate and allowed for an ‘other’ response. The six service types which would be out of scope were:

• Long-distance services where passengers cannot get off within fifteen miles;
• School or college bus services if the only passengers who pay fares are either studying at a school or college, supervising pupils or students, or teachers or assistants working at the school or college;
• Substitution services for railway services which have been temporarily interrupted, provided under an agreement entered into with the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the National Assembly for Wales;
• Not for profit community transfer services operated under a section 19 permit;
• Excursions or tours, except those that operate at least once a week for a period of at least six consecutive weeks;
• Free services where travel on a vehicle is not dependent on a payment of separate fares, for example some supermarkets contract operators to provide a free service to bring customers to their stores. Provided no fares are charged and a passenger can travel on the vehicle without obligation it is likely that the service will not require to be registered.

Of the seventy-six responses received, 41% of respondents agreed with the position that only services which require registration should be in scope of the proposed Regulations. A further 9% of respondents gave no view and 50% did not agree, predominantly on the basis that some of the excluded services should be included. One individual advised that they did not agree with the proposal but gave no comment nor provided any additional information about what changes they would like to see.

Table 1: Responses to Scope of the new Regulations

Response	Percentage	Number
Agree	41	31
Don't agree	50	38
Didn't answer	9	7

Of those which did not agree with the proposal, the majority (thirty-five responses) were in favour but with an expanded list, going beyond just registered services. Within this category, thirty-five respondents wish to see long distance coach services included in scope, as did three of responses which had selected ‘agree’. Seven were keen to include school services, ten wished to include rail replacement services, two responses requested that excursions and coach tours be included, nine responses would like to include free ‘shopping centre’ type buses in scope and five responses used the ‘other’ field to clarify or expand on the list directly.

Within the ‘other’ category, one response sought the removal of Section 19 Community Transport services from scope, while another advocated for the inclusion of all types of community transport services. One response from an individual noted that whether a fare is paid does not correlate with how used or needed a service is and could keep useful information out of the public domain where it could benefit passengers. One public body requested that other modes (such as train and ferry information) be included in scope to allow for more integrated journey planning generally; and one re-stated the case for long distance coaches to be included.

We agree that Section 19 services should not be within scope, as the diversity of such services means it would be neither practical nor appropriate;

- Community Transport Association

Although they did not provide a direct response to the consultation, ATCO Scotland region subsequently met with Transport Scotland officials to discuss the views of local authorities. ATCO raised the issue, while also caveating it as the “minority of cases”, where a local authority directly procures coaches or minibuses as school transport which would be out of scope, as a private hire arrangement. The authority then registers this as a local service, putting them back into scope, likely as a Section 22 licenced route. This occurs in rural and low population areas where a town or village may have little or no commercial provision, and registration allows anyone in that town or village to use the service, procured for another (not for profit) purpose, normally for free. As it is the local authority providing the service in those cases, it would be the local authority which is responsible for registering the route with the Traffic Commissioner, and would therefore also be responsible for providing the required information to Scottish Ministers.

“We feel that these services could benefit from having their data made accessible more widely to allow potential passengers to better understand and utilise them. We don’t believe enough people are considering long distance coaches as a travel option”.…

• A passenger group on including long distance coaches

As the Primary legislation around BOD only applies to buses, it is not possible to use the provisions of the 2019 Act to include other transport modes at this time, however improving information about services across all modes is already a long term aim for Transport Scotland, as supported by the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board (NSTAB).

It is clear that a large number of individuals and organisations are keen to see long distance coaches included in scope, particularly in rural areas, with one response giving examples of specific long-distance routes (Inverness to Ullapool, Glasgow to Uig, Inverness to Kinlochbervie) that provide an essential service but which might be out of scope.

Having considered the response and the case made, it is clear that long distance coaches should be included in scope. However, due to the fact that long distance services are not required to register with an overseeing body, Transport Scotland has no means to access information about the scale, number, or operations of these services, which would prevent a formal Business Regulatory Impact Assessment from being undertaken. It is not possible to set legislation where the impact of the change has not been accounted for and may result in unintended consequences.

Rather than delay this legislation to undertake that necessary baselining and engagement work, Transport Scotland will commit to undertaking that work in parallel with the current Regulations. We will then progress work to agree either voluntary information exchange with the long distance coach sector, or to include long distance coaches in future statute, once the sector has been fully mapped out.

Similarly, a small number of responses were keen to include rail replacement services in the data provided. In Scotland these would predominantly be provided by ScotRail, and we believe that through direct engagement between Transport Scotland, Scottish Rail Holdings and ScotRail, we can achieve this without having to set statute which applies to replacement services, which will allow for the information to be provided faster and more flexibly at this stage.