Scottish Government

SE Consultation on proposals for a Public Transport Users' Committee for Scotland (PTUC)

Introduction

1. The Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS) was established in May 2002 to advise Scottish Ministers on matters relating to the needs of disabled people in relation to transport and transport policy in Scotland. Our vision is of a Scotland where anyone with a mobility problem due to some physical, mental or sensory impairment can go where everyone else can and have the information and opportunities to do so. MACS provides long term strategic advice based on:

• balancing the needs of users with mobility problems and the problems experienced by providers in meeting these needs
• special consideration of the needs of disabled people who are unable to use existing passenger transport services

2. MACS notes the proposal to set up a Public Transport Users Committee (PTUC) and understands that in order to address the principles of best value and efficient government the Scottish Executive has set out to create one body which will be representative of all users of public transport. MACS acknowledges that there are merits in setting up such a body in Scotland but feels that neither of the options will achieve this. It also has difficulty with the proposals as they currently stand owing in some instances to the lack of clarity and detail as to how the proposals will be taken forward and the intended outcome from the creation of such a body. Therefore MACS is not in the position to support either option.

3. The information below expands on the reasons why MACS is taking this stance.

Option 1: Create one integrated high-level committee incorporating mode - specific sub committees

Agenda/Remit

4. The proposal under option 1 is for MACS to be a subcommittee of the main PTUC but the remit of MACS is much wider than the proposed remit of the PTUC. Fundamentally MACS functions differ from those of the proposed PTUC in that MACS remit extends beyond the realm of public transport and MACS does not primarily represent users of public transport. Rather MACS is more concerned with the barriers that prevent people from using transport and in bringing these to the attention of Scottish Ministers and transport operators to try to improve the mobility of disabled people. Some of the issues that MACS has dealt with in the past four years are listed in Annex A, highlighting the breadth of the issues MACS has dealt with. It would therefore appear to be unsuitable for a committee whose fundamental role is to represent users of public transport to consider issues such as the pedestrian environment, the role of private transport, community and demand responsive transport and the abuse of the Blue Badge Scheme.

5. There are issues within the mobility and access agenda that may on occasion either overlap with or be distinct from the PTUC agenda - see diagram below. The reality at present therefore is that MACS already considers issues within a wider context.

6. In 2005 the SE commissioned research to support their commitment to assessing public transport options for disabled people. MACS has been a member of the advisory steering group and the initial draft report indicates that there are unmet needs for transport for disabled people well outwith the realm of public transport. This has always been a factor that MACS has recognized and we feel it supports the need for a separate body to handle the transport needs of disabled people particularly as, for most transport planners, and the general public, the perception of public transport is that it relates primarily to the bus and secondly to the train. If as proposed the remit is to extend beyond a narrow definition of public transport we suggest that there is merit in changing the name of the proposed committee.

7. In moving the social inclusion agenda forward transport planners will need to consider the relevance of transport to health and social issues e.g. how do people with a mobility problem get to a hospital for an appointment or go to the bingo if conventional transport is inaccessible. This work is in its infancy and cuts across the remit of several of the Scottish Ministers e.g. Transport, Health and Communities. Given the complexity of a topic such as this MACS does not see how it could be progressed adequately within the remit of the PTUC.

8. In the light of the above MACS does not feel that its agenda can either equally or more readily be achieved within the context of a sub committee of the PTUC.

Form (User v Strategic body)

9. The suggestion within the consultation document is that the proposed PTUC could simultaneously represent users and provide strategic advice. MACS supports the need for consultation with users in the consideration of strategic issues such as those outlined in paragraph 35 however MACS concerns are that it will be difficult for a PTUC that is directly accountable to Scottish Ministers to be truly representative of users as there may be a conflict of interests. Therefore MACS feels that the membership of the PTUC should focus on an individual's ability to contribute at a strategic level.

10. The consultation document at paragraph 38 states that user representation on the proposed PTUC would only reflect the devolution settlement therefore, the reality is that there would always be an imbalance, as not all modes of transport will be covered whilst others will enjoy varying degrees of coverage. For example within the current proposals it appears that ferries will be represented by a strategic body whilst bus users will be represented by a complaints body and it appears there will be no explicit role for air or rail. Following the recent substantial increase in the rail responsibilities of Scottish Ministers under the Railways Act 2005 it seems that the proposals do not reflect these increased responsibilities.

11. The inclusion of the power to establish a PTUC in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 was as a direct result of Scottish Members of Parliament lobbying for the retention of a Rail Passengers Council for Scotland and a call from MSPs for a "representative body to take on the PLCs out there"[ 1]. As stated in paragraph 9 the proposed form now goes well beyond what was called for by members of the Scottish Parliament and it is unclear as to what purpose the PTUC will be able to serve.

12. Whilst MACS agrees that there is a need for a body to represent the users of transport the consultation document has not fully debated the likely outcomes from the creation of such a body. For example at paragraph 35 it is not clear how the PTUC would address integration, equal opportunities, accessibility, aggregate complaints, The National Transport Strategy and Concessionary Travel. Without this information MACS feels that it cannot support the proposal.

Structure

13. We, as a committee of 14 members and 3 secretariat, feel that it would be very difficult to take forward the existing functions of MACS as a sub committee of the PTUC. We appreciate that the number of committee members has not been discussed in the proposals but in keeping with the principles of best value and efficient government it is highly unlikely that a sub committee would be as large as the existing MACS membership. If PTUC follows a structure similar to that of MACS this leads to the assumption that a sub-committee of reduced numbers of say 4-5 persons would necessitate a reduction in the issues to be realistically taken forward i.e. the functions of MACS would be diminished.

14. There are concerns that if MACS were to communicate with Scottish Ministers through the PTUC then its advice to Ministers would also be diluted.

15. Also there is concern that the expertise of both the MACS members and the Secretariat will not readily be transferred given that appointments will need to go through the Public Appointments process. Any new body needs time to establish itself and agree working practices etc and the consultation document does not explain how the transfer of functions from MACS to the PTUC would be handled.

16. If the proposal to have mode specific sub committees was adopted the functions of MACS would straddle across each of these sub committees making consistency all the more difficult to achieve.

Relationship with Other Bodies

17. MACS currently has a working relationship with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC). The latter is the sister body of MACS in the UK and as such remains the representative body for the transport needs of disabled people in respect of matters that are reserved to the UK Government. The two bodies have agreed and published a concordat that set out the working practices between the two bodies. Recent collaborations have been in relation to EC Directives. If MACS was to be replaced as a sub committee of the proposed PTUC then it is difficult to see how the interaction with DPTAC would fall within the new body's remit. MACS also works closely with the DRC and other disability organisations in Scotland and it is difficult to see how the relationship could be developed further if MACS was a sub - committee of the PTUC.

Option 2: One Umbrella Body superimposed on the existing bodies

18. MACS sees merits in Option 2 if the proposal is to facilitate or manage a network of existing user groups. As previously stated in paragraph 9 of this response consultation with users in the development of strategic issues is extremely important. However MACS has difficulty with the words "superimposed" and "umbrella" and the message that this sends out. We have already demonstrated that the mobility and access issues, which MACS deals with, are wider than public transport user issues and therefore could not sit under the umbrella without a lessening of functions. Other bodies may have similar views.

19. In 1999 the Reid Howie report[ 2] "Transport Provision for Disabled People in Scotland" recommended a national group comprising transport providers, disabled people and policy makers be set up and subsequently in 2002 MACS was established. In 2004 the second Reid Howie report[ 3] recommended that a passenger watchdog should be developed to address key issues that emerge from users. The creation of a PTUC would therefore appear to address the latter recommendation.

20. The consultation document at paragraph 41 spells out the disadvantages of this option including duplication of remit and functions of the various bodies but with careful consultation this could be avoided and the PTUC could usefully address any gaps or conflicts of interest. However there is a lack of detail in the consultation document as to how this would be taken forward which prevents MACS from supporting this option at this moment in time.

21. In considering both the options MACS feels that the following comments are also relevant.

Timing

22. MACS feels that the timing is premature as there is no coherence yet regarding the National Transport Strategy, Regional Transport Partnerships and Local Transport Strategies. This is an area where MACS has sought to provide guidance to transport planners by publishing a document entitled "Transport Strategies: planning for inclusion" and as a result the committee is regularly asked to comment on draft strategies at all levels. MACS is committed to ensuring that any transport strategy takes account of the needs of disabled people and that it works towards improving the mobility of disabled people. Again it is difficult for MACS to see how this type of work could realistically be taken forward by PTUC.

23. We understand that the proposed timetable by the Scottish Executive is for the establishment of the PTUC to be taken forward in the course of the next 12 months however MACS feels that the interests of users would be better served by delaying the establishment of a PTUC until the numerous other changes that have been introduced by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 have bedded down. The effects of too much churn may lessen people's enthusiasm for such a body.

Legislative Changes

24. There are two important changes that will be introduced this year as a result of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. The first includes extending the law to cover the use of transport and MACS has been actively involved in assisting the DRC with the drafting of the Transport Code of Practice which is due to be published in April. The second is the new disability equality duty that will come into force for public bodies in Scotland in December 2006. In due course public authorities will be required to publish reports setting out an overview of progress made towards equality of opportunity for disabled persons including transport. MACS will need to stand ready to provide advice to Scottish Ministers on both these issues and it is difficult for MACS to envisage how this type of work will be taken forward effectively within the context of a PTUC. The Disability Equality Duty will apply to the PTUC as a public body and it will need to provide evidence to Scottish Ministers regarding equality of opportunity for disabled people. Any impact assessment would also have to look at how any move to abolish MACS or integrate it within PTUC would affect disabled people.

Statutory Framework

25. The consultation document at paragraph 38 suggests that it would be legally complicated to recreate MACS as a sub committee of PTUC. Our understanding is that neither the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 nor the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland Regulations 2002 and Amendment Regulations 2005 give Scottish Ministers the power to wind up MACS or transfer its functions to another body.

Membership

26. Membership of the PTUC will be very much influenced by its remit. If the intention is for passengers to be involved in high-level strategic issues then it is imperative that membership should focus on an individual's ability to contribute at a strategic level. As such the essential skills and knowledge should be similar to those required of a MACS member. The skills should include communication skills, the ability to work as part of a team and the ability to think both independently and strategically. The knowledge and understanding will be very dependent on the issues that are finally included within the remit of the PTUC.

27. From experience MACS would like to highlight two issues regarding membership. These relate to the demands placed on members' time as the issues the committee has become involved in over the past 4 years has expanded and the conflict that arises when a member is employed full time and is reliant on the goodwill of his/her employer to take forward MACS business e.g. attending meetings, conferences etc in working hours.

Conclusions

• MACS notes the proposals to set up a Public Transport Users Committee and recognises the potential merit in creating one body which will be representative of all users of passenger transport in Scotland. However it has difficulty with the title and the proposed remit, which it feels preclude MACS from either being a sub committee of the PTUC or being a member of an umbrella organisation. Therefore it does not support either option 1 or option 2 as currently proposed in the consultation document.
• MACS is still less than 4 years old and the achievement of its vision is currently a long way off and is not likely to be achieved any sooner with the establishment of a PTUC. Therefore it recommends that Mobility and Access issues continue to be handled separately for the next few years outwith the confines of a Public Transport Users Committee.
• Based on the assumption that Scottish Ministers will create a PTUC albeit it that it may be in a different format from the one currently proposed, MACS suggests that it provides advice to the PTUC on mobility and access issues in the initial period. As arrangements will need to be put in place to accommodate a working relationship with ATUC and Passenger Focus, we suggest that similar arrangements are put in place between the PTUC and MACS.
• Thereafter MACS suggests that the SE reviews the position in 5-10 years once mobility and access issues have been imbedded in the National Transport Strategy, RTPs etc. with a view to further consideration being given to whether mobility and access issues should be fully incorporated into any existing PTUC at this stage.
• We have not offered any alternative suggestions as to how a Public Transport Users Committee should be structured owing to the lack of clarity with the agenda and remit of the PTUC as currently proposed.

Finally MACS does not feel that it is in the position to comment on how other bodies will be affected by the proposals.