3rd round of Scottish Zero Emission funding announced

[GusB]

We don’t know all the details on how bids have been scored and there are other criteria to be met but on the face of it McGills bid which is for Alexander Dennis vehicles provides more jobs in Scotland and therefore should rank higher than Embers (and be compliant as Embers coaches are not used on local services).

The term "local" is a bit misleading. This is what the government has to say:

Run a local bus service

Run a bus service in and out of London - registering, London Service Permit, bus registration, public service vehicle operator’s licence, PSV

www.gov.uk

A local bus service uses public service vehicles (PSVs) to carry passengers who pay separate fares over short distances.

The route can be any length, as long as passengers can get off within 15 miles (measured in a straight line) of where they got on.

(my bolding)

I can board an Ember service tomorrow and travel from Elgin to Forres, which is a local journey. The vehicle may be running from Aberdeen to Inverness, but it can still carry local passengers. The route is registered as limited stop, so it qualifies.

 

[158756]

What you seem to be suggesting is a public subsidy to remove competition..which as AFAIK not allowed under the Public Subsidy Control Act

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2026 ==

Whether it is legal or not, the Scottish Government effectively funding a bus war is bizarre. And history tells us that when all is said and done, Scottish coach passengers may well be the losers.

 

[davp]

Whether it is legal or not, the Scottish Government effectively funding a bus war is bizarre. And history tells us that when all is said and done, Scottish coach passengers may well be the losers.

A return to fewer services, inability to change tickets, no bikes or dogs, and frankly eye watering prices outwith the Central Belt.

I agree things will change at some point, but in the meantime coach travel in Scotland has never been better for passengers.

 

[scosutsut]

Not my area of expertise but in Manchester, TfGM have publicly stated that they want all new buses for the Bee Network to be British built. If they can do that then why not in Scotland ? (For the record they have bought BYD and Volvo BZLs but all recent orders seem to have been Wright / ADL).

Not mine either but from my research it appears as TfGM as a governmental department purchasing vehicles at market rate with their own budget, they are NOT subject to the Subsidy Act.

They are instead subject to Procurement Act rules, but that allows them to apply their own weightings on things like Social Value.

So they can't say "must be British built" but they CAN tip the scales to value UK job creation so high, it has the desired effect. This is legal.

ScotZEB3 WAS government subsidy, and therefore had to follow subsidy rules. Those rules are tighter. They couldn't have played the same game.

However this isn't the core of McGills argument. They are challenging they ScotZEB3 had significantly modified criteria from previous rounds, but the government signed it off as a minor modification and therefore failed to carry out a criteria reassessment, therefore the whole thing should be binned and started again, with that reassessment done.

Ironically, if McGills are successful in getting the whole thing thrown out, AD would lose 123 orders whilst the process was recommenced.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We don’t know all the details on how bids have been scored and there are other criteria to be met but on the face of it McGills bid which is for Alexander Dennis vehicles provides more jobs in Scotland and therefore should rank higher than Embers (and be compliant as Embers coaches are not used on local services).

Local bus services don't just mean urban bus services. The definition of a local service is where there's a stop at least every 15 miles. Ember run local services in exactly the same way Scottish CityLink do. In years gone by, National Express used to run quite a few local bus services too.

We don't know how the bids have been scored but electric long-distance bus services through rural areas aren't any less deserving of funding than the shorter-distance bus services that McGills operate.

Whether it is legal or not, the Scottish Government effectively funding a bus war is bizarre. And history tells us that when all is said and done, Scottish coach passengers may well be the losers.

It may or may not be a bus war, but it is between two commercial private operators and the government can't really take sides.

Do we know what Stagecoach are intending to use their 7 Yutong coaches for?

Have to smile at Sandy Easdale suddenly caring about taxpayer value.

 

[overthewater]

Stagecoach are suppose to be using the 7 Yutong coaches for route X7 Dundee to Aberdeen but it does provide a local service for plenty of people along that route. Of course Ember could use some of the coaches it won on the E17 so Government might have paid for both operators.

AGAIN, ember is starting brand new routes with these coaches, unlike other operators who are trying to upgrade existing routes.

 

[stevieinselby]

We don't know how the bids have been scored but electric long-distance bus services through rural areas aren't any less deserving of funding than the shorter-distance bus services that McGills operate.

Rural areas aren't any less deserving of general funding to support buses – but this funding is specifically to promote the roll-out of zero emissions buses, which under any sensible measure ought to be targeted at the areas of poor air quality. Swapping an urban diesel bus for electric will have a much bigger impact on improving the air quality for more people than introducing a new electric bus running on open roads through some of the least densely populated and least polluted parts of the western world.

 

[318266]

What you seem to be suggesting is a public subsidy to remove competition..which as AFAIK not allowed under the Public Subsidy Control Act

I am not all too familiar with that Act, but glancing at the guidance shows me 7 Principles that are to be adhered to, which I have analysed below wrt coaches in particular:

Principle A (common interest) is fulfilled by the congruent interest of decarbonising the Scottish coach network.

Principle B (proportionate and necessary) could arguably be fulfilled as the token amount of interest by the two other coach operators to decarbonise coach travel demonstrates that they are uninterested in full decarbonisation, and therefore supplying a large amount of vehicles to the sole main competitor is arguably necessary to accelerate decarbonisation that would not otherwise happen.

Principle C (designed to change economic behaviour of beneficiary) is fulfilled, as Ember is unlikely to be able to run as many planned routes as they ambition to without the subsidy.

Principle D (costs that would be funded anyway) is fulfilled, as Ember is unlikely to have bought the significant number of coaches otherwise.

Principle E (least distortive means of achieving policy objective) is arguably fulfilled as the other coach operators do not appear interested in purchasing more electric coaches at present, and indeed are either in the process or have very recently bought brand new diesel coaches where electric alternatives were available.

Principle F (competition and investment within the UK) is arguably fulfilled as competition would increase creating a wider market of coach companies to choose from, and there are no UK manufacturers of electric coaches.

Principle G (beneficial effects should outweigh any negative effects) is arguably fulfilled as the benefit of decarbonisation is global over the loss of revenue to diesel coach operators.

I can easily see how principles B, E, F and G could be contested in court with regard to such practice, however this has not been tested.