---

Local Transport

The hon. Gentleman is right, but he should not forget that the Government punted the issue into the long grass by referring it to the Lyons committee, which did not need to consider it. We have been discussing an excellent report that makes sensible recommendations and is the result of detailed analysis. The report makes interesting criticisms of the Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to several of those points. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley said, before we look at the report in a great deal of depth, it is instructive to explain the context of the situation and some of the promises that the Government have made over the past 10 years. The infamous transport plan of 2000 hangs like a millstone round the neck of Ministers as they pass in and out of the Department for Transport. The plan promised 200 major local road improvements and 70 bypasses. I am sure that the Minister will tell us exactly how many of those improvements and bypasses have been funded and built. On heavy rail, the plan said that the Government would provide new capacity to meet new demand and to improve the quality of services—two more failures there. The plan promised to"““fund a substantial increase in the role of light rail in our larger cities and conurbations over the next ten years.””" It went on to promise 25 new light rail schemes. Later, the Minister will be able to stand up and count on the fingers of her left hand the number of light rail routes that have been introduced under the Government. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley made the point that funding approval has been revoked or turned down over the past couple of years for schemes in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and south Hampshire. Indeed, when the Transport Committee examined the matter in the last Session, it highlighted the clear tension that existed between local and central Government on light rail. Its report said:"““Disappointment over the Department’s decision to revoke funding for some Major Schemes has raised the profile of the relationship between the Department and local authorities in the context of projects such as light rail. There was severe criticism of the Department's decision to reject schemes which local authorities had judged to comply with national transport strategy and priorities, and present good value for money.””" That report echoes some of the criticisms about which we have heard today. The Department for Transport’s changes to, and delays in, policy have added significantly to the cost of various schemes, and its value-for-money criteria are, at best, opaque. Local authorities have pointed out that they had little idea of what the Department was trying to achieve, of why their light rail schemes had been rejected, and of what they needed to do to get those schemes approved. Many of the targets in the 10-year transport plan that were set out in 2000 have not been achieved, and now the targets have been quietly dropped and are nothing more than aims. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that local transport was a partnership. It is key to vibrant local communities and the lifeblood of local economies. The local transport that is provided in an area can define the area, its community and its economy. Local authorities are responsible for the provision and funding of such transport, but the funding comes from both local and central Government—that is the partnership. The interrelation between those two aspects of government defines how effectively transport is delivered. Whatever the Government’s plans for the funding of local authority transport, one must hope, in the spirit of partnership, that they are somewhat better, and have more longevity, than the 10-year plan that was produced in 2000. The Government have talked a lot about devolving power to local authorities, but the harsh reality for many local councils is that the Government are imposing more responsibilities on them without the requisite extra funding. The fact remains that when it comes to transport, local authorities’ freedom of manoeuvre is woefully inadequate, as authorities are entitled to bid for central Government money for local schemes that meet local priorities only if those local priorities are in accordance with the Department for Transport’s diktat. That is one of the clear themes that comes through in the Select Committee report. In 2000, alongside the 10-year plan, the Government introduced a new framework for transport planning by local authorities, the local transport plan, and that is the essence of what the report is considering. The local transport plan imposed on authorities the obligation to produce a local transport plan every five years. The first phase was 2001-02 to 2005-06, and the next round, which is taking place at the moment, is 2006-07 to 2010-11. A notable feature of the local transport plan’s first round has been the cost associated with the plans’ production. The Select Committee report cites the average cost as being between £50,000 and £200,000 per county council; in metropolitan areas, the cost is significantly greater. The report comments that the second round of the local transport plans has continued that trend. The Committee says that the production of Manchester’s second-round local transport plan is reckoned to cost some £500,000. One wonders how much that would buy. How many improvements could be made to buses in Manchester town centre or on the Oxford road corridor for that amount? Yet that is just the cost of preparation. The preparation costs for the scheme are at a level that raises questions about the scheme’s benefits. Are the local transport plan production costs proportionate to the investment secured, or the new transport schemes delivered? I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), talk about the proportionality of costs. In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about delivery, and the report is scathing on the subject of the delivery of transport improvements. Its conclusion is that little has been delivered, despite the capital investment made. To quote the report,"““The gap between what was anticipated and what has been delivered in terms of local transport improvements makes it difficult to judge what has actually been achieved.””" Furthermore, it says that"““on the existing evidence it is disappointing that there were not more transport improvements delivered””." The Government’s response to that criticism was to comment that there have been ““substantial improvements””; I am sure that the Minister will expand on that in her speech, but there was no qualification or quantification of the statement. It is instructive to note that the other knee-jerk response, which is to say, ““We’ve put the matter out to consultants, who will issue a report””, was used, too. How long will that take, and how much will it cost? It is clear that the costs of producing local transport plans must have diminished the delivery of improvements. The guidance to local authorities has at times hindered the delivery of those plans, too. On that subject, there is criticism in the report about the guidance, but the Government’s guidance is often less than transparent on other occasions as well. I was alerted to that particular feature of the Department’s performance last week, in a slightly different context, when I spoke to the councillor responsible for transport for Christchurch borough council. When concessionary bus fares for senior citizens were introduced last year—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) mentioned that earlier—local authorities were warned by the Government that they would have to notify bus operators of the arrangements for reimbursing them four months in advance of the April start date, or they might face action against them. The only trouble was that the Department issued the guidance in mid-January. We have spoken about first-round costs, but it looks like the second-round plans will incur extra costs, as the Department for Transport has issued revised guidance. Clearly, there has been recognition that the guidance associated with the first-round plans needed change and revision, but the Department’s failure to alert local authorities to the fact that revised guidance was being introduced has undoubtedly caused a number of local authorities extra problems with delivery, and has resulted in extra costs for their bid preparation. The Select Committee report highlights that, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response on that point. The Department believes that the second round of guidance on plan preparation is less prescriptive than the first, but it is the only body that believes that; the view is shared by no one else. The Local Government Association said that the prescriptive nature of the guidance altered the relationship between the Department and councils. The reality is that although the Government provide extra funding through local transport plans—I shall come on to that in a moment—they seek, too, to override the local aspect of those plans. They speak about local plans and local action, but they are a centralising Government. It is possible to have a local plan if it fits central Government requirements, and that trait has become even more evident in the transport innovation fund that the Government have introduced. The Select Committee’s report rightly makes the point that over-prescription of guidance has increased the costs and production time of local transport plans, without creating any greater certainty about funding, fulfilment, or indeed about delivery. What should a local transport plan comprise? Should it best reflect the needs of the local community and the local authority, or should it recognise the uniqueness of a local area, bearing in mind the fact that areas differ from one another? The answer is yes, but not in the Department for Transport. In 2002, the Department supposedly shared with local authorities priorities such as accessibility, congestion, air quality and road safety. Those are the Department’s priorities, because it believes that local authorities are responsible for ““delivering national transport objectives.”” If those four priorities reflect the priorities of local authorities, all is well. If they do not, the Government will use them to restrict what local authorities can implement, and much has been made today of the fact that regeneration criteria have been left out of those plans. The over-prescription and overriding of local priorities is highlighted by the fact that the revised guidance contains 16 pages on shared priorities—namely, the Government’s priorities—and only two on other local priorities. Yet again, the Committee’s report consistently highlights the fact that the Government speak about localising but act by centralising. Local authorities do not believe that they are free to set their own priorities; they believe that local transport plans are scored on how well it delivers national, Department for Transport-set priorities. If local transport plans are to deliver local objectives, the Government must revise their guidance one more time. It must be less prescriptive, and it must ensure that the scoring procedure for the weighting of local priorities against national priorities is transparent. That recommendation is highlighted in the report. The Government’s most recent transport scheme—the transport innovation fund—also highlights their centralising nature. It was announced in July 2004, and when it was re-announced in 2006, the Secretary of State announced that would be available only for packages aimed at tackling congestion and schemes that met productivity objectives. Yet again, the Government have centrally governed and micro-managed local transport. No one can be in any doubt that transport funding, via the transport innovation fund, is anything other than a national pot of money that carries national obligations for any local authority wishing to access it. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East rightly made that point earlier. I shall quote the Committee report one more time. It says that TIF"““is nationally administered and bypasses the strategic frameworks provided by Local Transport Plans and regional transport strategies…it represents a move away from local determination.””" The theme continues throughout the report. The Government are not concerned about local priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is no longer in the Chamber, but on my visit to Southend, the councillors and officers of Southend borough council told me that they need to access funds for their local transport plan and, indeed, for a number of local transport improvements, but that they have no need for a congestion scheme. However, it is clear to them that if they do not include such a scheme in their TIF bid, they will not receive TIF funding. TIF is not"““about local choice or local schemes…It is not about innovation; it is about central control.””" Excellent words, excellent summary; thanks once again to the Select Committee. The Select Committee makes some interesting points about funding in its report. First, it points out that in 2001-02 to 2005-06 there was an increase in capital funding available for transport. That is to the Government’s credit. What is not yet clear is whether the increased capital resources in period 1 will necessarily be renewed into period 2. Paragraph 15 of the Government’s response states:"““The Government has set planning guidelines for investment in both block funding and major schemes that increase significantly””," but elsewhere the Department states that authorities are encouraged to deliver their second round of local transport plan targets on the assumption that there are no new major projects funded by the Department. On one hand there is the promise of extra funding, and on the other the Government explicitly deny that it is available. As other hon. Members noted, the Department for Transport indicated that there would be extra capital funds for major schemes. During the first phase of local transport plans, the Government would not fund schemes below £5 million out of the budget, and authorities were not allowed to spend more than £5 million on a scheme without Government approval—a point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley earlier. That resulted in a number of decisions being taken out of local authority control, where they might more properly have been made. It resulted in local authorities struggling to find funds to enable major schemes, and the limit of £5 million requiring central approval meant significant cost and time to prepare a bid. I recognise, as does the whole House, that the Department for Transport must ensure that the funding for schemes offers value for money, and that there must necessarily be a robust appraisal, but it is also clear that the bidding process is costly and in a number of cases diminishes the amount of funding available for delivery. The Department has stated that it is necessary for local authorities to undertake an appropriate level of appraisal work. True, but as the Select Committee report highlights the fact that it can cost 5 to 15 per cent. of the total cost of the project just to get a scheme to the stage where it can be presented to the Department for analysis, surely the Minister will agree with everyone else in the House and with the Select Committee report that that is suboptimal, especially as the report states:"““Rejected bids are likely to increase in number.””" The process is costly, and it is not clear whether there will be new central funding for major schemes between 2006 and 2011. The Government appear to be indicating that they will consider only major schemes already at provisional approval stage, and have said that it should be assumed that no new major schemes will be funded. That will inevitably undermine the efforts of local authorities to transform and revitalise their local transport networks. Yet again, the Government are talking big but failing to deliver, and talking local but centralising in action.