Examination of witnesses (Questions 400
- 419)
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2000
SIR RICHARD
MOTTRAM, MR
JOHN BALLARD,
MR TOM
ADAMS and MR
ALAN EVANS
Mrs Ellman
400. Will the Department be implementing the
Urban Task Force recommendation to spend at least 65 per cent
of its transport budget on public transport, for example, walking
and cycling?
(Sir Richard Mottram) At least 65 per cent of the
total transport budget?
401. Yes.
(Sir Richard Mottram) I think that depends on decisions
we have yet to take about the make-up of the total transport budget
in future years.
402. Who will be taking those decisions?
(Sir Richard Mottram) The Government will be taking
them in the context of the 10-year transport plan.
403. When?
(Sir Richard Mottram) It will be announced in July.
404. Who in Government will be taking them?
(Sir Richard Mottram) My Department will be taking
them in agreement with other Departments.
405. What recommendations are you now making
for those announcements?
(Sir Richard Mottram) We are developing a 10-year
transport plan with Ministers and I am not really in a position
to say what that plan will consist of.
406. Is your Department recommending that this
recommendation be accepted in formulating the transport policy?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I am not prepared to say what
is going to be in the 10-year transport plan.
Chairman
407. And you do not know what your Department
is recommending?
(Sir Richard Mottram) No, I do not want to say what
my Department is recommending either. We are right in the middle
of this process of finalising the 10-year transport plan and related
public expenditure provision in the spending review 2000 period.
To be honest with you, I am not really in a position to say what
will be the outcome of that process.
Mrs Dunwoody
408. Yes, but with respect, Sir Richard, that
is not actually what you were asked. You were asked whether it
was the Department's intention to support the undertaking of one
of the Task Forces that you yourselves are responsible for in
the debate.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Correct.
409. That is not whether you think you are going
to win and it is not whether you tell us what your priorities
are going to be, but it is whether you are actually supporting
one of your own Task Forces that said that 65 per cent of the
money should go towards public transport. I think that is rather
different. I do not quite think you can hide behind, "I am
not telling you because I am in the middle of negotiations".
(Sir Richard Mottram) I am not hiding behind anything.
I do not have absolutely on the top of my head what the 65 per
cent applied to. Was it all transport expenditure or was it local
transport expenditure? I do not know, so I will have to go away
and look at that. Even when I look at it I am not in a position
to answer that question because we will formulate our answer to
the Urban Task Force's recommendation in the way in which the
Government collectively determines the right balance of transport
expenditure both over the next three years and in the 10-year
transport plan.
410. So the answer is in effect no, you are
not supporting it?
(Sir Richard Mottram) No. It is neither yes nor no.
It is work in progress. I am not in a position to reveal that
work in progress.
Mrs Ellman
411. Would you accept that public transport
is an important part of the urban renaissance as put forward in
the Task Force report?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I would absolutely accept that
it is and I think that if you look at the range of things which
the Department has been trying to do then that shows the priority
that we now give to public transport. If we go back to the point
that was raised earlier, we are very keen to generate integration,
to generate much more choice for people in relation to transport,
and the way to generate more choice for people in relation to
transport is to invest in public transport. If you look at what
we have been doing for instance, as is shown in this report, you
can see that across the piste we are now putting more money into
local transport plans, into some high profile public transport
projects, in Manchester, in the Midlands and so on.
Mr Gray
412. If you are not prepared for it to go to
65 per cent, will you at least tell us what the current figure
is?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I do not know what it is.
413. So for all you know it may be 65 already?
(Sir Richard Mottram) It could be. I do not know what
the 65 was in the Urban Task Force report.
414. It was 65 per cent of the total expenditure
on public transport, walking and cycling.
(Sir Richard Mottram) The Committee know what it is
currently. The answer is 55, is it?
Mr Gray: I was just interested whether you knew
or not.
Dr Ladyman
415. The local transport settlement for this
year included nearly 90 per cent of the major projects are roads.
Do you see that balance changing in the future?
(Sir Richard Mottram) One of the reasons why we had
that result was that the major projects are projects over five
million. In a number of the public transport non-road projects,
if you understand my Irish, that might be included in local transport
plans for the future. When we appraised them with the local authorities
there were issues which we wanted to discuss further with them.
The outcome this year is not necessarily a prediction of what
will happen in the future. I cannot say to you what proportion
of the future major project expenditure over five million pounds
will be roads or non-roads because we have not yet decided that.
We will decide it over time in a dialogue with local authorities
using appraisal systems which properly evaluate non-roads and
roads projects.
416. So on what basis were the recent press
articles that the Comprehensive Spending Review is going to see
a huge increase in road building? What was their basis?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I have no idea. The Department's
policy is that what we need is a substantial increase in transport
investment and we need that across all modes and big priorities
for the Department would therefore be non-road expenditure. What
is quite clear is that some of the 10-year plan would, I expect,
involve road expenditure because, subject to the outcome of the
multi-merger studies, for example, I expect there would be a case
developing for some road expenditure, but all these press reports
are speculation.
417. So when Lord Macdonald told us that "priorities
are unchanged" you will not be expecting to see some of the
shelved road schemes like the Salisbury Bypass being taken off
the shelf again?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I would not expect the Salisbury
Bypass to be taken off the shelf because in the case of the Salisbury
Bypass other ways of dealing with the local transport issues that
that was going to deal with have been formulated and I expect
they will probably go ahead. What we are trying to do is implement
the framework that was set out in the 1998 White Paper. What that
framework was about was more choice, more investment across the
piece, to give people a chance to choose. It was not about there
being no investment in roads because after all it included a road
investment programme.
418. Let me put it this way. You have a pot
at the moment which is so big and 90 per cent of that pot is being
used for roads. A large part of it is being used for roads based
on the fact that 90 per cent of the major projects were roads.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
419. If in the Comprehensive Spending Review
the size of that pot is expanded hugely would you also expect
to see a huge increase in expenditure on roads or will expenditure
on roads stay the same and the huge increase be spent on integrated
transport systems?
(Sir Richard Mottram) If I can answer in a slightly
different way, what we are trying to do is think about what would
be the appropriate expenditure over 10 years across all modes
within a framework policy that we can discuss, without getting
into what Ministers are discussing collectively and so on. My
guess is that such a programme will involve a substantial increase
in investment in non-road transport, that is, essentially railways,
etc. Certainly one of the missions of the Department would be
that if we are going to spend more money on roads we should have
as a priority for example that we do something about local roads,
local road maintenance, all the things which the Select Committee
has been concerned about. As part of a balanced approach to the
country's needs 10 years ahead, then I think you can argue that
there are good grounds, using the appraisal systems we announced
in 1998, for some roads expenditure as part of a much bigger package.
The 10-year plan will not be roads driven. It will be integrated
transport driven and it would be based upon the idea that we need
to lever in substantial private investment alongside the public
investment.
| 
