Memorandum by pteg (Passenger Transport
Executive's Group) (DRA 68)
INTRODUCTION
1. pteg, which represents the seven Passenger
Transport Executives (PTEs) within the UK, welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to this scrutiny process. The Passenger Transport
Authorities (PTAs), which are the joint boards made up of representatives
from their constituent Metropolitan District Councils, set the
framework within which the PTEs deliver services. The seven PTEs
cover areas with a total population of over 13 million people;
thus nearly a quarter of the British population live in PTE areas.
2. PTEs are responsible for ensuring local
public transport services are delivered to meet local needs in
accordance with their PTA's policies. Each PTE works with bus,
train and, in many cases, tram concessionaires, to ensure these
local needs are met. They also play a key role with regard to
public transport information and fares and ticketing schemes,
particularly concessionary travel for eligible groups of residents.
Nexus, Strathclyde and Merseytravel are PTEs with substantial
operational responsibilities for transport services. All of the
PTAs have, at their hearts, cities that act as regional centres
for a wider area beyond the Authority boundaries. They currently
work closely both with the local District authorities though Local
Transport Plan (LTP) partnerships and with the current regional
assemblies to ensure effective policy co-ordination.
3. This legislation affects only England
and therefore has no impact on Strathclyde PTE. Nexus, the PTE
serving the Tyne and Wear area may be the first to be directly
affected by the legislation, being part of the North East Region
where a referendum is planned for later this year. The practical
application of an Elected Regional Assembly (ERA) to the North
East is considered in the final section of this evidence. It is
also worth noting that both the North West region and Yorkshire
and the Humber region have two PTEs operating in each of their
areas. In recent years there has been strong co-operation between
each pair of PTEs to pursue joint initiatives to benefit their
regions.
SUMMARY
4. We broadly welcome the increased devolution
of powers from central to regional government that the legislation
intends to take place. However, we have concerns about the practical
implications of this process with regard to the following specific
transport issues:
— there should be a stronger delegation
of powers to ERAs from national agencies responsible for strategic
road and rail expenditure;
— there should continue to be strong
sub-regional frameworks for the planning and delivery of local
transport services broadly based on travel to work areas;
— there needs to be greater clarity
as to how sub-regional and regional strategies will dovetail,
particularly as regards changes to the national specification
of rail services;
— there should be clear powers for
ERAs to determine the priorities for local transport spending
that fall outside the formula-based allocations; and
— there are other areas where ERAs
may have a valid role to play in improving transport that has
a strong regional dimension.
REGIONAL CONTEXT
5. PTA/Es have a long history of working
closely with their regional partners and playing an active role
in developing their spatial, planning, economic and transport
strategies. The conurbations they represent are often the key
drivers for the economies of those regions. In its publication
"Rail in the City Regions"[111]
pteg demonstrated the importance of good connectivity to those
centres, particularly rail, in enhancing their economic competitiveness.
City Regions, broadly based around their travel to work areas,
provide coherent units for addressing transport policy issues.
It is important that the creation of ERAs supports this approach.
It should also improve accountability and not add additional layers
of decision-making or duplicate existing mechanisms. Central to
such processes is the ability to make decisions at the regional
and sub-regional level across all modes. The proposals to devolve
more responsibilities to PTA/Es and give greater flexibility on
rail funding are welcomed.
6. Effective planning and delivery at the
regional and sub-regional level will require powers covering not
just the allocation of DfT "local transport" funding,
but also a strong influence over the priorities of the Highways
Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA)/Network Rail. Whilst
this requires addressing difficult issues of national versus regional/local
expenditure, achieving truly devolved decision-making may be the
key to delivering a challenging transport agenda. The important
issue here is that ERAs should be empowered by the Government
releasing authority from the centre, not by Regions seeking to
take control of issues which are currently being dealt with at
sub-regional and local levels.
POWERS OVER
RAIL SERVICES
7. At present PTEs have powers over local
rail services as set out in the Railways Act 1993, though these
were modified in the Transport Act 2000, and in legislation devolving
powers to Scotland and Wales. PTEs are the only local bodies to
have formal powers as regards rail services. The new legislation
will bring the Assemblies into the decision-making process for
rail services. The powers are broadly the same as "The Future
of Rail" White Paper envisages for PTEs, which is to vary
the service at the margins. The indication is that PTEs will have
a measure of control over fares policies whilst the ERAs will
not. This is appropriate given the complex way in which different
modes of transport interact in the PTE areas.
8. The White Paper envisages this power
as a transitionary one until such time as the Office of Rail Regulation
(ORR) has established a better method of allocating costs. The
Government then expects to delegate fuller financial responsibility
to PTEs. Whilst the White Paper also envisages the PTEs no longer
being a direct party to the franchise agreements that determine
their local services, pteg believes this would be inconsistent
with the delegation of financial responsibility. At this stage,
it is also not clear over which services these responsibilities
could be exercised.
9. The pending legislation following on
from the publication of "The Future of Rail" White Paper
will no doubt clarify the situation. However, it seems likely
that the draft regional legislation will create an overlap of
powers between ERAs and PTEs. Both will be able to vary services
at the margin. It is unclear how this would work in practice,
although it could lead to some difficult situations where ERAs
and PTEs find themselves working to conflicting policy agendas
and priorities.
10. The new situation could also lead to
an important funding anomaly that could lead to services stagnating.
If PTEs choose to improve services, as many are seeking to do
to meet the transport policies of their areas, then this will
lead to additional cost being funded by the local Council Tax
payer. If Assemblies do the same thing, they will either fund
this through funding provided by central government grant or through
their limited precept raising powers. In either case, more transparently
in the latter, residents in PTA areas will pay for their own local
improvements and contribute to those that the ERA chooses to fund
outside PTE areas as well as to those initiated by the PTE. Similar
anomalies may arise where a PTE or RA decides to reduce service.
11. We would suggest that there should be
greater clarity in the new legislation as to the respective roles
of PTEs and Assemblies. In our view, the new legislation should
make clear where the responsibility is to initiate change, and
place a duty on that authority to consult with the other to minimise
conflict and abortive effort. PTA/Es would expect that the ERA
powers would generally apply either to services outside PTA areas,
or to regional services with only one stop in a PTA area but more
than one stop in the region.
12. It is particularly important to resolve
this conflict with regard to the North West region and Merseytravel,
where the PTA acts as local agency of the SRA with regard to the
Merseyrail Electrics franchise. Although in place for little over
a year, it has been widely recognised that this devolution of
power to a PTA has been highly effective in delivering a high
standard of service and encouraging the partnership to invest
appropriately in the long-term future of rail travel. The possible
future role of an ERA in the North West, should reflect this unique
local partnership, and may need to be protected by the new legislation.
THE ROLE
OF ASSEMBLIES
REGARDING LOCAL
TRANSPORT PLANS
AND CAPITAL
FUNDING PRIORITIES
13. The draft Bill envisages that that the
Assemblies will be responsible for setting the regional strategy
for transport. PTAs and their local highway authority partners
have been responsible for producing and delivering LTPs for the
last five years. In doing so they have had to take full account
of the regional strategies. In this respect little change is envisaged.
14. The Policy Paper that accompanied the
publication of the Bill is rather vague about the role envisaged
for the Assemblies. Paragraph 56 of the Paper starts:
"Assemblies would also be given some important
tools to help them to deliver this [regional transport] strategy.
Their general purposes would enable them to advise the Government
on the allocation of local transport funding (including the consistency
of local bids with regional policies and priorities) and make
proposals for schemes of regional importance to the national organisations
responsible for highways and rail."
15. The use of the word "tools"
implies powers to determine the funding that will be provided
to local authorities and, in the case of PTAs, local authority
partnerships. The "advisory role" indicated by the second
sentence indicates an influencing role rather than a spending
one. Our view is that the Government's position is nearer the
former than the latter scenario. Already "Shadow Transport
Boards" have been set up in two of the Regions to consider
the appropriate allocation of transport funds that are currently
administered by LTP authorities, and by the Highways Agency and
Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). The implication of this change
is that central government will increasingly work towards regional
allocations of spending, devolving the responsibility for sub-regional
spending to Assemblies. This is entirely consistent with the Government's
stated objective of devolving power.
16. A difficulty arises with the confusion
potentially created by a PTA-based Local Transport Plan attempting
to deliver both national priorities, increasingly being sought
through the "Shared Priorities" agenda agreed between
Central Government and the Local Government Association, whilst
at the same time facing a ERA with rather different policy objectives,
but with the power to "reward" or "penalise"
LTPs that further or detract from the delivery of its regional
strategy.
17. Over the past year, the Department for
Transport (DfT) has adopted a process of "local engagement"
with key local authorities, including all the PTE areas, and this
has been extremely welcome. The PTEs consider that this has been
very helpful in improving understanding by Government of the local
issues that PTEs are facing, and equally has helped them to understand
better the pressure on the DfT to deliver to its Public Service
Agreement (PSA) targets and the role of local partners in this
process. It would be unfortunate if the ERAs' intervention were
to lead to any diminution of the improving partnership between
local authorities and the centre.
18. It remains unclear the extent to which
Government will seek to use the funding system for Regions to
provide the necessary policy "signals", should it decide
effectively to devolve responsibility for LTP funding. We feel
that Central Government should be clearer in its intentions as
to how the capital funding regime for transport is expected to
work with ERAs in place. This should include the degree to which
national agencies, notably the Highways Agency and the successor
body to the SRA, will also be expected to submit their programmes
to fit with regional and sub-regional. In our view, the ERAs may
be able to add significant value if they are allowed to act as
a "bridge" between local and national decision-making
by exercising their legitimate power as directly elected bodies
in these areas. Conversely, to subject local authorities to a
regional agenda without requiring national bodies do the same
is likely to be a backward step, creating confusion and slowing
down the delivery process.
OTHER MATTERS
19. Finally, it may be helpful to point
out some of the issues in which the ERAs may choose to intervene
as regards transport policy, given their wide ranging proposed
economic and social remit, and to consider the implications on
local transport. These could include:
— establishment of regional concessionary
travel arrangements where this is appropriate to meet social needs;
and
— filling gaps in the passenger transport
network at a regional and inter-regional level, particularly away
from the rail network where inter-urban coach services can play
an important role.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
RELATING TO
THE NORTH
EAST
20. Nexus—the PTE for the Tyne and
Wear area—is responsible for ensuring that local public
transport services are delivered in accordance with the policies
of its PTA, and serves a population of just under 1.1 million.
In addition, Nexus operates the Tyne and Wear Metro.
21. The emerging North East Regional Spatial
Strategy identifies two city regions based on the conurbations
of Tyne, Wear and Tees Valley (Middlesbrough, Stockton and Redcar).
Both of these attract journeys to work from a wider area. The
public transport links between the two city regions are not well
developed. The A1 and the A19 provide dual carriageway road links,
although there are no fast direct rail services.
22. The North East has a strong sense of
identity and a clear view of its aims to grow economically. It
seeks a transport network that will assist the process of economic
growth and reduce social exclusion while minimising environmental
impact. The area's public transport infrastructure, however, does
not currently provide the quality or quantity sufficient to deliver
this. It is Nexus' view that the transport powers of a future
North East ERA should enable the region to bring its own, local
focus to the funding and prioritisation of an improvement strategy.
23. Nexus considers that the proposed North
East ERA should have the right to become a regional transport
authority, not only to ensure fit between regional and sub-regional
strategies, but also to assume powers that are currently exercised
directly by Ministers. Thus the North East ERA should be responsible
for approving and funding LTPs as well as ensuring that they fit
within an overall regional approach. This strategic approach would
not be confined to transport; it would also cover land use planning
and economic and social development, enabling a joined-up view
to be taken. It would, for example, enable a regional approach
to be taken to travel demand management, ensuring that local councils
worked together to tackle this very difficult challenge. As part
of this process, and alongside the changes in governance, it may
be appropriate to encourage greater use of joint LTPs that focus
more strongly on the needs of the sub-region and less on local
improvements.
24. The overall position of Nexus, therefore,
is to support the establishment of an ERA for the North East of
England.
111 "Rail in the City Regions", a report
for pteg by JMP Consulting, March 2004. The report can be found
at http://www.pteg.net/assets/Final-Report-to-PTEG-March-2004.pdf Back
| 
