Examination of Witnesses (Questions 382
- 399)
TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2004
MR ROY
WICKS, MR
KEN KEMP
AND MR
STEWART FRANCIS
Q382 Chairman: Gentlemen, please
introduce yourselves for the record.
Mr Wicks: Roy Wicks, Director
General, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.
Mr Kemp: Ken Kemp, Planning Manager
at Nexus (Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive).
Mr Francis: I am Stewart Francis.
I am here representing CFIT in the Chairman's absence, David Begg.
Perhaps I should explain, Chairman, that my position in CFIT is
to represent the consumer interest as I am also Chairman of the
Rail Passenger Council, the national statutory watchdog for rail
passengers. I am also Chairman of the Strategic Health Authority
in Eastern England, which also has an interest, of course, in
access and transport matters
Q383 Chairman: Does anyone want to
say anything else or are you happy to go straight into questions?
Mr Wicks: I am happy, Chairman.
Q384 Christine Russell: Do you think
the Bill as presently proposed will help or hinder the development
of a truly integrated transport system?
Mr Francis: Our view is that it
is a step in the right direction but that it does not actually
go far enough in terms of integrated transport. We believe that
regional assemblies should have the ability to set regional transport
strategy, and therefore provide a framework for those delivering
the strategy at a local level. From the consumer of transport
point of view, the vast majority of journeys made in this country
are, of course, local journeys be they by bus or by train. What
we are looking for are mechanisms and structures that can deliver
a more integrated journey for the consumer and, therefore, get
the national benefits from them.
Mr Wicks: Certainly from a PTE
point of view I would share Stewart's view that it is a step in
the right direction, but genuine integration requires three things
to come together: it requires integration of policy. I think particularly
in terms of economic development, housing and transport, bringing
those together at the regional level ought to enable better joined-up
thinking in terms of investment levels. Secondly, it requires
integration of funding streams. At the moment spending on the
highways network, the rail network and on local transport, although
all under the aegis of the DfT, is not necessarily treated as
interchangeable units of expenditure. Certainly at a sub-regional
level we cannot make decisions across each of those modes, and
that is true equally at the regional level. I think the hints
in the Regional Assemblies Bill and in the DfT's White Paper
The Future of Transport, to move in the direction, first of
all, of joining up those spending heads and then, secondly, giving
authorities more flexibility over how they spend them, is quite
critical to the delivery of integrated transport. I think, as
Stewart says, the third key aspect of integrated transport is
delivery on the ground. I do not radically see this proposal changing
that because, as your previous witnesses have said, this is much
more about a strategic overseeing authority than a delivery agency;
and delivery will still be on the ground through local councils,
ourselves and other organisations.
Q385 Christine Russell: If I could
press you further. Do you think there is a real lack of clarity
in the Bill in its present state as to who exactly is going to
do what; what the role of the county council is going to be; the
local passenger transport executive; even the district councils?
Is there a real lack of clarity at the moment?
Mr Wicks: I do not think there
is a lack of clarity. I think the Bill says that the assembly
will produce the regional transport strategy and it will have
to work with those other stakeholders in doing that. I think there
is a question about whether that gives you the best integrated
transport network on the ground. In my view, I think those duties
on the regional assembly need to go a bit further than they do.
Q386 Christine Russell: Could you
spell out how much further you think they need to go.
Mr Wicks: Going back to my earlier
point, to an extent it is signalled in the DfTs The Future
of Transport White Paper that if the Government is going to
move towards, in the first instance, indicative regional allocations
for local transport spending, there is no reason why those decisions
could not be devolved from the centre to the region as to actually
what the local transport plan allocations are. Secondly, I think
you could look at—and I know it is more complicated—devolving
some of the rail and highways expenditure so that then you will
make decisions across those three areas. So I think if you are
serious about devolving some of that decision-making in order
to achieve an integrated network that is one area in which the
powers could be pushed further. A second way in which they could
be clarified, as we have said in our evidence, is that there does
appear to be some duplication of powers between the PTEs, PTAs
and the Regional Assemblies, in relation to who can actually do
what to the rail network, which I do think need thinking through
in order to make sure they work correctly.
Q387 Chris Mole: Should that be between
rail franchises and regions?
Mr Wicks: No.
Q388 Chris Mole: Would it be practical
to disaggregate rail spending to—
Mr Wicks: There are two sorts
of rail spending: there is infrastructure investment, because
certainly most regional authorities have very clear views about
the priorities that are needed in their areas to open up access,
not just in terms of connections to London, connections with other
regional centres and with sub-regional centres. There is often
a view that at the sub-regional and regional level it is very
difficult to influence national priorities. So I think, first
of all, in terms of investment in the infrastructure there clearly
is a regional dimension. I am not advocating breaking up the network
into regional blocks, but in terms of actually making sure that
the national rail investment programme actually reflects regional
priorities. When you come to services, my answer is a quick one
in that in general there is not a regional network that fits neatly
within a regional boundary. However, there are services—usually
the local rail franchise and one or two others, such as Trans-Pennine
and to an extent Cross-Country—which largely fulfil a regional
function. You could look to how the regional assemblies have a
greater involvement, first of all, in the specification of those
franchises and then, ultimately, in how they are funded.
Mr Francis: I agree that the pressure
is clearly on to reduce the number of franchises. So I can see
your point. However, there are bite-sized chunks you can do. One
bite-sized chunk, for example, would be Mersey Rail. If I can
just pick up on your previous point, I do detect that there are
inconsistencies between this Bill and the Government's White Paper
on the future of transport. CfIT believes that the Bill does need
to be amended to make it consistent with what the White Paper
is saying. Roy Wicks has given an example of that. We believe
that RAs should be given funding powers because if not they do
not have teeth. They should not have the powers to deliver; it
should be others who carry out that duty. But powers over funding
is the only way that RAs will have teeth to ensure that local
authorities work to deliver a regional transport strategy.
Q389 Christine Russell: What about
concessionary fares? Who do you feel should have the responsibility
for deciding the level of concessionary fares?
Mr Francis: There are, of course,
a whole range of activities, and I think that is probably down
to the elected representatives in the local communities to make
those choices. For example, the delivery of the bus service would
still reside locally. However, the difficulty comes if you do
not have a regional transport strategy for the passenger who is
seeking an integrated transport solution. What about road charging?
What about congestion charging? What about park-and-ride schemes?
If each local authority makes a different decision, for example
if one local authority makes a particular decision on park-and-ride
schemes and another local authority does not, that leaves the
consumer confused. That is why the Regional Assembly should have
the powers to be able to say "Here is the strategy, here
is the funding, now you deliver".
Q390 Christine Russell: It is not
going to develop any kind of distinct regional identity on the
part of local people, if you—for instance you said Merseyside—have
free bus passes in Merseyside but you still have to pay 50% of
the fare in Cheshire next door.
Mr Francis: These are decisions
that are made locally and are driven by the local population,
and politicians make their decisions based on that.
Q391 Chairman: The Passenger Transport
Executives have had a pretty poor record, have they not, for getting
integrated ticketing? The Mayor has taken a long time but has
managed to produce the Oyster, which does enable people to get
on and off buses and tubes much more quickly. Would it not be
logical for the Elected Regional Assemblies to take over the responsibility
for that sort of thing and demonstrate that it can be done with
a bit of vigour rather than the 20 years, is it, that Passenger
Transport Executives have been messing about with ticketing?
Mr Wicks: Thank you, Chairman,
for injecting an interesting note of controversy into the proceedings.
The first thing I would say is I do not think the PTEs have taken
20 years to introduce integrated ticketing because of their inability
to do it as organisations; most of the problems rest in the way
that public transport is actually organised in this country.
Q392 Chairman: Give it to someone
who can do it properly!
Mr Wicks: In the case of London
they have a regulated bus market which enables them to organise
the ticketing in a very different way to the way you can outside
London. Notwithstanding that, South and West Yorkshire PTEs together
do have funding from the DfT to introduce a card very similar
to the Oyster card in London which would cover all bus operators,
all rail and all tram—
Q393 Chairman: 2010?
Mr Wicks: 2006 is the date for
introduction. Similarly, in Manchester they are currently working
on a similar system. So we are working on those.
Q394 Chairman: You have been working
on them for 10 years.
Mr Wicks: I cannot speak for Manchester,
as unfortunately Chris was unable to join us today, but I do think
that we are making progress. A lot of the issues in ticketing
rest around the bus operators' ability, as commercial operators,
to fix the commercial fare, which is something they do not do
in London because all of the network is, in effect, franchised.
Q395 Mr Clelland: I know you see
that the new Regional Assemblies will have some effect on the
work of the PTEs and there may be some areas of conflict. Does
that mean that you feel that this is not an opportunity that ought
to be grasped to improve the work of both PTEs and local authorities
within the region in terms of transport, or do you think that
things should be left the way they are and we do not need a new
authority?
Mr Wicks: I think our view is
you have actually got to look at what is right for each region
in terms of how you make some of the delivery changes. Certainly
I think there is benefit in there being a clearer regional accountability
for the overall funding, because I am a great believer that transport
problems are broadly solved within a travel-to-work area, which
tends to be the sub-region but it does not necessarily have to
be a particular PTE area because they can vary. That is where
you will actually solve transport problems, but they then have
to be solved within a regional context, because it is no good
Leeds or Sheffield sorting out its problem and competing, in a
sense, with York or Hull or somewhere else. So there has to be
a regional dimension, which is why I think I welcome the regional
transport strategy that is there already, and we work very closely
with the regional assembly at the moment in doing that. I think
that the funding powers have to be given alongside that which
are commensurate with that, and I think the appropriate funding
powers at the regional level are initially allocational and, if
you like, organise spending profiles that fit in with those collective
political priorities. So I think, yes, that is welcome and that
is something that could improve things, because at the moment
it is very much a sort of bi- to tri-lateral relationship between
individual local authorities, the government office and the centre.
By making, in effect—although this is not what the legislation
proposed—the Government more accountable at the regional
level you could improve that part of the process. So we certainly
see it as an opportunity, and I think what I am really saying
is that to grasp that opportunity we need to go a bit further
and a bit faster.
Q396 Mr Clelland: Local funding is
one thing but there are other areas of responsibility that might
be usefully housed in the Regional Assembly's power. We are very
conscious in this Committee and those of us who believe in regional
government that we are devolving power down from the centre, not
up from local government. On the other hand, as I am sure you
are aware, in some PTE areas local authorities have different
policies when it comes to things like bus lanes and traffic regulations,
which PTAs themselves would like to see brought under the one
umbrella, so we have a commonality. Is this not an opportunity
for regional government to have a regional overview of regulations
like that?
Mr Wicks: Certainly a regional
transport strategy would. I think there is an interesting debate
about at what level some of those delivery type powers should
rest. I think that whilst I see a strong role for the planning,
the funding and the strategy at a regional level, necessarily
having traffic management powers at a regional level may not necessarily
work. I think the evidence shows that that, perhaps, (if you look
back to the mid-70s and 80s at the metropolitan county councils,
which was, in effect, an attempt to do some of that at the sub-regional
level) did not necessarily prove a success. I think a lot of those
things—I go back to my opening—want to relate generally
to the travel-to-work areas because I think that is the area over
which the policy requires. Separately from that, the White Paper
Future for Transport does signal that the Government wants
to keep an eye on how the powers in the Traffic Management Bill,
which presently influence the management of the highway system,
are used. They have flagged up in that an intention, if they do
not feel that is effective, to look at whether those powers might
not more appropriately rest with the PTA or PTE. I am not arguing
that because I work for a PTE, my view is I think most of those
powers work best at that local, sub-regional level rather than
necessarily at the regional level.
Q397 Mr Betts: You are arguing quite
strongly that there should be a funding responsibility on transport
for the Regional Assemblies. Looking at other possible powers,
would you be seeing a role for the assemblies in giving the pull,
maybe, to schemes to bring back regulation (since you have identified
the ones with problems) at a local level for getting some of the
issues resolved? Would you see the assemblies having a role in,
maybe, approving congesting charge schemes and those sorts of
issues?
Mr Wicks: My own view is that
they should be able to be approved at the appropriate level. Certainly
PTEs—
Q398 Chairman: Come on, what is the
appropriate level?
Mr Wicks: Sorry, I was just coming
to that, Chairman. We certainly do not believe that things such
as quality contracts and the ability for an authority to congestion
charge should be decided at the national level; they should be
decided at the level over which they would have an effect. So
I think that is not at a single local authority level, it is at
a higher level than that. In some cases it may be the sub-regional—for
example, something that happens in Leeds or Sheffield will have
relatively little impact in Hull. So it could be decided at the
sub-regional level. If you were looking at a charging system relating
to the highway network in South Yorkshire or West Yorkshire, that
would clearly have an impact across the whole region. Generally,
those sorts of decisions about charging could be made at the regional
level or, indeed, the sub-regional level; I do not think they
need to be made at the national level because it is the area over
which they have a competitive impact. My answer was not meant
to be evasive, but I am always conscious there are boundaries,
and in the case of my own authority we are at one corner of Yorkshire
and Humberside, and whilst we are part of the Yorkshire and Humberside
region a lot of South Yorkshire's economy actually links into
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. So therefore you do have this
issue where even with regional boundaries there are always places
at the edge of the boundaries over which you have to make decisions.
I think if you were looking at a congestion charging system, as
Clive mentioned, you would have to have regard to the impact in
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
Q399 Mr Betts: Just looking at it
the other way round as well, one of the constant complaints from
regions in the north is that sometimes we do not feel we are getting
a fair share of the national cake passed down to us, and are saying
that the future funding for rail infrastructure improvements is
very weighted towards the south east and there is precious little
happening in the north. Do you think, therefore, there should,
within the Regional Assembly, be a statutory right to be involved
and consulted on the development of all regional transport strategies?
Mr Wicks: Yes, and I think it
is also in the CfIT evidence. We think that bodies such as Network
Rail and the Regulator should have a statutory requirement to
consult and have regard to the regional transport strategies.
|
