House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Twelfth Report

4 Revenue funding for local transport improvements

118. Besides capital, the other main source of Government financial support for local transport is through revenue support which is used to support day-to-day expenditure. Local authorities have almost complete discretion about how much of the revenue support budget they spend on transport, and how much is spent on other services. In 2003-04 net revenue expenditure by local authorities on transport planning, policy and strategy, construction, highways and roads maintenance, traffic management and road safety, parking services, public transport, airport, harbours and toll facilities totalled £2.5 billion.[197]

Capital-rich, revenue-poor

119. The Department for Transport told us that local authorities had received a 37% real-terms increase in revenue support over the last ten years.[198] But this increase has not kept pace with the increase in capital funding for transport and there is reportedly a large gap between the level of capital funding available and the revenue available; often described as the 'capital rich, revenue poor' problem. It is the fact that local authorities have access to capital funding but not the revenue funding to support this expenditure that is causing some of the most serious difficulties for local transport departments.[199] The research by Atkins found that a lack of revenue funding was a key barrier to the implementation and maintenance of transport schemes.[200] Significantly, we heard that some local authorities are seeking ways to use capital funds to cover revenue activities in order to overcome the difficulties posed.[201]

120. Because revenue and capital funding are not closely linked in the current system, and because there has been a shortage of revenue compared to capital, several witnesses stated that it is easier to build new infrastructure than it is to maintain existing services and assets. Witnesses from Greater Manchester told us that implementation of schemes had meant a growing burden of revenue demands which were not properly linked in the financial system.[202] This sets up long-term transport problems. The Institution of Civil Engineers and Sustrans stated that local authorities are already struggling to undertake urgent maintenance.[203] In addition, scarcity of revenue not only harms maintenance of schemes but also deters implementation of capital schemes now to reduce the burden of future maintenance.[204] Indeed, Ms Quant, of Hampshire County Council, gave one such example: "my treasurer has said that he can save a million pounds off our revenue budget next year if we reduce our transport capital spend by five million. That is what he has recommended."[205]

121. Revenue is also a critical part of funding transport services to promote social inclusion. Bus services and community transport have been affected by the shortages.[206] Although public transport infrastructure such as bus lanes, bus stops and interchanges are funded from the Local Transport Plan capital budget, the actual services themselves must be paid for from local authority revenue budgets. As Dr Ian Harrison, Deputy Director of Environment, Economy and Culture at Devon County Council, told us: "local authorities may have the capital spending power to put in bus priority measures through the Local Transport Plan, but have not necessarily got the revenue power to sustain bus services that are needed, that are socially necessary."[207] The Local Government Association reported that the cost of funding subsidised bus services to meet social inclusion objectives has increased each year at a rate considerably higher than retail inflation.[208]

122. It is a matter of serious concern that a shortage of revenue funding is harming the delivery of local transport improvement schemes. The fact that council treasurers have resorted to reducing capital expenditure in order to ease pressure on the revenue budgets is indicative of a serious imbalance between capital and revenue funds. The Government must ensure that there is a proper balance between capital and revenue funding in future years, if necessary by switching money from one pot to the other.

IMPROVING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL AND REVENUE

123. The distinction between revenue and capital spend is an important one for public expenditure, financial control, and accounting. The definitions aim to distinguish between current (revenue) expenditure that ought to be charged in the period in which it is incurred, and capital expenditure on things that will last more than a year and for which it is appropriate to spread financing. This links to intergenerational equity and also to the national fiscal 'golden rule' that over the economic cycle current income should cover current expenditure and borrowing should only be for a capital purpose.

124. We heard that although the distinction between capital funding and revenue funding was deemed necessary for public accounting purposes, in reality the distinction can at times seem arbitrary. Mr Roy Newton, of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, gave an example of some of the difficulties that arise from the separation of capital and revenue budgets and their associated activities. He told us about a freight map produced by the Authority, initially out of capital funds. When the Authority came to reissue the map, its auditors advised that reprinting costs could only be met from revenue funds, which were not so readily available.[209]

125. The difficulties posed by the current situation were identified by South Yorkshire LTP Partnership, which told us: "There is a lack of connection between capital and revenue funding, although both are critical to the successful implementation of our transport strategy."[210] The view was shared by West Midlands CEPOG, which stated:

The balance between capital and revenue funding should acknowledge the link between them. For example, a new Park & Ride facility might be relatively easy to construct but without revenue funding to support the associated bus or rail service in its early years, the whole package might not perform in an optimum way or might not be affordable. There is a case for linking specific revenue funding for an adequate number of years to support approved capital schemes.[211]

126. The heart of the problem identified here is not the distinction between revenue and capital expenditure but the distinction between revenue and capital funding/support from central government to local government for transport initiatives. A closer relationship between revenue and capital funding could help local authorities make the most of their transport assets over the long-term. It has been suggested that whole life costing, good asset management and strategic transport planning is not helped by having separate capital and revenue funding streams. The Government should look at how best to encourage sustainable and better use of assets by local authorities, through the way that it provides capital and revenue funding.

127. Some witnesses called for more flexibility to use transport budgets on either capital or revenue activity as necessary.[212] Councillor David Sparks, Chairman of the Local Government Association Environment Board, told us:

we would want more flexibility in relation to both capital and revenue. When we are talking about the separation of capital and revenue intrinsic separation is not a good idea. It is not a good idea because it can lead to extra capital expenditure that cannot be serviced because of the restrictions on revenue expenditure.[213]

CIPFA, the public sector accountancy body, has suggested that capital schemes could be better supported through the revenue account if the full costs of depreciation and an interest or opportunity cost of using capital were included.[214] The Minister, however, told us that: "There will always be divisions between capital and revenue because that is the way public sector finance works, but the way the two are balanced is a significant issue".[215]

128. The Department should consider how better integration of capital and revenue streams would strengthen transport asset management. We support the efforts of some authorities to include asset management programmes within their Local Transport Plans. The Government should look at how best to encourage sustainable and better use of assets by local authorities, through the way that it provides capital and revenue funding. More flexibility between the two should be considered. Capital grants give certainty of funding but less flexibility and work against consideration of whole-life costing over time that would be better served by the application of depreciation and cost of capital funding.

SMARTER CHOICES

129. The Department has argued that 'Smarter Choice' initiatives could make a significant contribution towards tackling congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution, and promoting more active travel.[216] Smarter Choice measures include workplace and school travel plans, cycle training, promotional activities, individualised marketing, networks of green lanes and quiet lanes, and maintenance of cycle lanes, bridleways and footpaths.[217] The measures are staff-intensive and therefore usually require significant revenue funding. The shortage of revenue funding is limiting implementation of Smarter Choice measures.[218] The Passenger Transport Executives' Group argued that the LTP funding process and the major scheme appraisal process currently do not promote an integrated approach to engineering and Smarter Choice measures, because of the separation of capital and revenue budgets. It suggested that an integrated approach to funding both these type of measures would lead to better value for money.[219]

130. We heard that there is confusion about whether packages of these measures can be funded through the Local Transport Plan capital allocation, or whether funding must come through general revenue support. Devon County Council told us: "We would welcome an explicit recognition that supporting travel planning which complements investment in infrastructure is a legitimate use of local transport capital."[220] Witnesses from Greater Manchester agreed and recommended that the Department "clarify the guidance on the extent to which LTP resources can be utilised for "Smarter Choices" initiatives over the lifetime of LTP2".[221] In response to our questioning, the Department for Transport told us:

Decisions on exactly which expenditure should be classified as capital are ultimately matters for local authorities and their auditors. Some travel planning, promotional activity and publicity can be classified as capital expenditure. Local authorities collectively declare that about £7 million per year of the capital integrated transport block has been spent on travel plans.[222]

131. There is clearly confusion among local authorities about the extent to which they are permitted to use capital funding to support 'Smarter Choices' measures which are intended to complement investment in transport infrastructure. The Department's response, that decisions about the purposes for which capital allocations may be used are 'ultimately matters for local authorities and their auditors' is unhelpful. We recommend that the Department issue, as a matter of some urgency, detailed guidance on the circumstances in which capital funding may be used to support these measures, with a view to increasing their impact.

REVENUE TO REPAY CAPITAL BORROWING

132. A local authority's ability to borrow capital to invest in transport improvements is affected by the availability of revenue to meet the associated interest payments and minimum revenue provision.[223] We heard that the paucity of revenue funding had directly impacted the capacity of some local authorities to deliver the proposals set out in their Local Transport Plan. This is because the Department has, until recently, made capital funding available through supported borrowing allocations. The County Councils Network, and others, identified this as a particular problem for those local authorities that received only a minimum increase in revenue grant from one year to the next, the 'floor authorities'.[224] The Network stated:

Counties will not be able to take up the full […] 'supported' borrowing allocations which government award in favour of approved Local Transport Plan schemes. In practice there will be no (or virtually no) grant to cover new borrowings […] this is bound to reduce actual Local Transport Plan investment in practice (as councils seek to limit council tax pressure).[225]

133. The Minister told us that the Department for Transport was attempting to resolve this difficulty by "[improving] the balance between giving people the right to borrow money and just straight cash".[226] He suggested that the decision to provide 100% grant funding of Major Schemes from next year, rather than the right to borrow, would ease the problem.[227] Local authorities agreed that this would help.[228]

134. In 2004 credit approvals were superseded by the prudential borrowing system.[229] This offers authorities new freedoms to borrow for capital investment without having to seek permission from Government, subject to this being prudent and affordable. Borrowing is secured on the entirety of the authority's income flows—local authority assets cannot be mortgaged. Some local authorities are using self-financed borrowing to supplement the supported borrowing for transport capital provided by the Government.[230] But a shortage of revenue similarly limits a council's ability to maximise the use of this new power. As Councillor Tony Page, representing the Local Government Association, told us:

We have a capricious capping regime [...] and that does present major problems to local authorities, particularly on the revenue side of our activities, and even if there is a will to spend extra revenue [...] using fully our prudential powers, we may well find that simply within the current capping regime that is precluded. That is a major problem [...][231]

In contrast, London, with its secure and buoyant supply of revenue, is able to use its prudential borrowing rights extensively and has done so.[232]

135. We are concerned that local authorities lack the revenue funding they require to make full use of their prudential borrowing powers because they are unable to service the debt. Having made these powers available to local authorities, the Government has a responsibility to ensure that they work in practice. It should therefore monitor the uptake of prudential borrowing and give proper consideration to proposals which would increase local authorities' access to increased revenue.

RING-FENCING TRANSPORT REVENUE BUDGETS

136. The shortage of revenue funding is arguably more acute because local authorities have almost total discretion about how to allocate the Revenue Support Grant between different services. Transport therefore has to compete with priorities like social services and health. We heard that transport does not fare well in such competitions and is rarely seen as a local political priority.[233] As Ms Quant told us: "On social services it is more worrying if you let somebody die [...] than if you do not fund your transport system, so it is never going to rate as highly in political priorities either from central government or local government".[234]

137. One potential solution to the scarcity of revenue for transport is the opportunity to ring-fence revenue sums specifically for transport purposes. It is noted that much of Transport for London's success can be attributed to the very sizeable and ring-fenced revenue grant it receives from Government strictly for transport policy.[235] Support for ring-fencing came mostly, though not exclusively, from the Passenger Transport Executives.[236] They considered that ring-fencing the revenue budget would make it easier for them to access the necessary level of funding from their constituent local authorities. In addition, it was suggested to us that revenue budgets for certain transport projects should be distributed through the Local Transport Plan framework, in a similar way to the capital allocations. Devon County Council, although against the principle of ring-fencing, stated: "We would strongly press for highway maintenance, road safety and public transport revenue funding to be allocated through the LTP system."[237]

138. Among local authority witnesses, however, there was very little support for the reinstatement of ring-fencing on local authority revenue budgets. Several authorities noted that this could benefit the delivery of transport improvements. Nevertheless, it was thought to go against the move towards greater local authority flexibility.[238] The Local Government Association was combative in its opposition to ring-fencing: "The Association has an agreement with Government that it will seek to reduce the number of ring-fenced grants used in local government funding [...] The Association would oppose any attempts to apply ring-fencing to revenue spending."[239]

139. There is a case for ring-fencing a specific grant to invest in transport improvements. Transport for London has benefited greatly from such an arrangement. Transport policy does not, however, operate in a policy vacuum and the momentum in local government is for greater local flexibility in determining funding priorities. Local authorities wish to be free to spend the capital and revenue they receive on policy areas which are judged by local politicians to be of most importance. We are reluctant therefore to recommend ring-fencing of transport revenue.

140. Clearly, it would be preferable for general revenue support to be sufficient to cover all local authority priorities, including those such as transport, which may not be the top political priority. Significant increases in revenue funding are, however, most unlikely over the course of LTP2. As the Minister told us: "In the overall interests of managing the economy in a sustainable way, there are limits on what we can do in terms of providing revenue funding".[240] We accept that the economy must be managed prudently and that it may not be feasible to vastly increase revenue budgets. Another option therefore is that local authorities should be able to raise their own funds to pay for the revenue activities they judge to be necessary.[241]

Local transport in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment

141. We heard that transport might be given more political priority—and therefore funding—if the Audit Commission's Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) had more focus on transport policies and services. The research report by Atkins suggested that the Department "pursue this with ODPM as part of CPA 2005 placing greater emphasis on Shared Priorities".[242] The Minister, however, stated that this was not necessary as the Local Transport Plan had sufficiently raised the profile of transport.[243] We agree that the Comprehensive Performance Assessment should not become involved in the minutiae of local transport decisions. However, given the tendency of local authorities to allocate only a small amount of the overall revenue budget to transport, we suggest that the successful implementation of the Local Transport Plan should be further emphasised in the high-level corporate component of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

Locally-raised resources

142. There has been widespread debate about the potential of local taxes to fund transport infrastructure and services. Raising more funds locally would reduce the dependence of local authorities on central Government and allow them to borrow capital for investment and to deliver the Major Schemes set out in their Local Transport Plans. This could fundamentally alter the relationship between central and local Government. Mr Travers, London School of Economics, set out some of the limitations of the current financing system:

public finance in Britain is so centrally controlled and therefore in transport, where there is a significant number of large projects, it inevitably means that all those decisions have to be made at the centre because that is where the money can be made available. Until and unless there is a capacity for local areas, be they existing authorities or new ones, to make decisions and raise resources locally, there is an inevitable consequence that all decisions, certainly over the larger projects, will fall to Whitehall.[244]

143. Another impact of funding transport improvements using locally raised resources is that this should encourage authorities to take more complete local ownership of a scheme. This in turn is expected to improve up-front design work and the accuracy of cost estimates. As Mr Locke, of 4ps, told us:

If you are having to raise the revenues locally for your particular scheme [...] and you do not have this ability to go back and ask for more money if the bids come in higher, you are forced to do much more work up-front to make sure that you have the costs right and that you have the revenues to support that cost [...][245]

LYONS INQUIRY INTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

144. The Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister commissioned Sir Michael Lyons in July 2004 to consider the case for changes to the present system of local government funding in England. Both the scope and the duration of this inquiry were subsequently extended. On 5 July 2006, Sir Michael told us that he had not yet made recommendations or come to conclusions on funding and taxation issues.[246] Over the next few months he intends to examine council tax revaluation and fairness; local income tax; business rates; and other proposed taxes and charges including land taxes, tourist related taxes, road user charging and user charging for services.[247]

145. Many of the local authority and other witnesses that submitted evidence hoped that Sir Michael's inquiry would introduce greater powers and flexibility for local government to raise resources to fund transport services and infrastructure.[248] Mr Page, representing the Local Government Association, stated:

We should have a system where a minority of our income comes from central government grants and we are raising more money locally from individuals, the private sector, and from regeneration, and using schemes that the Continent have used for many years and getting away from being the "grant junkies" that we currently are [...] Hopefully the Lyons Inquiry might enable a more radical departure.[249]

The Local Government Association has called for the government to commit to reform the local government finance system as soon as possible. It states: "one-off solutions must be replaced by a longer term sustainable funding regime".[250] We look forward to the publication of the conclusions of the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. We shall be interested to see what recommendations he makes on local authorities' ability to raise funds locally to invest in transport improvements, having taken two and a half years to consider the issues in depth. We encourage Sir Michael to make his recommendations concrete and robust, and hope that having commissioned the review, the Government will act promptly to bring them into force.

LOCAL REVENUE STREAMS FOR TRANSPORT

146. Other countries already use hypothecated local taxes to fund major transport projects. There are many different ways in which local authorities can raise revenue, each with different advantages and risks. Academics have explored the potential of a wide variety, including: employer/employee taxes; property-related taxes; land value taxes; development levies; parking charges and penalties; charges for the use of road space; local motor taxes; consumption taxes; and cross-utility financing.[251]

147. Professor Stephen Potter, of The Open University, identified three main groups of local tax: beneficiary pays; polluter pays; and 'spreading the burden'. Most of the local sources of revenue under consideration in our inquiry fall under the first heading: 'beneficiary pays'. This category would include employer, property and development type charges. There are three main ways of collecting 'beneficiary' type taxes: compulsory capture of value enhancement through taxes and charges; voluntary capture through partnership between developers, property owners and the state; and an endowment of land to the transport operator larger than that needed for the development, to generate additional revenue.

148. The property value impact of public transport schemes can be significant. A study which examined how planned improvements to London's transport infrastructure could be financed through property taxes considered measures such as a business rate levy, tax incremental financing, Business Improvement Districts, land value taxation and greenfield development tax. The potential yield of these was estimated at between £10 million to £450 million per annum.[252]

Overseas examples of local revenue streams for transport

149. Professor Potter drew attention to how other countries have adopted revenue streams to support capital borrowing to invest in public transport.[253] Examples include:

France: The Versement Transport (an employer tax), introduced in 1971, played a major part in funding the upgrading and expansion of the Paris Metro. Rolled out nationwide, the tax has part-funded several new light rail and metro systems in French cities.
United States of America: Earmarked property taxes have been used to support public transport systems. An advanced example is the Benefit Assessment District—a property fee used to fund the capital investment that enhances the value of the property. An engineering report identifies and calculates the benefits produced. A Benefit Assessment District was used in San Francisco from 1962 to 1999 to raise funds for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system.
Hong Kong: Endowment funding has been used to pay for the Mass Transit Railway. Endowed land adjacent to stations and depots is developed and the subsequent revenue from their property portfolio covers 20% of operating costs and, in some cases, a substantial proportion of the capital cost for new metro lines.

UK examples of local revenue streams for transport

150. There have been some innovative examples of attempts to capture revenue funding for transport projects in the UK, particularly in growth areas. For example:

Cambridge: The 'Area Transport Plans' adopted in 2000 provided a means of calculating how individual sites should contribute towards the transport infrastructure required by new large-scale developments. The authority designs and costs the transport system necessary to support the planned development. Site developers contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure according to how many trips their site generates.[254]
Milton Keynes: There is a systematic use of developer levies through a £1,200 'roof tax' on each new property, which is hypothecated for new infrastructure. Milton Keynes has also tried as far as legally possible to have an integrated Mobility Fund-type approach. This is a partnership between Milton Keynes Council and English Partnerships (who own development land in the area) and Milton Keynes Economic Partnership (representing business interests). The partners pool local funding sources to support transport improvements. This innovative approach has faced problems because it has not fitted easily into the normal processes and structures.[255]
Transport Innovation Fund: could be used nationwide to help set up mechanisms to raise resources locally; local authority plans are still in early design stages.[256]

Ensuring a reliable and secure source of funds

151. We heard that often local sources of funds can be more erratic than national ones. Professor Potter identified some of the difficulties:

there can be problems if they are linked to, say, property development or income from planning permission because that can vary very much over time; you can assume you are going to get a good income but in fact that drops away. The better examples that I have studied have been where there have been several sources arranged into a package, a bit like an insurance portfolio [...] To some extent, central government funding is easier and perhaps more reliable and more manageable.[257]

Particular problems can arise if a scheme is expected to be funded from increases in property values, but the values do not increase.[258] The timing of section 106 developer funds does not always fit easily into the transport scheme delivery programme.[259] In addition, developer charges are by their nature concentrated in growth areas, it is therefore difficult to use the charges to support public transport investment across a town or city as a whole.[260]

152. Fare income from bus, tram and local rail passengers is, of course, a key potential source of revenue for transport authorities. Although the Passenger Transport Executives' Group made some strong arguments for the retention of fare revenue,[261] it would not be possible for local authorities to retain bus fare revenue outside London without some form of re-regulation which transfers the revenue risk from operators to local authorities.[262]

Business support

153. We heard that businesses tended to support the proposals for local taxes geared towards local transport improvements.[263] Businesses benefit from investment in public services and infrastructure. As Sir Michael Lyons told us:

Infrastructure investments are often central to enabling and supporting economic growth and boosting the competitiveness of businesses—a point made strongly by the business community [...] Businesses and their representative organisations thus put considerable effort into making the case for such investments, particularly in transport projects such as railways, trams, roads and airports. These projects are often recognised as being of value to both the local and national economy, but local councils, even where they have the support of the business community, do not have the necessary levers to make them a reality.[264]

154. Where businesses stand to benefit, they may support additional taxation and charges.[265] For business rate supplements to be acceptable, however, it needs to be clear to businesses that any funds raised are demonstrably hypothecated to promote their interests.[266] Mr Newton of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities stated: "Providing they can see a direct investment they are broadly comfortable with that, but there has got to be that visible introduction of transport improvements."[267]

155. It is encouraging that businesses have indicated their willingness to make a larger contribution to local revenue streams in order to enable local transport improvements to be delivered. It seems sensible to us that non-domestic tax should be determined locally rather than nationally. We therefore welcome the research being undertaken into the supplementary business rate proposals and hope that support for transport developments will be a key consideration.

Use of existing powers

156. Despite the reported appetite of local authorities for more significant revenue-raising powers, it is notable that most authorities have made little use of some of the powers they already possess. As Transport 2000 noted, local authorities have had the power to introduce workplace parking levies and congestion charging schemes since 2000,[268] but almost none have done so.[269]

157. One deterrent to local authorities using the existing powers is reportedly a fear that additional charges will harm regeneration efforts and discourage new investment from an area.[270] As Mr Larner told us: "I think it comes back to this issue of economic regeneration being a very key local priority and the fear that congestion charging and workplace parking charging will choke off all of the good things we are trying to do to attract jobs and regenerate our areas."[271] Such fears have apparently also impeded the use of section 106 developer funding.[272] Furthermore, congestion charging and workplace parking levies may not be suitable in all authority areas. For example, small unitary authorities may find charging mechanisms too expensive to establish and maintain, and other places may find they have no problem with congestion.[273]

New revenue-raising powers

158. A key point that Sir Michael Lyons made to us was that any additional local taxation should replace an element of national taxation and not simply represent higher overall rates of tax. What is sought is not only greater local discretion but also a transfer of control from central to local Government. He stated: "If I were to recommend more local taxation, and it is important that I put this into context, I would probably see that in the context of a change from national to local taxation. It is not a question of more taxation[...]".[274]

159. It would also be important to ensure that any new local taxes introduced genuinely affected those people who would benefit most from any improvement. We heard examples of some local taxes which had been introduced abroad to raise funds for transport projects which were disproportionately targeted at people on lower incomes.[275] Care should be taken to ensure that any new local taxes introduced to fund transport improvements are not regressive. They should instead aim to secure a financial contribution from significant beneficiaries.

160. It is disappointing that local authorities have not made more use of the existing revenue raising powers available to them—congestion charging, workplace parking levies and developer section 106 funding. It is not immediately clear to us why authorities which have chosen not to use the charging mechanisms already available would be happy to impose other types of local charge on the business community and others. Nonetheless, given the difficulties currently experienced because of the shortage of revenue funding, we support further consideration and local trials of measures such as land, employer and development tax, which would give greater powers to local authorities to raise revenue funds locally. The Department for Transport should work with local authorities in developing proposals to raise revenue locally to fund transport improvements. Such measures should provide sufficient revenue to support transport improvements which would otherwise not be possible. The ability to raise revenue should not be restricted to demand-management measures such as congestion charging, but should instead be widened to encompass all authorities and provide genuine freedom to fit the solution to local problems and priorities.

197 Ev 103 Back

198 Ev 103, Q309. However local authority transport officers do not report having received the increase in revenue funding which the Minister described (see: Q187, Q309, Ev 175) Back

199 Ev 171, 183, 34 Back

200 Q127 Back

201 Ev 171, 183, 34, 47, Q191 Back

202 Ev 73, 183 Back

203 Ev 189, 196 Back

204 Ev 56 Back

205 Q199 Back

206 Ev 193 Back

207 Q241 Back

208 Ev 34: "The annual survey of the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers has found that in recent years the cost of funding subsidised bus services to meet social inclusion objectives generally has increased each year at a rate considerably higher than retail inflation." These issues are examined further in the Transport Committee's Report 'Bus Services across the UK' Session 2005-06 HC 1317. Back