STRENGTHENING PASSENGER TRANSPORT
AUTHORITIES
168. The Local Government Association commissioned
a study to examine ways in which the governance and funding of
transport could be reformed in the context of debates about the
future of local government, transport, City-Regions and funding.[288]
The Report recommended that some of the successful aspects of
Transport for London should be transferred to other cities and
that this might best be achieved through strengthening the PTAs
in metropolitan areas."[289]
There could be significant advantages to giving increased powers
to PTAs in order that they could better control transport improvements
in their areas. For example, the new Authorities might be able
to introduce bus franchising, and take greater control over local
urban rail networks. They might also be given powers such as the
ability to set a council tax precept, and control over economic
development and transport-related planning.
169. Any such transfer of powers would, however,
require a parallel increase in the degree of accountability required
of PTAs. It must be evident that the PTAs have the capability
to deliver improvements and that the decisions taken by PTAs are
in the interests of the community. It has been suggested that
the legitimacy and authority of PTAs could be strengthened by
having the most senior members of a council appointed to the PTA,
or a board consisting of district leaders—following a similar
model to that of the Transport for London board.[290]
Responses to City-Regions model
170. The evidence we received during the course of
our inquiry indicated a mixed reception to the idea of City-Regions.
Some witnesses thought that the idea was not particularly radical
since City-Regions would merely formalise what already happens
in decision-making within the context of Regional Spatial Strategies,
Regional Funding Allocations and through the Government Offices
for the Regions.[291]
Some local authorities argued that the City-Region model should
apply not only to metropolitan areas, but also to county council
areas. Mr Page, of the LGA, identified potential advantages:
The way of overcoming the present ridiculous local
authority boundaries that we have which militate against effective
transport planning would be to create a wider PTA-equivalent area,
and that could be created in shire counties as well as city regions.
That would require authorities to cede power up to a higher level.
Personally I do not have a problem with that.[292]
171. It was the PTEs, however, that seemed most strongly
in favour of developing the City-Region model. For example, Mr
Tom Magrath, of West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive, Centro,
told us: "We are looking at a City-Region and the possibility
of a transport authority representing that might be one of the
outcomes of that, but this is all thought and work in progress
at the moment".[293]
Mr Scales, of Merseytravel, pointed to the success of Transport
for London and suggested that City-Regions would help the PTEs
achieve something similar.[294]
172. Many local authorities, however, were cautious
about welcoming the City-Region model. There was a general willingness
to work together to achieve outcomes that benefited the City-Region,
but there was less support for the notion of new tiers of government.
Mr Newton, of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities
told us that he would like to see a 'federalist approach' "where
the authorities work together but with more devolved powers in
order to enable them to implement particularly transport improvements".[295]
The complexity of the existing clutter of structures within the
Northern Way 'super region' was identified and the difficulties
of adding another tier of institutions were noted.[296]
173. Many of the local authorities that gave evidence
were averse to the notion of relinquishing any of their powers
to other organisations and particularly those that are not directly-elected.[297]
As Ms Quant, of Hampshire County Council, said: "[…]
only accountable authorities should have spending abilities and
powers and if there is to be a City-Region there needs to be a
form of local government that matches it".[298]
This view was endorsed by Councillor Sparks, of the LGA:
The Local Government Association […] would genuinely
be interested in looking at any mechanism that encouraged the
development of transport in our local areas but it […] would
have to include local democracy. It would have to involve local
councils. We would not be in favour of […] unelected bodies
taking powers away from local government.[299]
The report commissioned by LGA suggested that the
reluctance of metropolitan districts to hand over their powers
could be overcome by giving local authorities a power of veto.[300]
Voluntary collaboration
174. Local authorities preferred to see a federalist
approach of local authorities working together, rather than a
formal introduction of a new structure of government. Indeed,
the academics that have advanced the potential benefits of City-Regions
are also disinclined to recommend a national reorganisation of
local government.[301]
Sir Michael Lyons pointed to the disadvantages of formal restructuring:
All of my experience tells me that reorganisation
is a pretty wasteful exercise. It is not to say that you might
not feel that sometimes you need to embark upon it, but if it
can be avoided so much the better. I come down very strongly […]
in favour of encouraging people to do things voluntarily by working
together where they need to go outside their boundaries.[302]
Later in his evidence he warned against adopting
another tier of elected government: "I am a bit wary about
the idea of introducing new electoral arrangements for City-Regions,
especially whilst we have such a woolly idea of what a City-Region
is."[303]
175. Although a collaborative approach was favoured
by local authorities, there is little indication that voluntary
arrangements of this sort will be effective. On the contrary,
the Atkins review of Local Transport Plan delivery found that
metropolitan areas with joint plans have struggled to deliver
the improvements required because of: "Difficulties in delivering
large complex programmes across a number of metropolitan highway
authorities, sometimes with differing political control, and the
need to co-ordinate activities with Passenger Transport Executives."[304]
We are therefore doubtful that collaborative arrangements, without
specific sources of funding and direct planning and regulatory
powers, will achieve the necessary results.
176. Whether a voluntary or a mandatory approach
to City-Regions is adopted, care must be taken to ensure that
the transport needs of smaller towns and more mixed areas are
not neglected in the rush to prioritise the economic importance
of cities. The Minister reassured us that the Department for Transport
would be alive to these dangers: "If those sorts of pressures
become an issue, clearly that is something that we shall have
to look at and we shall have to adapt the way we distribute our
money and the way our formulas work to take appropriate cognisance
of it."[305]
177. If Passenger
Transport Authorities are to be capable of making significant
improvements to transport services in major metropolitan areas,
they will require enhanced powers over the transport system. Such
powers must be accompanied by increased levels of accountability.
We recommend that the Government explore the possibility of giving
Passenger Transport Authorities such extended powers, funding
and democratic accountability. In the interests of moving forward
the debate, we recommend that one or two pilots of strengthened
Passenger Transport Authorities are trialled over a City-Regional
scale.
178. We welcome
the Minister's acknowledgement that if City-Regions are adopted,
attention must be given to monitoring resources available to towns
and mixed areas to ensure the transport needs of these areas are
not neglected.
276 
