Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR PAT
HAYES, MR
MARK BENNETT,
COUNCILLOR DAVID
SPARKS, COUNCILLOR
TONY PAGE
AND MR
BOB DONALDSON
17 MAY 2006
Q80 Chairman: It is the principle
that you all accept but you are not setting a band within which
the ceilings could be reapplied? Is that what we are to understand?
I think a nod means yes.
Mr Page: Yes.
Mr Donaldson: Perhaps further
analysis is required and we certainly do not have that information
to hand today.
Q81 Mr Leech: Do you think there
is an argument to say that in different parts of the country the
level should be different depending on the size of the transport
authority?
Mr Page: Clearly there is an argument
for that. Some of us would go further and say that perhaps there
should be—a point that Councillor Sparks made—a review
of local government finance. We as local government are far too
dependent on central government grants. We need a system that
turns the whole thing on its head. 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. We look at it far too much
in terms of how much money we get from central government. Hopefully
the Lyons Inquiry might enable a more radical departure and then
the debate about what we are able to do might focus more on raising
money locally from a variety of different sources rather than
from central government. Central government's role should be in
grant equalisation, in my view, and assisting those areas of the
country with high levels of unemployment and other structural
problems.
Q82 Mr Clelland: I am not having
a go at London, it is just a question. Is there a similar threshold
for major scheme proposals for the London boroughs and, if so,
what level is it set at?
Mr Hayes: The arrangements in
London are so different that there is not a threshold at which
a project has to go to us or anyone else. The borough is self-financing
and clearly they can do that. We allocate money through the borough
spending plan process at the moment. In terms of the major projects
that we take forward, because of the Mayor's powers and the Mayor's
income-generating powers, effectively, we can push forward a major
project if we can fund it using the things that we have access
to, whether that is borrowing and that is part of the money we
have and the decision processes around that.
Mr Bennett: I would like to amplify
what Mr Hayes has just said in that boroughs do approach us for
money from schemes that raise from £5,000 upwards. If it
goes beyond the £2 million we do expect slightly more detail
according to a business case development manual that we have so
that we can actually explore the value for money—
Chairman: So you do have parameters which
apply to the boroughs?
Q83 Mr Clelland: But perhaps not
as restrictive as the parameters that face the members of the
Local Government Association?
Mr Bennett: I am not an expert
but I understand that they are not as quite as complex as the
LTP process requirements.
Chairman: Mr Efford wants to question
that.
Q84 Clive Efford: There are certain
aspects of transport in London that it is impossible for local
authorities to influence. You are as tied up in contracts with
bus providers, for instance, as anybody else. I find it impossible
to get you to alter routes through my constituency. My experience
has been all of the problems that have been described by transport
authorities outside of London. Is that true?
Mr Hayes: In terms of bus network
development, the significant difference is that we specify the
routes and we can determine where those routes go. We enter into
contracts simply for the operation of those routes. If we have
the funding and decide that it is appropriate, then we extend
the route and extend the contract. There are some issues around
varying the contracts and things like that but they can all be
worked through.
Chairman: It is a fundamentally different
system. Mr Stringer?
Q85 Graham Stringer: Three or four
very quick questions. Can you put a figure on the cost nationally
of the inefficiencies or even just the costs of the local transport
plan funding system? We have got a lot evidence qualitatively
that it costs money. Has the LGA done any work to say what that
figure is? If not, why not?
Mr Page: I think the short answer
is that we do not have those figures. I am not aware that that
has been raised as an issue by our members. The point I would
make, as someone who has been actively involved in the local transport
planning process, is that any good local authority should be doing
most of that work in any case. Even if you were not bidding for
central government funds, the process of taking forward local
transport planning requires a strategy and it requires transparent
policies and plans. It is one area of prescription that the government
lay down that I do not think most local authorities have a problem
with because you would need to do the work in any case is what
I am saying.
Q86 Graham Stringer: Possibly I am
not being clear enough. In terms of the funding regimes that give
permission to schemes over £5 million, we have heard that
there are a lot of costs associated with delays over getting agreement
and delays caused by too much involvement, all sorts of issues
like that. Have you worked out the costs of those? I am sorry
if I was not clear in the first question.
Mr Sparks: We have had feedback
from individual local authorities that this is a considerable
problem but they have not quantified it.
Q87 Graham Stringer: Would it be
possible for you to?
Mr Sparks: We will try and do
that.
Graham Stringer: It would be very helpful
if you could give us some sort of figures. I think I am asking
a very similar question to the questions that Mrs Ellman and Mr
Efford asked but I will ask it anyway. What would a really good
scheme and process for local transport planning and funding look
like? We have heard this afternoon about the problems of the current
scheme. What would a very effective and efficient scheme look
like?
Q88 Chairman: Somebody: Mr Donaldson?
Mr Sparks?
Mr Sparks: I think what we would
say based on the work that we have done on climate change is that
the local authority would need to have a plan that included transport
but related transport to a whole variety of other goals, objectives
and policies, be they to do with social inclusion, be they to
do with climate change, energy efficiency, or whatever, so that
we looked at it in its totality and we go totally beyond where
we are at the moment.
Q89 Graham Stringer: And would it
have much involvement from the Department for Transport?
Mr Sparks: We would hope that
by that time the Department for Transport, through a more integrated
approach by central government as a whole, would have an input.
The problem you have got with central government in relation to
this particular field is that we do not just want the Department
for Transport. We want the Department for Transport and other
departments to join with us in an integrated approach. That is
why we are pushing local area agreements to be more sophisticated
and expanded documents.
Mr Page: There is also the additional
point within the existing regime where you are using it to bid
for government grant. That is one aspect but ideally, you should
have a more flexible system whereby the local transport plan could
be used to inform decisions, for example around the whole issue
of Planning Gain Supplement, section 106 agreements. A good local
transport plan can be a very effective tool in maximising a developer's
contribution. Indeed, many developers are more than happy to contribute
when they see that the local authority has got a good plan. It
is the point I was making earlier. We would need this as a tool
with or without it being used for bidding for government funds.
I would like to see a much freer financing regime so that the
LTP was only required to bid for really substantial projects that
required government support, like a new light rail network or
a major tunnel or indeed even an airport, although I realise that
is a more sensitive area, those sorts of really major capital
projects that were perhaps of regional or indeed national importance.
The rest of it we should be able to raise locally from a freed-up
local financing regime.
Q90 Graham Stringer: At the end of
the evidence session from the PTAs, at the very last question
the witnesses got very excited at the prospect of having highways
powers transferred to them. What is the view of the LGA about
taking highways powers out of directly elected control?
Mr Page: You mean taking it to
another body?
Q91 Graham Stringer: Taking it to
a PTA.
Mr Page: A PTA is not an unelected
body.
Q92 Graham Stringer: It is not directly
elected.
Mr Page: It is not directly elected
but there is a long tradition of sharing the exercise of power.
Personally I do not have a problem with that. The work that David
Sparks was referring to that the LGA has commissioned looks at
this. I accept that this is in the context of city regions, Chairman,
but nonetheless the principle could be extended to shire counties
as well. 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.
Q93 Graham Stringer: Are you speaking
personally or for the LGA?
Mr Page: I know I am speaking
for probably the Labour and Liberal groups on the LGA. Do you
want to have a different take?
Mr Sparks: I will give you an
LGA answer. The situation in relation to the Local Government
Association is that we would genuinely be interested in looking
at any mechanism that encouraged the development of transport
in our local areas but it would have to be and it would have to
include local democracy. It would have to involve local councils.
We would not be in favour of, as it were, unelected bodies taking
powers away from local government.
Q94 Graham Stringer: And does that
apply to unelected bodies that have elected people on them?
Mr Sparks: No because in the development
of, for example the city region in the West Midlands, the key
factor there has been the proposed involvement of the not just
seven district councils but the proposed involvement of local
councils through their leaders and leading members and officers
in any executive body that oversaw any functions that are conducted
solely within individual local authorities. It would be matched
or would have to involve the evolution down, shall we say, from
central government of extra powers back to local government. That
would be shared because we recognise that when we are talking
about transport in particular we have to go across administrative
boundaries and therefore it is in the interests, say for example,
of my authority Dudley to have a relationship with Sandwell, Birmingham,
Walsall and Wolverhampton to improve the transport network for
our citizens than it would be if it was just giving Dudley Council
extra powers.
Mr Page: The government offices
at the moment operate on the basis of urban area packages in many
areas where they take an urban centre and will involve adjoining
districts in those discussions. Those are effectively informal
discussions that are arbitrated by the regional office. What we
are talking about is having a much more transparent and democratically
accountable structure that would get a proper buy-in from adjoining
authorities as well.
Q95 Mr Clelland: So that would be
different from the Transport for London model then?
Mr Page: Yes.
Mr Donaldson: If I can add my
experience, which is not particularly of this type but working
with Tyne & Wear, I have seen a lot of frustrations coming
from colleagues on the LTP in terms of the delivery of bus priority
measures, which we heard mentioned in the earlier evidence. I
can understand their frustration but the frustration often arises
because of the need for public engagement and involving the local
community in the development of the proposals. I was questioning
myself about the current transport plan and the proposal to introduce
a bus lane in Sunderland which was in the local transport plan
as a proposal and yet we had not consulted local members on that
in any detail. It was just there indicative as a principle. However,
the process that is given to us in developing our programmes requires
us to go in some significant detail and that is a clear tension.
Q96 Chairman: Yes, that is helpful.
I want to ask you a slightly different thing. Are the separate
funding arrangements for capital and revenue expenditure appropriate?
No? No answer?
Mr Page: I would say they are
appropriate providing we were not subjected to the capping controls
that I referred to earlier.
Q97 Chairman: So you are asking for
more flexibility between the two budgets. How is that going to
work in practice?
Mr Page: I think there is already
a fair amount of flexibility that local authorities can exercise
between capital and revenue budgets.
Q98 Chairman: So what are you asking
for? More?
Mr Page: More of both, yes.
Mr Sparks: The answer to this
one is that 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.
Q99 Chairman: Should performance
reports be required annually, biennially, or triennially?
Mr Sparks: We think increasingly—
| 
