Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
RT HON.
RUTH KELLY
MP AND MR
ROBERT DEVEREUX
24 OCTOBER 2007
Q20 Mr Hollobone: And your senior
official?
Mr Devereux: I travelled on the
bus with a lady in a wheelchair on Saturday.
Q21 Mr Hollobone: Have you given
any thought at all to giving up your use of your ministerial car?
Ruth Kelly: Quite frankly, I do
not think it would be practical. I have switched to a Prius however
to make the point that it is possible to have a car which is as
environmentally friendly within the ministerial fleet as it is
possible to get. With responsibility for the government car service,
I was also delighted to know that we have set a target for reducing
the car emissions of the government car service I think—I
will stand corrected—to something like 130 grams per kilometre,
which is leading the way in this area.
Q22 Chairman: What is that in miles?
Ruth Kelly: I will have to defer
to my colleague.
Mr Devereux: 160.
Q23 Mr Clelland: I was particularly
interested that the Secretary of State has already referred to
public service agreement target 5 to deliver reliable and efficient
transport networks that support economic growth, which the department
leads, and public service agreement seven, improving the economic
performance of all English regions and reducing the growth gap
between regions, in which the department has a supporting role.
It was refreshing to hear the Secretary of State's determination
to do better in the department. I know she has only recently come
to the job. I wondered how the changes she has proposed would
impact specifically on those two targets because they are certainly
very important as far as the north east of England is concerned.
Ruth Kelly: Developing a transport
infrastructure which supports economic growth and gives a reliable
end to end journey time for the individual passenger is right
at the heart of everything we should do. The main lesson from
Eddington was that we should be—and we are as a department;
I think the capability review suggests this—using the evidence
to support the decisions that we take. We are as a department
very good at doing that, I understand. What we have to do I think
in future is make sure first of all that our appraisal system
is the best that it can be. As I was just explaining, we are about
to consult on that. Also, that we think about what is holding
back economic growth in each region, what are the constraints
that could be unlocked by better transport infrastructure? It
is pretty clear for example in London that transport is a barrier
to the growth of London. It is also pretty clear from the work
that the Northern Way has done across the three northern regions
that they see transport to be holding back economic growth in
a variety of ways. What we have to do all the time is be rigorous
about identifying the constraints to economic growth and investing
accordingly so as to unlock that growth. That is why I really
welcomed for instance the Northern Way study and why just recently
I announced that we wanted to look very seriously at their top
priority which was for a Manchester rail hub which could potentially
help the three northern regions develop more in the future. I
have announced a feasibility study into that going forward.
Q24 Mr Clelland: So far as the north
east is concerned for instance, it has been well known for 20
years that the road network is inadequate. Indeed, the last major
improvement to the A1 through the north east was 20 years ago.
This is affecting economic growth and all of the partners and
stakeholders in the region agree that economic growth and activity
are being affected by the inadequacy of the road network. Yet
we are told by the Highways Agency that, despite the fact this
has been looked at for 20 years, we cannot expect to get a report
on what improvements might take place before 2009 and we cannot
expect any substantial improvement to take place before 2015.
If that is the case, how on earth are these targets going to be
met in the north east of England?
Ruth Kelly: Where there are clear
priorities that are constraining economic growth and we have the
resources to meet those, those are the ones that we shall prioritise.
I think it is right to say that there are improvements to the
A1 network in the north east which have been identified by the
Highways Agency, as you say, as important to the development of
the north east. If, when they go through that detailed consideration,
they emerge as providing very good value for money and are one
of the priorities to unlock economic growth in the way that I
have just described, then clearly that is something that the Highways
Agency will want to take forward. I do not want to put you under
any illusions here that we have lots of money for roads which
is currently uncommitted because quite frankly we do not. It would
be some time before there are resources in the system which we
could commit to a project such as that.
Q25 Mr Clelland: I do not think we
are under any illusions, Secretary of State. We do not in the
north east region get a good service from your department. That
is generally agreed across the region, regardless of what statistics
you might want to come up with. Indeed, I think that was confirmed
by the Comprehensive Spending Review when the Chancellor referred
to a number of major road improvements throughout the country.
I think he mentioned the M1, the M6 and anywhere but the A1 north
of Yorkshire. Therefore, we feel that these targets which look
very good on paper do not seem to apply as far as the north east
is concerned, because we have been told that we cannot expect
any major improvements before 2015.
Ruth Kelly: We are currently looking
at our roads programme and I think the Chancellor in his pre-budget
report and the Comprehensive Spending Review made reference to
three particular motorway schemes which are already a long way
down the line and incredibly important to our national infrastructure
to deliver economic growth. Clearly, beyond that, we have to prioritise
rigorously. If the case is made for the A1, then in due course
that will come into the roads programme but before that case is
properly examined and determined in the light of the overall priorities
I am afraid I cannot make any commitment.
Mr Clelland: I think the case has been
made over many years. It is just that no one seems to be listening
to it.
Q26 Mr Scott: Secretary of State,
you mentioned about transport in London being a barrier to growth.
As Londoners are experiencing, as I did on the tube myself this
morning, travelling in conditions that legally we would not allow
animals to travel in, will you step in and perhaps stop this from
occurring, because it is obviously not being tackled by the current
person meant to be in charge of it, Mr Livingstone?
Ruth Kelly: Are you talking about
the tube network?
Q27 Mr Scott: I am talking about
different modes of transport but the tube and indeed some of the
overground services into London.
Ruth Kelly: We are clearly investing
very significantly in London, as we are in other regions, but
I would have thought that you would have welcomed the recent announcement,
not just of the huge investment in Thameslink but also in Crossrail
which will be in due course the single largest building project
in Europe, if not the northern hemisphere, and will not only add
20% capacity to the rail/tube network in London but also relieve
overcrowding at many of the stations throughout London.
Q28 Mr Scott: Secretary of State,
I do welcome it but obviously we are talking a number of years
hence before that comes into operation. I am referring more now
to the ineptitude of the current person running the transport
system in London in the shape of the Mayor, Mr Livingstone.
Ruth Kelly: I think the best people
to judge that are the voters who did actually vote him back at
the last election.
Q29 Mrs Ellman: In supporting PSA7
looking at reducing the growth gap between regions, what is the
department doing differently now to put that into practice?
Ruth Kelly: First of all, I think
you are talking about the new PSA framework rather than the one
in the annual report. Under the new PSA framework, you are absolutely
right that we contribute to the PSA on regional, economic growth.
It is absolutely right that that is separately identified. What
we have to do is identify rigorously and prioritise those investments
where it is clear that transport infrastructure or lack of investment
in transport infrastructure is holding back economic growth. As
we go forward under our new appraisal regime, we will be looking
very carefully at the evidence and investing in those areas where
it will maximise its impact.
Q30 Mrs Ellman: What are you going
to be doing differently to what you have done up to now?
Ruth Kelly: We will be appraising
things differently and I am just about to issue a consultation
paper on how we do those appraisals which will take into account
the impact on economic growth. It will also take into account
the impacts on the environment and quality of life and equality
of opportunity. I think if you look across the board and you do
a benefit cost ratio, as we call it in the transport sector, rigorously,
it will identify those projects in the different regions of the
UK which will make a real impact on people's access.
Mr Devereux: You were asking us
earlier about the budgetary dispositions. One of the things that
will be happening from next year onwards is that the department
will be spending money from what has been known as the transport
innovation fund. That money includes money that will be spent
on cities outside London and on schemes of national productivity.
The ones we have listed are essentially all outside London. Things
will be being sent which are directly relevant to growth in areas
outside of London and that will be new in the sense that it is
additional money over and above what we are spending at the moment.
Q31 Mrs Ellman: I want to turn to
bus and light rail. You have a target of improving bus and light
rail usage by 12%. How do you divide that between bus and light
rail and how is that related to the different regions?
Ruth Kelly: First of all, the
big picture here is that public transport use is up very significantly
across the country. That is up I think about 12%. Within that,
the majority of the increase in patronage that we have seen has
been on buses rather than on light rail, although clearly there
has been some increase in patronage on light rail as successful
schemes such as the Nottingham scheme have got off the ground.
There are plans to go further in Manchester and elsewhere. What
is driving the figures is the very significant upturn in bus patronage
in London but also in some other parts of the country—I
think Merseyside is one of them—which have also seen bus
use increase substantially.
Q32 Mrs Ellman: How do you approach
this? Are you just looking for the overall increase and, as it
says in the report, some growth in each region or are you looking
at regions where more growth is needed? What are you actually
doing?
Ruth Kelly: We have two elements
of this target. One is a national upturn in bus and light rail
patronage which we have clearly met and even exceeded. The decline
in bus use has been reversed recently for the first time in decades.
The second part of the target is to see bus use and light rail
use increase in each region. There the target is much more challenging
because there has been a very differential impact of various measures
with the huge increase in London and in some other parts of the
country, which have been boosted for example by the introduction
of concessionary fares, will be enhanced further by the introduction
of national concessionary fares from next April and should be
improved also through the measures in the Local Transport Bill
when they become law. I fully accept that to increase bus patronage
and light rail patronage in every region will be extremely challenging.
Q33 Mrs Ellman: Some of the authorities
quoting an increase in bus patronage have had that statement criticised
by the National Auditor, by the Audit Commission. Are you aware
of that?
Ruth Kelly: I think we are pretty
confident about our overall figures and I have not personally
seen any information which would cast doubt on them. We have met
the national figures for bus and light rail patronage.
Q34 Mrs Ellman: Some of the information
has been challenged by the Audit Commission. Were you aware of
that?
Mr Devereux: Is this local authorities'
information? From memory, the information we have for bus statistics
is collected from bus companies rather than from authorities.
Q35 Chairman: The information that
local authorities hold, because they have not yet got quality
partnerships, will largely have been given to them by the bus
companies. If you will forgive me saying so, this is a circular
argument. The question is really quite straightforward. If the
National Audit Office is not confident that the figures being
used by the department are accurate—and they have in fact
been challenged apparently—do you make any effort to check
the accuracy of the information that you are using from the bus
companies?
Mr Devereux: I thought you said
it was the Audit Commission's doubts about local government data,
not the department's data in the National Audit Office report,
just to be clear what the charge is.
Q36 Mr Martlew: Would it be likely
that local authorities will overestimate the bus usage because
they are on a deficit with concessionary fares? Therefore, I suspect
that some local authorities' figures will be bogus.
Ruth Kelly: There is clearly an
issue about getting reliable data for concessionary fares. It
is very difficult to determine precisely what is happening in
every local authority area. The figures from bus operators are
more reliable. I also think from memory that we have looked at
this point and are convinced that the data against which we report
the PSA target is accurate.
Q37 Mrs Ellman: You are satisfied
it is?
Mr Devereux: Let us go away and
find out.
Q38 Chairman: I am sorry; I may have
misheard you. It is Audit Commission figures. On the other hand,
that does not alter the question of whether or not you are working
on information which is wholly reliable.
Mr Devereux: I accept that. One
of the reasons that we do use bus company data is because it is
very difficult to detect individual patronage across local authority
bands. These bus routes come from authority A into authority B.
Just think of your mets, your districts and unitaries, the consequence
of which is apportioning the patronage by authority, one more
stage of complexity over and above just counting how many people
are on the buses. That is why essentially we stick with counting
people on the buses. I can see that there is a further issue about
how accurately can authority A know about its own bus patronage
but that is not the way that we have gone about collecting our
data.
Q39 Mrs Ellman: Does the department
support new light rail schemes?
Ruth Kelly: Yes, where they are
good value for money and they show a good benefit:cost ratio,
where alternatives have been considered and they are shown to
be the best way of improving the transport infrastructure in that
area.
| 
