Written evidence from Passenger Transport
Executive Group (PTEG)
1. KEY ISSUES
FOR CONSIDERATION
1.1 City regions need effective governance
for economic development and transport. There are existing and
emerging arrangements which have local ownership in the major
city regions outside London which need to be integrated with the
Local Enterprise Partnerships approach.
1.2 The status of LEPs, and their relationship
with bodies such as PTEs and ITAs, will need to be clear in order
for them to be effective, and the integration with emerging city
regional models will be critical in building on the success of
what has already been achieved.
1.3 Mechanisms for ensuring cooperation
between LEPs will be important in avoiding unnecessary competition
and also in supporting pan-regional initiatives, such as the Northern
Way.
1.4 LEPs should seek to build on, and integrate
with, existing arrangements, rather than recreate what already
exists. This will be more efficient and achieve better value for
money outcomes.
1.5 Local Transport Plans (LTPs) are the
basis for effective transport planning at the city region level
and therefore should be aligned with LEP development.
1.6 In the absence of regional structures,
the city regions are the logical level for the determination of
strategic economic, social and environmental priorities. There
should therefore be a presumption in favour of devolving former
regional responsibilities to the city regions.
1.7 It is clear that LEPs are intended to
have a prominent role in bidding for the Regional Growth Fund
(RGF). Funding for transport schemes should be included within
the RGF's remit, particularly given the strong link between economic
growth and transport.
1.8 Funding should be allocated on the basis
of both economic impact and the need to rebalance the economy
and address gaps, where they exist, in public and private investment
between London and the regions.
2. ABOUT PTEG
AND THE
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
EXECUTIVES
2.1 pteg represents the six Passenger Transport
Executives (PTEs) in England and through them the travelling public
in the city regions. The PTEs provide, plan, procure and promote
public transport in six of England's largest conurbations; Merseyside
(Merseytravel), West Midlands (Centro), Tyne and Wear (Nexus),
West Yorkshire (Metro), Greater Manchester (GMPTE) and South Yorkshire
(SYPTE). Transport for London, Leicester City Council, Nottingham
City Council and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport are associate
members of pteg. This response is on behalf of the six PTEs only.
2.2 The PTEs operate at the level of the
city regions, reflecting the relevant functional economic area,
and they believe that this is the optimum strategic level for
the provision of urban transport. They are fully accountable,
reporting into Integrated Transport Authorities (ITAs) which are
composed of elected representatives of the local authorities in
the areas they serve. PTEs support the ITAs in the development
and delivery of Local Transport Plans.
2.3 The PTE/ITA model is a highly successful
example of a bottom-up approach that allows local authorities
to come together with other stakeholders to address shared challenges
around the provision of transport services and infrastructure,
and to support wider policy objectives around economic development
and regeneration, health and climate change. The model has demonstrated
that local, innovative approaches can be taken in developing city
region transport networks.
2.4 Over the past few years, new models
of governance for economic development have been emerging around
the city regions, culminating in the forerunner pilots in Leeds
and Manchester, and most recently in the proposal for a Combined
Authority under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and
Construction Act 2009 in Greater Manchester. Transport is seen
as a key priority for each of the city regions and PTEs have played
an active part in developing proposals and in shaping governance
arrangements for city regions. This is a consequence of other
partners recognising the role that PTEs/ ITAs play.
3. STRUCTURE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF LEPS
3.1 Whilst it is understandable that there
is no intention to provide a prescriptive model for LEPs, and
that matters of structure and function will be for local determination,
a clear indication will be required as to whether they could be
statutory or non-statutory. For example, could the statutory models
provided for under the LDEDCA (Economic Prosperity Boards, Combined
Authorities or Multi Area Agreements with duties) form an appropriate
basis for a LEP? Furthermore a key point relevant to some city
regions is the ability for a LEP to be formed of either lower
or upper tier authorities, as retaining flexibility to meet local
circumstances and different geographies is important.
3.2 The Committee will note that a significant
amount of detailed work has been done by stakeholders in Greater
Manchester, Leeds (the two pilot city regions) and other city
regions, in arriving at proposals that meet the specific challenges
of each city region. Indeed, all the city regions have been active
in developing formal or informal models that meet the particular
requirements of the local authorities and communities which comprise
them. Therefore it is important that this work informs the development
of LEPs in each city region.
3.3 Given that the Coalition Government
has indicated that it expects LEPs to be business-led, the Committee
may be interested to explore how accountability will be ensured.
This is particularly pertinent given the criticisms of the RDAs
in this regard. In addition, how LEPs interact with elected mayors,
whether these are for city councils (as previously indicated)
or for city regions (as recent statements from ministers seem
to imply) will be an important consideration.
3.4 The LEP model may give rise to groups
of local authorities competing nationally (and potentially internationally)
against each other for access to investment and funding. Such
an "adversarial" approach might not necessarily provide
for the most constructive overall economic, social and environmental
outcomes, and may risk losing the benefits of such models of pan-regional
cooperation as the Northern Way. There is also the risk that such
competition might actually increase costs. We would therefore
be particularly interested in further information about the mechanisms
that will be put in place to ensure cooperation between LEPs,
and between LEPs and individual local authorities, including the
proposed duty to cooperate.
4. FUNCTIONS
OF LEPS
4.1 Transport will be a critical issue in
relation to LEPs achieving their intended objectives of economic
growth and private sector led recovery. Given the existing role
of PTEs/ITAs as set out above, details of how LEPs are expected
to integrate with existing accountable models of local authority
cooperation will need to be considered. Most obviously this would
be with PTEs/ITAs and with other established models, such as joint
waste authorities, but also with emerging models such as Greater
Manchester's proposals for a Combined Authority under the LDEDCA
and the Leeds City Region pilot.
4.2 LEPs provide an opportunity to make
joint working more effective, building on successful partnerships
locally. We would therefore recommend that LEPs should be designed
around, and seek to complement, the strengths of existing models
of cooperation and joint working. This is particularly important
at a time of reduced public expenditure where going "with
the grain" of existing arrangements is likely to be more
efficient than creating wholly new structures to replace what
is already underway. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to deliver
greater efficiency through a more simplified approach to urban
transport strategy with the removal of the regional tier and the
opportunities to bring together at a city regional level shared
objectives around economic, social and environmental priorities,
through the LEP model.
4.3 The ITAs currently have responsibility
for the preparation of the Local Transport Plans (LTPs) for the
city regions, with the PTEs responsible for delivering the policies
contained within them. With the proposed removal of Regional Strategies,
the LTPs will be the main statutory policy framework covering
the sub regional level. LTPs must therefore be integrated effectively
with emerging LEP priorities. We believe that it is logical that
LTPs remain the main delivery vehicle for the transport investment
requirements of LEPs.
4.4 Whilst more information is required
as to how the statutory functions of the RDAs and GOs will be
discharged, if they are to be retained at a sub-national level,
we welcome the opportunity to contribute to the shaping of the
relationship between former RDA and GO functions, and LEPs. It
is not clear by what mechanism the functions of RDAs and GOs will
be redistributed following the creation of LEPs, and how this
relates to their statutory or non statutory status. However, we
believe that there should be a presumption towards localism, and
towards ensuring that the most effective frameworks are established
in our city regions for prioritised investment in infrastructure
and business support that best supports local economic priorities.
4.5 The absence of a strategic planning
model at a sub-national level particularly for land use is of
concern. Despite their faults, Regional Spatial Strategies did
at least give the opportunity to explore sub-national planning
issues and coordinate activities across regions. The only remaining
statutory plan for coordinating activities above the district
level remains the Local Transport Plan (LTP). We believe that
under the new arrangements, city regions should be given the scope
to plan, prioritise and allocate resources within their areas
in pursuit of clear, shared and agreed economic objectives.
5. FUNDING
5.1 There is currently uncertainty as to
how LEPs would themselves be funded and, in turn, what external
funding streams they will be able to access, for example sources
of EU funding. Clearly, the questions of governance and accountability
noted above will be particularly important in this context, but
we believe that LEPs, in order to be effective, will need to access
external funding.
5.2 We note that the statutory models provided
for under the LDEDCA did not entail provision of any central government
funding additional to that already available to the local authorities
involved. We further note that the only fund-raising powers that
those bodies would have themselves would be the existing levying
powers of an ITA (where a Combined Authority was being created)
and these would be restricted for use in the delivery of transport
functions.
5.3 The issue of LEP funding cannot be separated
from consideration of the future of the regional funding allocation/advice
process, the proposed Regional Growth Fund (RGF) and also from
the review of local government finance.
5.4 It is clear that LEPs are intended to
have a prominent role in bidding for RGF. We feel that funding
for transport schemes should be included within the RGF's remit,
particularly given the strong link between economic growth and
transport. The criteria for allocating funding should be based
on delivering the best returns on investment in terms of jobs
and economic growth, and reflect the importance of the city regions
to the national economy.
5.5 The principle of using the RGF to leverage
private sector investment is one that the PTEs fully support (and
have a track record of securing such funding). However it is also
clear that certain parts of the country are more heavily dependent
on public sector spending than others. Therefore we would argue
that there is a strong need for the RGF to be allocated in way
that balances these two issues—reflecting the need for investment
in the absence of the private sector as well as best securing
the private sector's input where available.
5.6 Crucially, given the persistent funding
gap between the North and the West Midlands and London on transport
spending,[70]
we would be interested to understand the role that LEPs can play
in addressing this imbalance. Even with a focus on generating
private sector growth, it seems likely that there will remain
a need for public investment in the city regions and in rebalancing
the economy. Ministers have highlighted the need for regional
balance yet it is not clear how LEPs or the RGF will contribute
to addressing it.
August 2010
70 Transport spending per head is £641 in London
compared to £262 in the North and the West Midlands Back
| 
