Written evidence from the PCS Union (TE 52)
INTRODUCTION
1. The level of cuts being contemplated to DfT's
capital budget and running costs will have a profound impact on
the UK's long-term economic growth.
2. Whilst the Government has determined that
it will make these cuts there is no reason why the Transport Committee
has to agree that they are necessary or desirable in the Transport
sector. It could conclude that these cuts cannot be made without
seriously harming the economy.
3. Therefore we would hope that the committee
will address the fundamental issue of whether there should be
budget reductions in the first place; if there does, whether they
have to be as deep as 25% (possibly 33%).
4. The Prime Minister has indicated that the
cuts will be permanent; that is once the structural deficit has
been cleared spending will not rise back towards current real
levels.
5. A permanent real cut in DfT capital expenditure
will impact on the priorities for investment identified by the
Eddington Transport Study, will retard "greening" transport
and hence will lower long term growth. Again we hope the committee
will address whether a permanent cut is desirable and to quantify
it's effect on UK long term growth.
6. Changes in economic growth and government
spending impact on different groups within society in different
ways. Therefore we hope that the Select Committee will examine
the differential economic effects of the proposed changes in Transport
spending. It is claimed that the cuts will be fair and that the
reductions in spending are "progressive austerity".
If that is the case then DfT should be put to strict proof to
demonstrate the fairness, or other wise, on all groups within
society (not only in terms of social class, ethnic groups etc
but also geographically) of the proposed reductions in expenditure.
7. Lastly the Government is planning to greatly
reduce civil service numbers in DfT. In our view, this attack
on the department's human capital will also impact on transport's
contribution to UK's long-term economic growth.
PRIORITIES FOR
INVESTMENT
8. The priorities for investment identified by
the Eddington Transport Study concerned reducing congestion in
urban areas, on key inter-urban corridors and at key international
gateways.
9. Whilst these priorities remain important,
in our opinion the major task of the department is to fundamentally
change our transport systems; to move them from being run on fossil
fuels to ones running on sustainable, clean energy; for public
transport to be really accessible to all the public, not only
in terms of coverage and capacity but in terms of price (public
transport must be cheap enough for all to use). If these things
are done then it will boost the UK's long-term economic growth.
CHANGING OUR
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
10. Climate change, if unchecked, will have a
devastating effect on our environment and hence economy. Moreover
the capital expenditure involved in moving away from fuel based
systems will boost the economy in itself.
11. Also by changing our transport systems as
described above we would ensure against a Peak Oil crisis.
12. If oil reserves/exploration of those reserves
do not keep pace with demand then consequentially petrol and diesel
prices will rise in real terms year after year. Many commentators
believe that these increases will be very sharp and that there
will be fuel shortages. Such things will have a shattering effect
on fuel based transport systems and the economy.
13. Unfortunately this Government, and the previous
one, seem to believe that the transport systems of today hold
good for the future. We profoundly disagree with that view.
MORE DEATHS
CAUSED BY
TRANSPORT-RELATED
AIR POLLUTION
THAN BY
CRASHES
14. The move away from fossil fuels based transport
also will have dramatic health benefits. Such benefits positively
impact on the economy (reduced health costs; more workers available
for work).
15. In March 2010 the House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee produced a report on Air quality which stated
in the summary:
"Poor air quality reduces the life expectancy
of everyone in the UK by an average of seven to eight months and
up to 50,000 people a year may die prematurely because of it.
Air pollution also causes significant damage to ecosystems. Despite
these facts being known air quality is not seen as a priority
across government and the UK is failing to meet a range of domestic
and European targets.
"The quantified costs of poor air quality that
are used to develop policy are out-dated. They do not take account
of all the known health effects, treatment costs, and environmental
damage, nor do they take account of fines that could be imposed
by the EU for failing to meet air quality targets. Many Government
departments do not seem fully to understand how their policies
affect air quality, the impact poor air quality has, and its cost
to the economy. Awareness of the issue needs to be raised at all
levels of government, and policies need to take greater account
of air quality impacts.
"Awareness needs to be raised and behaviour
needs to change if air quality targets are to be met. Transport
causes the most exposure to harmful air pollutants, and air quality
targets will not be met without a significant shift in transport
policy. Local authorities need to do more to tackle poor air quality,
and they must be given information on how to develop local air
quality strategies.
"The cost-benefit analysis is clear: what is
needed is the political will to make this a priority and to commit
the resources to address it now so that we can reap the benefits
of improved health."
16. Page 5 of the report says:
"Industry and road transport are the main sources
of air pollution, though domestic combustion and agriculture are
also to blame. Industry is a major source of emissions of NOX
(46%) and PM10 (36%). Road transport contributes to significant
emissions of NO2 (30%) and PM10 (18%). Emissions and
exposure vary greatly depending on location. Although polluting,
the majority of large combustion plants are located away from
major urban centres. Road transport contributes far more to the
public's exposure to pollutants and is responsible for up to 70%
of air pollution in urban areas."
17. In one of the recommendations (at page 18
of the report) the Environmental Audit Committee said:
"Transport policy must change dramatically if
the UK is to meet future targets and reduce exposure to air pollution.
Much of this agenda is already being driven by efforts to tackle
climate change (like modal shift and smarter travel choices) although
some conflicts exist. In addition to improving existing policies,
the Government must explain the role played by brake, tyre and
road wear in generating particulate matter and research the impact
of road surface particulate matter on air quality."
NOISE POLLUTION
18. The Executive Summary of the Defra paper,
An Economic Valuation of Noise Pollution, dated 2008 says:
"Across Europe, increasingly, attention is turning
to noise pollution and the detrimental impacts it has been suggested
to have on the population. The rapidly growing literature surrounding
noise pollution highlight a wide range of costs including loss
of amenity, adverse health impacts, slower learning rates in children,
irritation and effects on local ecology. In response to these
considerations there has been a significant movement across the
EU towards systematically managing noise with the first stage
being the creation of detailed noise maps and the development
of localised action plans.
"Based on the existing evidence, initial estimates
of the cost of noise pollution suggest that it is currently imposing
a cost in excess of £7 billion per annum1.
This estimate is made up of between £3-£5 billion in
annoyance costs, adverse health cost of around £2-£3
billion and productivity losses of another £2 billion.
Therefore, even where best practice is being observed this means
monetised impacts could be around half their true value."
19. The move away from fossil fuels based transport
would greatly reduce noise pollution (electric cars, for example,
are virtually noiseless) and help the economy by greatly reducing
the costs estimated above.
COST OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
20. DfT admits that between 1980 and 2009, bus
and coach fares increased by 54% and rail fares increased by 50%
respectively in real terms. Such increases impact on competitiveness
and growth.
21. The departmental is carrying out a fundamental
review of its expenditure. This will look at, amongst other things,
the existence and size of the Bus Service Operators Grant and
concessionary travel.
22. It seems to us that the consultation on train
franchises will lead to the Train Operating Companies being allowed
to raise fares in return for less subsidy.
23. Even before the election it was acknowledged
that the public would pay more for train travel. Indeed it is
official DfT policy that a greater proportion of railway costs
be recouped through train fares; in other words through higher
train fares.
24. A Guardian article dated 22 February 2010
said:
"The funding balance between passenger and taxpayer
is a particularly important issue for rail travellers, because
the farepayer is expected to pay for 75% of the industry's cost
by 2014 - the equivalent of £9 billion per year."
25. When asked by the union if they had equality-proofed
this proposal, to check the effects of increasing rail fares will
have on the poor, ethnic minorities etc, DfT admitted that they
had not. Such an assessment would have concluded that the poor
and ethnic minorities (both categories over lap) would be adversely
effected.
26. The overall effect of the above and other
measures will be, in our opinion, further and faster real increases
in the price of public transport. Such rises will tend to "price"
passengers off, make car travel (all least in advance of Peak
Oil effects) cheaper in real terms.
27. This means that certain sections of the population
will literally be less mobile. This will impact on the UK economy.
FAIR CUTS?
28. The TUC and Unison have commissioned a unique
study which "attempts to set out the value of the benefits
of services, using a new model of the distribution of public spending
across households in the UK". The report also uses this analysis
to estimate the losses to households as a result of the Government's
proposed cuts in public spending by 2012-13, as well as discussing
the impact of the fiscal consolidation measures as a whole (that
is, including the impact of changes to taxes and benefits)".
Please see:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/wherethemoneygoes.pdf
29. In the summary of that report (page 9) it
states the coming "cuts will also be regressive, with the
poorest tenth of households losing income and services equivalent
to 20.3% of their household income, compared to just 1.5% for
the richest tenth of households". It seems to us that DfT
should provide this sort of analysis as to the effect of the proposed
cuts. The department is legally bound to produce equality impact
assessments of its polices but our experience is that these tend
to be inadequate, if they are done at all.
30. As said above DfT should be put to strict
proof to demonstrate the fairness, or other wise, on all groups
within society (not only in terms of social class, ethnic groups
etc but also geographically) of the proposed reductions in expenditure.
HUMAN CAPITAL
31. Current plans suggest that up to a third
of staff in the central department will be shed and possibly a
similar percentage in the other parts of the department as well.
32. It is almost fashionable to denigrate civil
servants yet without skilled staff DfT cannot deliver its plans.
33. Many organisations have learnt to their cost
that shedding experienced staff means that they lose capacity
to deal with future changes.
34. An interesting case study is that of the
Highways Agency (HA). In the mid 1990s the department exited
many experienced engineers and administrative staff in keeping
with cuts in the road programme. They then found, when the road
programme was revived, that they did not have sufficient in house
capacity and had to buy in much more expensive consultants (the
legacy of which is that HA still has hundreds of consultants on
the books). Moreover they had to recruit staff to make up for
the cuts made. This was well documented in the NAO report on estimating
and monitoring the costs of building roads in England in March
2007 (HC321 Session 2006-07).
35. Ministers cannot now, foretell, what the
future holds. To cut DfT's planning and administrative capacity
must mean that the department will be less able to handle future
policy changes. This lack of capacity will have a real, if subtle,
effect on UK's long-term economic growth. We believe therefore
TRANSOM should inquire into this loss of human capacity.
September 2010
| 
