Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by ASLEF

1. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) is the UK’s largest train driver’s union representing approximately 18,000 members in train operating companies and freight companies as well as London Underground and light rail systems.

2. ASLEF welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into transport and the accessibility of public services: Prior research has already shown that poor public transport services prevent people from accessing key local health, welfare, education and social services and thereby reinforce social exclusion. In spite of this evidence, little has been done to improve the accessibility, cost and safety of transport links. We hope, as a result of this inquiry, to see the government do more to address this.

3. In 2003 the then Social Exclusion Unit concluded that transport barriers negatively affect the employment and educational opportunities of jobseekers, young people, lone parents, older people and people with disabilities, resulting in social exclusion and reduced wellbeing. In 2012, we believe that this remains just as pertinent an issue: Fares are too expensive, services are often overcrowded and many people do not have a railway station nearby.

4. Privatisation and fragmentation of the railway network have led to an inefficient system where companies have too much commercial freedom. Cost savings are being made at the expense of passengers while profits go to private train operators instead of being reinvested into the railway. The Department for Transport’s annual accessibility statistics for 2010 show that a greater proportion of the urban population could access key services in a “reasonable time” than rural areas could, and accessibility also varies by region. This is because private companies prioritise investment in profitable commuter routes and urban centres at the expense of station and line closures elsewhere in the country. Public transport services are less frequent and evening and weekend services are often unavailable outside the urban periphery. The implications for rural communities are both social and economic.

5. The reality is that it is the economically disadvantaged who are most likely to be affected by transport poverty. Indeed, the UK already has some of the most expensive train fares in the world and each January they rise even further. Fares are set to rise by 24% by 2015. For the unemployed, the cost of travelling to job centres and going to sign on can be prohibitive. For others, on low incomes, the excessive cost and difficulty of travelling to work can be prohibitive. Unemployment rates are high and jobs are scarce, meaning that many people have to travel further to find work, but poor transport links make doing this very difficult.

6. ASLEF is also concerned that company cuts may affect passenger wellbeing and safety. We would like to see steps put in place to protect the jobs of staff at stations and on trains for the benefit of disabled and elderly passengers who need assistance as well as for vulnerable young people and female passengers travelling in remote places at night. We would like to see the reopening of closed lines, better services outside peak hours and improved access provisions for disabled and elderly passengers.

7. Whether people want to travel to work, school, the hospital, shops, or to visit friends and family, the deterrents to them doing so are highest for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. The consequences are not only economic but also social and psychological, including stress, anxiety and isolation.

8. Improving train and other public transport services would help to improve lives, as well as being environmentally friendly. Obstacles to using public transport encourage the use of privately owned cars instead, adding to road congestion and with a negative impact on the environment.

9. Progress in terms of improving accessibility of key services for disadvantaged populations has been disappointing. Furthermore, cutbacks to transport services resulting from austerity measures are adversely affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. As a result of this inquiry, we would like to see:

(a)A Government review of how it regulates fares and concessions.

(b)Improved local transport services within rural areas: More frequent services at weekends and evenings, reopening of small lines, more carriages at busy times to reduce overcrowding.

(c)Protection for rail staff jobs.

(d)Rail companies brought back into the public sector at the end of their franchises: This would help to eliminate safety risks associated with profit-driven franchise companies and sub-contractors.

5 September 2012