Select committee inquiry
Local decision making on transport spending
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The Chair of the Committee, Louise Ellman MP, has said: "There have been a number of changes in the arrangements for funding and delivering transport projects locally. We want to investigate the complex network of bodies involved in local transport decisions and find out how they work together both within and across local authority boundaries. We are also interested in hearing about the different funding schemes that are available and the extent to which these meet local needs." Further information: Report: Local transport expenditure: Who decides? (PDF, 2.85 MB) Terms of reference: Local authority decision making on transport spending Evidence session: Monday 10 March”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of 17th Report - Local transport expenditure: Who decides? ↗
New arrangements for allocating funding to local transport schemes will be introduced in 2015. We examined the proposed arrangements and concluded that—• Competitive bidding for funds might result in wasted expenditure on unsuccessful bids and could favour better resourced authorities.
• Strategically significant transport projects may not be funded if they do not deliver immediate benefits for LEPs or local authorities.
• Regional economies may not be sufficiently well developed to allow the private sector to invest significant sums in local transport schemes.
In the light of those challenges, the Department for Transport must closely monitor how the new provisions work in practice. The key test of the new arrangements is whether transport spending is distributed more equitably across England. More widely, schemes for funding local transport expenditure have been subject to considerable change in recent years. A period of stability will therefore be welcome, but this will be achieved only if the Department maintains effective strategic oversight over the implementation of the new arrangements.
What the government said
The government responded on 12 September 2014.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government welcomes the opportunity to respond, agrees that stability matters and that the new arrangements "should be reviewed", and sets out why it considers the Local Growth Fund approach appropriate.
- On competitive bidding, the government "strongly believes" competition has generated "genuinely innovative thinking", and intends to "learn from the assessment process" so future assessments "strike the right balance" between bidding costs and benefits.
- On distribution outside London, the government says London has a "unique dependence on public transport" and that Local Growth Fund allocations beyond London are "broadly equitable". It cites the 7 July 2014 announcement of over £3 billion for new local transport schemes.
- On monitoring LEP progress, the government is "committed to developing an overall monitoring and evaluation framework" with the Department for Transport "closely involved". No date is given, and the response does not mention the annual assessment the Committee recommended.
- On local versus national priorities, the government says Growth Deals were "driven primarily by the Local Enterprise Partnerships’ own priorities" and is "confident" the process does not preclude prioritising port and airport access schemes.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 30 October 2013 to its close on 13 January 2015.
- Oral evidence 10 Mar 2014
- Report 3 Jun 2014
- Government response 12 Sep 2014
What it recommended 3 recommendations · 8 conclusions
1Schemes for funding for local transport expenditure have undergone considerable change in recent years.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Schemes for funding for local transport expenditure have undergone considerable change in recent years. While the evidence we have received suggests that there is probably no perfect model, suitable for all areas, the Department for Transport must ensure that the repeated changes do not lead to delay in the delivery of transport schemes nor any diminution of accountability for transport spending.
2It is questionable whether bidding for pots of central government money that will be allocated...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is questionable whether bidding for pots of central government money that will be allocated via rules set by central government amounts to genuine devolution.
3Competitive bidding for funds could potentially lead to considerable wasted expenditure on bids.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Competitive bidding for funds could potentially lead to considerable wasted expenditure on bids. It is a centralising process which may favour better resourced authorities. We recognise that competition can be a creative process which can be used on occasions where the benefits of the creativity associated with competition are likely to outweigh the costs. We recommend that the DfT ensures that the arrangements for bidding mitigates these problems as far as this is practically possible.
4Far less money is spent on transport projects outside London than in the capital.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Far less money is spent on transport projects outside London than in the capital. We recommend that the Department aim for a more equitable distribution of transport funding when making awards under the Local Growth Fund.
5Given the Government’s focus on LEPs bringing in outside investment to supplement taxpayer funding we...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Given the Government’s focus on LEPs bringing in outside investment to supplement taxpayer funding we are also concerned that regional economies, which may not have a sufficiently well-developed private sector to provide alternative investment, may end up losing out.
6Devolution of decision making on major local transport projects to a local level should not...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Devolution of decision making on major local transport projects to a local level should not ignore accountability. Repeated changes in structures will hamper the ability of the public and interested stakeholders to engage with proposed projects. The fact that the recently created Local Transport Bodies may be reincorporated into Local Enterprise Partnerships makes the picture all the more confusing.
7Given the significant funding that the Department for Transport is putting into the Local Growth...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Given the significant funding that the Department for Transport is putting into the Local Growth Fund—some £6 billion from 2015-16 to 2020-21—it is unfortunate that there is no clarity about how much of that funding will be used for transport projects. DfT must make sure that LEPs implement transport projects for which they receive money from the Local Growth Fund. We recommend that the department Land transport expenditure: Who decides? 21 publish an annual assessment of the progress LEPs are making in this area.
8We are also recommend that the Department demonstrates how it will balance strategic oversight over...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are also recommend that the Department demonstrates how it will balance strategic oversight over spending and locally determined priorities. It is essential that strategic development is not overlooked simply on the basis that it does not immediately benefit a LEP or local authority. In particular, the DfT must clarify whether or not it will be prepared to challenge LEPs if they have not prioritised port access or other nationally significant, but locally delivered, transport schemes.
9None of the evidence provided to the Committee suggested that there are significant sources of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
None of the evidence provided to the Committee suggested that there are significant sources of additional funding which could be easily tapped by LEPs. Witnesses gave examples of some innovative schemes, such as “crowd sourcing”, which may prove significant in the future. However, it does not seem likely that these could be an immediate way of funding significant transport infrastructure projects at present.
10The new arrangements must be reviewed well before the end of the next Parliament to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The new arrangements must be reviewed well before the end of the next Parliament to ensure that they are efficient and effective in providing funding for the most urgent transport priorities.
11The under-funding of transport projects outside Greater London in recent years cannot be allowed to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The under-funding of transport projects outside Greater London in recent years cannot be allowed to continue. Ministers must use the new funding arrangements, via the Local Growth Fund, to ensure that there is a fairer allocation of funding to transport projects beyond London, and not just in city regions, City Deal areas and current enterprise zones. No area across our nation should be second class in relation to the allocation of transport infrastructure funds.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 10 Mar 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗