transport and accessibility to public services€¦ · transport and the accessibility to public...

HC 201 [Incorporating HC 570-i, ii, iii, iv, Session 2012-13]

Published on 24 June 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£17.50

House of Commons

Environmental Audit Committee

Transport and accessibility to public services

Third Report of Session 2013–14

Volume I

Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/eacom

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 5 June 2013

Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.

Current membership Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) (Chair) Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney) Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) [ex-officio] Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Martin Caton MP (Labour, Gower) Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Chris Evans MP (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn) Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative, Richmond Park) Mark Lazarowicz MP (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith) Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North) Dr Matthew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon) Mr Mark Spencer MP (Conservative, Sherwood) Paul Uppal MP (Conservative, Wolverhampton South West) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton, Test) Simon Wright MP (Liberal Democrat, Norwich South)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/eacom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Fiander (Clerk), Nicholas Beech (Second Clerk), Lee Nicholson (Committee Specialist), Andrew Wallace (Senior Committee Assistant), Anna Browning (Committee Assistant), Yago Zayed (Committee Support Assistant) and Nicholas Davies (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6150; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Transport and accessibility to public services 1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5 Making the Connections 5 Accessibility 6

2 Progress on improving accessibility since 2003 8 Network coverage 11 Fare concessions and free travel 15 Physical accessibility of public transport 17 Dependence on the car 18 The localism agenda 19 Changes to local services and the way they are delivered 21

Use of the internet for delivering services 23 Changes to the planning system 24 The priority afforded to accessibility 26

3 Ways of improving accessibility 28 Better joint working across government departments 28 Sharing best practice within local government 31 Re-energising the accessibility planning regime 32 Refocusing and coordinating transport funding 34

Conclusions 39

Recommendations 40

Formal Minutes 42

Witnesses 43

List of printed written evidence 44

List of additional written evidence 44

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 46

Transport and the accessibility to public services 3

Summary

Problems with transport provision and the location of services can reinforce social exclusion by preventing people from accessing key local services and undermine government policies to tackle worklessness, increase participation in education, reduce crime and narrow health inequalities. In the current economic climate it is even more important that people can get to job interviews or to work, or attend college or training. In 2003 the then Social Exclusion Unit’s Making the Connections report found that much more could be done to ensure the accessibility of public services. Insufficient progress has been made since then, and many of that report’s findings are relevant today.

There is evidence that accessibility is worsening, driven by tight budgets in central and local government. Accessibility statistics show travel times to key services steadily increasing over time, particularly for access to hospitals. The Department for Transport needs to focus more closely on improving accessibility as well as on supporting the economy. Existing transport funding could be better coordinated and directed to ‘accessibility’-focused initiatives, which will have a swifter impact on people’s well-being than large infrastructure projects. The social value of transport and accessibility needs to be explicitly considered in policy-making and in the planning system and should no longer be seen as a second-order criterion.

There is no magic bullet for improving accessibility and it will take time for the improvements that we suggest to make a noticeable difference. We focus our recommendations on improving how government operates, rather than addressing the level of funding. Whilst we recognise that localism offers opportunities for better designed and more locally relevant solutions, central government cannot absolve itself from a role in coordinating action across departmental silos and helping local authorities and service providers to share best practice. The forthcoming Transport Strategy offers the Government an opportunity to set out how new arrangements will work. In a similar vein, the Cabinet Office should include cross-cutting accessibility issues in its regular reviews of departments’ business plans. Accessibility planning, introduced by Making the Connections, has had limited success and needs to be re-energised.

In the main body of this report, conclusions are printed in bold and recommendations are printed in bold italics.


1 Introduction 1. On coming to power in 2010 the Government changed the approach to sustainable development, abolishing the Sustainable Development Commission and seeking to embed the principles of sustainable development in all departments. Throughout this Parliament we have monitored these new arrangements.1 For sustainable development to be truly embedded, all government policies must pay regard to the three dimensions of sustainable development—the environment, the economy and society. We have frequently examined environmental issues, from air quality to pesticides. We have also highlighted the need for ‘social considerations’ of policies to be taken into account in Sustainable Development Indicators.2 In this report we focus on this pillar of sustainable development in more detail, examining the Department for Transport and how well it addresses the social consequences of transport—how people can access public services through public transport—by following up progress on Government commitments within the 2003 Making the Connections report.

Making the Connections

2. In 2003 the then Social Exclusion Unit published Making the Connections, which found that problems with transport provision and the location of public services can reinforce social exclusion by preventing people from accessing key local services or activities, such as jobs, learning, healthcare, food shopping or leisure. Two out of five jobseekers reported at that time that lack of transport was a barrier to getting a job. Nearly half of 16-18 year-olds had experienced difficulties with the cost of getting to education facilities and over a million people reported that they had missed, turned down, or chosen not to seek medical help over the previous 12 months because of transport problems. These problems can undermine government policies to tackle worklessness, increase participation in education, reduce crime and narrow health inequalities. Accessibility varied by location and for different groups of people, such as disabled people, older people or families with children. The 2003 report found the underlying causes of poor accessibility to be:

• Services having been developed with insufficient attention to accessibility. Accessibility had been seen as a problem for transport planners to solve, rather than one that concerned, and could be influenced by, other organisations.

• The growing complexity of people’s travel needs, to which public transport had not adapted. Rising car use, the centralisation of services and facilities over the previous 50 years, and increasing costs and declining provision of public transport had decreased accessibility.

1 Environmental Audit Committee, First Report of Session 2010–12, Embedding sustainable development across

Government after the Secretary of State’s announcement on the future of the Sustainable Development Commission, HC 504; Environmental Audit Committee, Third Report of Session 2010–12, Sustainable Development in the Localism Bill, HC 799; Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010–12, Sustainable development: the Government’s response, HC 877; [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/publications/].

2 Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2012–13, Measuring well-being and sustainable development: Sustainable Development Indicators, HC 667, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/667/667.pdf].

6 Transport and the accessibility to public services

• Fragmented public spending on transport. In 2003, £1 billion of public money was being spent each year on local authority supported bus services, and a further £900 million on school, patient and social services transport. These resources had not been sufficiently joined-up to improve accessibility.

• Insufficient weight given in transport project appraisal to the ‘social costs’ of poor transport provision. The distribution of transport funding had tended to benefit those on higher incomes. Spending had not been tied sufficiently to required outcomes, such as improved journey times, accessible vehicles, punctuality or customer satisfaction.

• Unfavourable perceptions about safety and security whilst travelling and the distances people were willing to travel.

3. The then Government announced a number of measures to improve services accessibility, including a new framework of ‘accessibility planning’ requiring local authorities to produce accessibility plans. National policy changes were also proposed to enable improved public transport, better land-use planning, safer streets, and improved specialist support to help people get to work, learning, healthcare and food shops.3

Accessibility

4. ‘Accessibility’—whether people can access services using public transport or sustainable transport options (walking, cycling etc)—was the key concept of Making the Connections. Wider than just consideration of the cost and availability of public transport, accessibility also concerns ‘urban form’ and how and where services are delivered4 and ‘social considerations’ such as how and why people use public transport.5 The barriers people face to good accessibility are likely to be “multiple and multi-layered”. For example:

Somebody may say that they cannot access a service because there are no buses. There might be buses, but it might be that they do not have the information, so you can give them the information. Then it might be the case that they feel insecure or worried about using that service, so you can provide that information and that help. Then, it could be the case that when they start using the bus, they realise that it is unaffordable or that it does not actually get them to where they need to go on time.6

Making the Connections defined accessibility as whether “people can get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease”. It found that accessibility was dependent on the answers to four questions:

• does transport exist between the people and the service?

• do people know about the transport, trust its reliability and feel safe using it?

3 Social Exclusion Unit, Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion and Transport, 2003

[http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/making-the-connections.pdf].

4 Transport Studies Unit—University of Oxford, Social Impacts and Equity in Transport, Policy Briefing Note 4: Housing and Sustainable Communities, 2012, [http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note4.pdf].

5 Q 5 [Dr Lucas]

6 Q 5 [Professor Smith]


• are people physically and financially able to access transport?

• are the services and activities within a reasonable distance?

5. People’s well-being is affected by access to a wide range of services, such as retail, leisure and social amenities and national parks.7 In this inquiry, however, we focus on transport accessibility to public sector services; mainly education, health and welfare facilities. With the help of the Parliamentary Outreach Service, we issued a ‘call for evidence’ to over 200 community and voluntary sector organisations and placed copies in local libraries and Citizen Advice Centres. We received 43 written submissions. We took oral evidence from academics, non-government organisations, local government and three Government departments (Health, Education and Work and Pensions), and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Norman Baker MP. We are grateful to them all.

6. In Part 2 we explore the social, economic and political changes that have occurred since 2003 that could affect accessibility levels. In Part 3 we identify where improvements are necessary. Our report sits alongside scrutiny of this agenda by others. The Transport Committee has completed reviews of Bus Services after the Spending Review and is undertaking an inquiry on Disabled Access to Transport.8 The Education Committee examined help provided to 16 to 18 year olds for the cost of travelling to school or college, as part of its inquiry on participation.9 The Youth Select Committee completed an inquiry on young people and transport in late 2012.10 The Department for Education was undertaking a review of efficiency and practice in the procurement, planning and provision of school transport across England.11 And the Department for Transport commissioned an external evaluation of its accessibility planning, to which it will respond when it has also seen our report.

7 Ev w1, Ev w21, Ev 75, Ev w74

8 Transport Committee, Eight Report of Session 2010–12, Bus Services after the Spending Review, HC 750, [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf]. For the Transport Committee’s Inquiry on Disabled Access to Transport see: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/disabled-people---tor/

9 Education Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010–12, Participation by 16–19 year olds in education and training, HC 850, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/850/850i.pdf].

10 British Youth Council Youth Select Committee, Transport and young people, November 2012, [http://www.byc.org.uk/media/189434/youth_select_commitee_-_young_people___transport.pdf].

11 HC Deb, 18 January 2013, Col 950W.


2 Progress on improving accessibility since 2003 7. Accessibility statistics produced by the Government indicate a currently worsening picture.12 They provide measures of accessibility to eight key services; food stores, education (primary and secondary schools and further education colleges), health care (GPs and hospitals), town centres and employment centres.13 Accessibility is calculated for the relevant “at risk” user population as well as for the general population of service users.14 The most recent set of data, for 2011, shows that:

• The average minimum travel time across all eight services monitored was 14 minutes by public transport or walking, 9 minutes by cycling and 6 minutes by car. On average minimum travel times were 2-4% (or 0.2 to 0.6 minutes) longer than in 2010.

• The proportion of people with ‘reasonable’ access15 to key services by public transport or walking was highest for employment centres (81%). It was lowest for hospitals (29%), having declined by 5 percentage points over the 4 years to 2011. On average, using public transport or walking, people had ‘reasonable time’ access to 0.6 hospitals, which meant that nearly half did not have reasonable access to hospitals.

• Access to services in rural areas was lower than in urban areas: a difference for further education institutions of 17 percentage points, but only 5 percentage points for primary schools. There were also variations in accessibility between regions, with access to key services by public transport or walking within a ‘reasonable time’ greatest in London and lowest in the East of England.16

8. The Department for Transport also published survey data on transport and inclusion which show that:

• Around a fifth of disabled people report having difficulties because of their impairment or disability in accessing transport.

• 13% of working age people said they had decided not to apply for a particular job in the last 12 months because of transport problems.

• 69% of missed maternity care appointments were due to transport-related factors.

12 Department for Transport, Accessibility Statistics 2011, July 2012,

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9083/accessibility-statistics-2011.pdf].

13 The statistics cover travel time indicators which look at the average travel time to the nearest service, destination indicators which look at look at the proportion of resident users with access to each service within a given area and origin indicators look at the choice of locations available to the resident population.

14 Apart from further education. Three modes of transport are public transport/walking, cycling and car.

15 The Government has defined this as a measure of accessibility which takes into account the sensitivity of users to the travel time for each service.

16 Ev 85; Department for Transport, Accessibility Statistics 2011, July 2012, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9083/accessibility-statistics-2011.pdf].


• Women often have safety concerns about using public transport, especially at night, and are still more likely to feel consistently insecure than men when travelling after dark. 17

Information about travel behaviour and accessibility by socio-demographic characteristics is provided in the National Travel Survey.18 Transport for London’s ‘Access To Opportunities and Services’ indicators measure access to the nearest three schools and GP surgeries.19

9. Professor Peter Jones of University College London believed that whilst accessibility statistics were “comprehensive” and “impressive”, and that the UK “probably has the best dataset in the world”, they did not reflect some of the “problems people experience in everyday life”, such as not being able to find a job without having a car.20 Professor Roger Mackett of University College London believed that there were a number of flaws in the Government statistics. He noted that travel time is not of major significance for many groups, such as the elderly, who are more concerned about public transport reliability. And the definition used to determine what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ travel time in the National Travel Survey is simply based on the average of actual journeys undertaken.21

10. Dr Karen Lucas of University of Oxford wanted to see new measures of accessibility developed that captured participation, rather than journey times, in order to “measure what you value”. She told us:

Increased mobility is not the point, and accessibility per se is not the point. It is about the number of people that are now able to access a job ... get to a health service ... or the number of young teenage women who can get to a family planning clinic who could not get there before.22

She thought that measuring accessibility in this way would help secure improvement through “health goals, education goals, crime goals, welfare goals” rather than transport goals.23 In a similar vein, Professor Peter Jones favoured measuring participation and the opportunity people have to use services, such as whether they are able to get to hospital in time. He saw measures of mobility, such as trip length, as “useless” because “we do not know whether we want more or less”.24

11. There is some support for developing a measure of ‘transport poverty’, analogous to that used to measure ‘fuel poverty’.25 A household is currently said to be in fuel poverty if it

17 Department for Transport, DfT Equality Information —Complying with the Equality Duty, January 2013,

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69974/complying-with-equality-duty.pdf].

18 http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel-survey-2010/

19 Ev w71

20 Q 46

21 Ev w50

22 Q 50

23 Qq 4, 50

24 Q 50

25 Ev w40, Ev w61


needs to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime26 (although this definition is under review27). Survey data already show that overall nearly 14% of household expenditure in the UK is on transport.28 The Campaign for Better Transport thought, however, that it “makes no sense” to measure transport poverty in this way because higher income households generally spend a higher proportion of their income on transport than lower income households.29 Dr Karen Lucas believed that it would also be “extremely difficult” to construct a concise definition of fuel poverty “based on unmet accessibility needs” and accessibility problems often lie at the individual rather than household level (which is often the baseline for surveys).30

12. Norman Baker told us that the Government analysed the statistics to “identify trends and to see whether any higher level interventions are necessary”. He was aware that average trip lengths were increasing. He believed that reductions in some public services were “not transport matters particularly”, although he acknowledged that transport did “pick up the consequences”.31

13. It was clear from the evidence provided by the three Government departments we examined that accessibility statistics were not being used explicitly to drive policies to improve accessibility. On the worsening accessibility to hospitals evident in the statistics (paragraph 7), the Department of Health told us:

We have spoken to the Department for Transport ... and they have done some analysis about that ... It could be that services are reconfigured. It could be that transport services are changed. We need to understand what is causing that change, particularly at local level, so it can be acted on at local level. It may not be a systemic problem, but it may be. If it is a systemic problem, then clearly we in the Department are responsible for helping to get it sorted.32

The NHS Constitution included a pledge to “provide convenient, easy access to services within the waiting times set” but this did not extend to transport accessibility.33 The Department for Education did not appear to see the accessibility statistics as relevant because children are required to attend school. For 2-4 year olds, where there is no compulsory attendance requirement, the Department infers that parents have no problem in accessing these services because take-up rates are high.34 An official from the Department for Work and Pensions told us that he did not know whether his department

26 Usually 21 degrees centigrade for the main living area, and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms.

27 https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/series/fuel-poverty-statistics

28 The Department for Transport also reports on the household expenditure on transport using the ONS Living Costs and Food Survey—[http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/tsgb0121.xls].

29 Ev 75

30 Ev 70

31 Q 233

32 Q 118

33 Q 172 [Flora Goldhill]

34 Q 121 [David McVean]


used the accessibility statistics,35 although it had surveyed Jobcentre Plus users in 2011 and found that four out of five “had no problems in accessing Jobcentre Plus services”.36

14. Greater local public scrutiny will be an important part of the localism agenda. We heard that many local authorities had set themselves targets to improve accessibility in their Local Transport Plans, progress against which would be measured using the accessibility statistics. The Government believed that these statistics were used by local authorities to help them develop their services.37 John Smith, Local Transport Plan Implementation Officer for Merseytravel, told us that local travel time targets would not help facilitate effective scrutiny of performance because local authorities could exercise little control over commercial bus services.38

15. No locality-specific commentary or trend graphs are provided alongside the accessibility statistics, making local scrutiny dependent on analysis of the raw data. Derek Halden wanted to see the Department for Transport and local authority transport teams publishing the data when accessibility was shown to have fallen, to help engender improvement.39 Norman Baker told us that his Department focused on national statistics because it was a “national department and not a local authority”. He saw the Department’s role as “being supportive” by making the data available for local authorities to “use it as they best see fit for their own purposes”, but “not to be directive”.40

16. National transport accessibility statistics show a worsening trend. In particular, accessibility to hospitals continues to fall, with nearly half of people not having reasonable access to hospitals. It appears that the statistics are not driving action by Government departments and they are not sufficiently analysed to readily enable local authorities to be held to account. To improve the accountability of public bodies for their accessibility performance, the Department for Transport should work with other government departments to provide more detailed analysis and commentary for the accessibility statistics. Similarly, the Department should work with local authorities to help publish localised accessibility statistics.

17. Below we explore the social, economic and political changes that have occurred in the period since Making the Connections that lie behind these current accessibility statistics.

Network coverage

18. The Transport Studies Unit at the University of Oxford told us that numerous studies have identified that “public transport is rarely a viable alternative to the car” outside Greater London and the centre of major cities. This was most notable in urban peripheral areas with large social housing estates.41 The Government believed that there were

35 Q 130 [Paul Williams]

36 TNS-BMRB on behalf of DWP, Jobcentre Plus customer survey 2011, July 2011, [http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/rrep775.pdf].

37 Q 197

38 Q 74

39 Qq 59, 61

40 Qq 237, 238

41 Ev 65


“relatively few areas of the country with totally inadequate transport links”, but some areas were “clearly better served than others”. It recognised that those in rural and small urban areas were more likely to report less frequent transport services. In other areas, the Government believed that it was the “distance and hence cost to services, rather than a lack of transport”, that defines the level of accessibility.42

West Lancashire Pensioners Forum:

Many residents in villages surrounding the market town of Ormskirk have no direct bus or train access into town, so visits to doctors, hospitals, libraries, opticians, legal advice or just friends and family are not possible.43

19. The bus is the most heavily used form of public transport44 and is relied upon particularly by those on low incomes or with a disability.45 Bus services are vital to enable people to participate in employment, education and voluntary work, as well as to access health services, shops and the other elements of a “full life”.46 The geographical coverage and frequency of bus services is largely determined on a commercial basis.47 Local authorities can determine where the gaps are and can choose to provide funding for services to fill these gaps, often at times or on routes where usage is low, such as on Sundays or late evenings. Without Government and local authority support, these services would not be commercially viable. In total, only around a half of the operating income of bus operators come from fares.48

20. In Spending Review 2010, the Government reduced grants to bus operators, reduced general grants to local authorities and changed concessionary fare rules. As a result, both commercial and local authority supported bus services are being reduced and bus fares are increasing. Although there is a paucity of information at a national level, it has been estimated that over 70% of local authorities have reduced funding for supported bus services, with one in five being cut.49 In some cases, “whole sections of the bus network had been scaled back with often no adequate alternative public transport in place”.50 This was set against a longer-term decline of bus services in some areas.51 In a recent joint letter 30

42 Ev 85

43 Ev w20

44 Two-thirds of all passenger journeys are made by bus: there were 4.6bn bus passenger journeys in England in 2009–10, compared to 1.3bn rail and 1.1bn London Underground journeys.

45 People in the lowest income quintile make three times more journeys by bus than people in the highest income quintile and 60% of disabled people have no car in the household and use buses around 20% more frequently than non-disabled people—[Ev 75].

46 Transport Committee, Eight Report of Session 2010–12, Bus Services after the Spending Review, HC 750, [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf].

47 Outside London around 80% of bus services are operated on a commercial basis. The remaining 20% are operated with support from local authorities.

48 Bus Services after the Spending Review, op. cit.

49 Ibid; Ev 75.


51 Ev 63


organisations, including NGOs, unions and representative groups, urged the Chancellor not to reduce further grants to bus operators in the June 2013 Spending Review, warning that “funding cuts would tip many services over the edge and fundamentally weaken the network of services across the country”.52

21. The Passenger Transport Executive Group said in its evidence to the Transport Committee that “widespread bus service reductions could undermine other government policies”, arguing that Health, Education and Business, Innovation and Skills departments assume that bus services will be available to allow people to access services.53 Cambridgeshire County Council, one of our witnesses, had announced that all subsidies for tendered bus services would stop (£3 million over four years) and the Council hoped that community groups would be able to fill the gap, earmarking £1 million over the next five years to help get local schemes up and running.54

A resident of Barnsley Dearne:

I went for an interview ... in Doncaster, but they won’t accept me for the simple fact that my first bus is at 6.20am and they start at 7am. And I can’t do it. I’m finding it hard to get a job, because with my line of work it’s earlies, lates and nights.55

AgeUK:

Wife, 75 and husband, 77: Bus service has been reduced to weekdays, one a day before 7am and there are no buses to the doctor in the next village. She cannot drive but her husband can. However, he suffers from bouts of illness that mean he cannot drive. Also, she feels being able to get on the bus gave her some freedom, she doesn’t want to rely on him, he has his own life. “I used to toddle off on the bus, now the onus is on him”.56

22. Modelling carried out for the Passenger Transport Executive Group, which represents metropolitan transport authorities outside London, suggested that bus fares will rise by 24% by 2014, compared to a rise of 18% based on current trends without government funding changes.57 It has got cheaper to go by car than it is by bus: Over the last 15 years motoring costs have risen in real-terms by 50%, whereas bus fares have risen by 100%.58 Norman Baker told us that commercial bus services had been “holding up pretty well”, telling us that he did not want to “allow the impression to settle that there is some sort of

52 http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/04-06-2013-bus-cuts-letter


54 www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/50-bus-routes-facing-the-axe-as-cuts-bite.htm

55 Ev 81

56 Ev w1

57 Passenger Transport Executive Group, Underpinning Policy: Modelling Bus Subsidy in English Metropolitan Areas, August 2011, [http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/821B74A5-9CB4-46CC-8E55-B669CAFAA947/0/20110808ModellingBusSubsidyinEnglishMetropolitanAreasFinalReportAbridgedv50.pdf].

58 Q 38 [Professor Smith]; Ev 63


crisis in the bus industry”. He thought that the bus industry had “responded imaginatively to difficult circumstances” with some combining routes, mixing tendered and commercial services, or using vehicles that are also used for patient services or school runs.59

23. On the train network, Spending Review 2010 and subsequent Budgets have announced a number of investments, including support for the Northern Rail Hub, electrification of the Valley Lines in Wales and High Speed 2.60 Along with this increase in investment, train fares were increasing, rising on average by 4.2% in January 2013.61 Future fare increases look set to continue—Network Rail had assumed a 1% above inflation increase to fund infrastructure investment over the period 2014–201962—which the RMT believed were “arguably the greatest barrier to the accessibility of public transport”.63 The Campaign for Better Transport argued that the complexity of the fares system meant that it was often difficult for people to take advantage of cheaper advance fares. The Campaign has been running a ‘Fair Fares Now’ campaign to call for cheaper, simpler and fairer fares.64 In a similar vein, the Transport Committee has called on the Government to set out a long-term policy on regulated fares.65 ASLEF believed that accessibility was not just affected by the price of train fares, arguing that privatisation and fragmentation of the railway network had led to “an inefficient system” where private companies “prioritise investment in profitable commuter routes and urban centres at the expense of station and line closures elsewhere in the country”.66

24. Government statistics show that the relative amount of household expenditure on transport has remained broadly similar since 200567 and the Government’s analysis of the impacts from recent train fare rises found no decrease in the number of passengers.68 Norman Baker told us that train passenger numbers were “shooting up year on year”, with “no sign of that levelling off”.69 When it came to financial barriers to accessing transport, he was most concerned about bus passenger numbers because those using bus services were more likely to have less disposable income than those using trains. He was “reassured” therefore that bus passenger numbers were “holding up, in fact marginally increasing”.70

59 Q 215

60 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, Cm 7942, October 2010, [http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf]; HM Treasury, Budget 2011, HC 836, March 2011, [http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_complete.pdf]; HM Treasury, Budget 2012, Cm 1853, March 2011, [http://cdn.hmtreasury.gov.uk/budget2012_complete.pdf].

61 HC Deb, 17 January 2013, Col 1003.

62 http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/strategic-business-plan-for-cp5/

63 Ev w54

64 Ev 75

65 Transport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, Rail 2020, HC 329-I. [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/329/329.pdf].

66 Ev w20, Ev w47, Ev w54

67 In 2005 transport expenditure represented 14% of a household costs, 14% in 2006, 13% in 2007, 13% in 2008, 13% in 2009, 14% in 2010, and 14% in 2011— ONS, Chapter 4: Trends in Household Expenditure Over Time, December 2012, [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_285307.pdf]. See also Ev 85

68 A similar analysis for bus services had not been completed—Qq 222, 223.

69 Q 223

70 Q 223


A resident of Porthleven, Cornwall:

Bus fares are very expensive. A return fare to Helston from Porthleven is a minimum of £3.85. That is travelling for 4 and a half miles. A single fare is only about 50p cheaper. If you wish to travel on to the supermarket, another minute’s ride on the bus, that cost me an extra 50 pence.71

25. We heard concerns that several important funding schemes that helped to support transport-poor people to access key services had been withdrawn in recent Spending Reviews.72 The £600 million a year Education Maintenance Allowance scheme was designed to help 16-18 year old students from low-income families meet the costs of staying on at school or college, including transport costs.73 The Government replaced the scheme with a smaller more targeted bursary scheme in 2011, believing the Allowance to have been “hugely expensive”, with 90% of students still reporting that they would have continued in school or college education without it.74 The Education Committee found however that some “struggle with the cost of travel to and from study” and recommended that the Government should assess the cost of offering free or subsidised travel to all 16-18 year olds travelling to and from learning.75 Similarly, the Youth Select Committee found that the biggest issue raised during its inquiry was the cost of public transport to young people, and urged the Government to take the lead in ensuring that adult fares are only charged on public transport to those 18 and over.76 The Government is undertaking a review of statutory school transport (paragraph 6).

26. Funding for bus services, disproportionately heavily used by vulnerable groups—the elderly, disabled and poor—is reducing; inevitably contributing further to an already declining level of accessibility. Further reductions might “tip many bus services over the edge” and reduce the accessibility of public services. The Government should therefore protect bus service funding in the next Spending Review.

Fare concessions and free travel

27. The right to free bus travel for both older and disabled people is enshrined in primary legislation.77 The value of such schemes is dependent, however, on there being a bus service

71 Ev w7

72 For example: Discretionary Allowance for jobseekers, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Single Regeneration Budget, Rural and Urban Bus Challenges, Kickstart and the EU Social Fund—Ev 70, Ev 65

73 Education Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, Participation by 16–19 year olds in education and training, HC 850, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/850/850i.pdf].

74 http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/youngpeople/studentsupport/a00203186/ema

75 Participation by 16–19 year olds in education and training, op. cit.

76 British Youth Council Youth Select Committee, Transport and young people, November 2012, [http://www.byc.org.uk/media/189434/youth_select_commitee_-_young_people___transport.pdf].

77 The scheme is enshrined in Primary Legislation through the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000 (as modified by the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007)— Department for Transport, Guidance for Travel Concession Authorities on the England National Concessionary Travel Scheme, December 2010, [http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-for-travel-concession-authorities-on-the-england-national-concessionary-travel-scheme/travelconcession.pdf].


on which to use the concession.78 In 2011, take-up of concessionary travel, a “cornerstone” to the accessibility of services by older people,79 was 79% of those eligible.80 Local authorities spend £1 billion a year on concessionary travel, largely the cost of reimbursing bus operators for the concession, representing a 78% increase since 2004–05.81 Whilst Spending Review 2010 retained free bus travel for older people, it changed the age of eligibility for the national entitlement to “help with the longer term financial sustainability” of the scheme.82 In areas where there is a high proportion of people eligible for concessionary fares or free travel, standard adult fares tend to rise to make up the difference.83

28. Local authorities are able to offer additions to the statutory minimum concession, as well as alternatives such as taxi tokens.84 The use of these additional benefits and alternatives varied across England.85 Overall, demand for concessionary passes was growing, putting pressure on funding for non-statutory transport purposes, such as local authority supported bus services, community transport services and discounts for other groups.86 Also, pressures on bus service funding meant that bus operators were “disinclined to voluntarily offer reduced fares” to more disadvantaged travellers who fall outside the eligibility criteria of the current scheme.87 Jobseekers can apply for a 50% discount on rail fares in England and Wales,88 but there is no equivalent national scheme for concessionary travel on buses.89 Jobcentre plus, however, spent “considerable amounts” supporting jobseeker allowance claimants’ travel to interviews and to training each year.90

Plymouth People First:

Adults with a learning disability have to wait until 9:30am to use their free bus pass. This has a serious effect on people wishing to access training or employment opportunities. Most employers want their staff to start at 8:30 or 9:00am, not after 10am. Many of our members live off benefits and paying travel costs before 9:30am uses a lot of their weekly income.91

78 Ev w20

79 Ev w1

80 82% of females and 76% of males—National Travel Survey.

81 Ev w74

82 Ev 85

83 Ev w26

84 Ev 85

85 Ev w1. The Youth Select Committee also criticised the extent to which concessionary schemes for younger people varied across the country—Transport and young people, op. cit.

86 Ev w40, Ev w10

87 Ev 70, Ev 75

88 Ev 85

89 HC Deb, 11 June 2012, Col 279W.

90 Q 188

91 Ev w1


Physical accessibility of public transport

29. The Department for Transport told us that it was “committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport services and opportunities to travel as other members of society”.92 The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a bus operator to discriminate against a disabled person and regulations are in place to require bus operators to improve access for disabled people by 2017.93 All rail coaches must be accessible by January 2020.94 The Law Commission is undertaking a review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation, including how best to make provision for people with disabilities, and will report in December 2013.

30. Norman Baker told us that a “huge number of [railway] stations” had their physical accessibility improved as a result of ‘Access for All’ funding. A further £100 million is committed to the programme for the period 2014 to 2019.95 Each train operator is required to produce a Disabled Persons’ Protection Policy, setting out the facilities and services available to disabled passengers.96

Transport for All:

When travelling is painful, difficult or unsafe, disabled and older people opt to stay at home and get out and about less frequently, becoming isolated ... The difficulties of getting out and about is perhaps the biggest factor in the exclusion of disabled people from public life.97

31. The attitudes of transport staff “can also play a large part in passengers’ ability and willingness to travel”.98 The Government had introduced an obligation on drivers of buses to assist disabled persons when asked,99 but had sought an exemption for some bus and coach staff from complying with EU regulations on disability awareness training. A review of this exemption was planned after one year to see whether drivers were receiving adequate training under the voluntary measures being undertaken by the bus and coach industry.100 When the Government reviews its exemption for bus and coach staff from complying with EU regulations on disability awareness training, it should survey

92 Q 193

93 Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 require all buses carrying more than 22 passengers to have facilities such as low floor boarding devices and handholds and handrails, fitted to improve access for disabled people by 2017.

94 Ev 85

95 Q 195

96 Ev 85

97 Ev w51

98 Department for Transport, Transport for Everyone: an action plan to improve accessibility, December 2012, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49089/accessibility-action-plan.pdf].

99 Ev 85

100 HC Deb, 7 February 2013, Col 30WS. For the Transport Committee’s Inquiry on Disabled Access to Transport see: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/disabled-people---tor/.


potential users to establish whether perceptions of disability unawareness has been making them reluctant to travel.

Dependence on the car

32. Richard Hebditch from the Campaign for Better Transport told us that the UK had become a car-dependent society over the last 40 years, where the location of services is geared towards those with a car. Journey lengths had increased by around 40% since the 1970s because, he believed, people were having to travel further for the same purposes than they had to 40 years ago.101 UK cities were among the most car dependent in Europe.102 Air pollution associated with car dependency has direct impacts on health and climate change.103

A parent from Loughborough:

I’m a strong believer that every household should have a car because if the father needs it for work it broadens the aspects, it doesn’t limit them to where they can go or what jobs he can take.104

A parent from Derby:

Is it a luxury to be able to drive Tom to swimming lessons? I couldn’t take my children, I couldn’t walk with them. If I didn’t have a car, they wouldn’t be able to swim.105

33. Lack of access to a car increasingly makes it difficult to access public services, particularly for those on low incomes and the elderly. It is “disproportionately more difficult” for the quarter of all UK households which do not have a car to access services.106 Non-car ownership is “overwhelming concentrated” in low income households, with people in the lowest income quintile making 17% fewer trips than average and travelling roughly a third of the average annual distance.107 In 2012, a Minimum Income Standards review by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that for the first time a car had become a necessity to households “in order to afford a minimum, socially acceptable standard of

101 Q 5; See also Ev w11

102 The ‘European Car Dependency Scorecard’ examines how the infrastructure and transport policies of 13 European capitals affect people’s transport choices and quality of life. Stockholm, Helsinki and Prague were rated the top, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast were eighth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth respectively. UK cities performed badly due to “poor air quality, high levels of congestion and, with the exception of Cardiff, the high cost of public transport”—http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/sept-29-euro-car-dependency-scorecard. Colchester, Peterborough and Wigan were found to be the most car dependent cities, and Nottingham, Brighton and London the least. Data was analysed across 19 indicators in four categories: accessibility and planning, buses and trains quality and uptake, cycling and walking as alternatives and driving and car use— [http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/car_dependency_scorecard_2.pdf.

103 Ev 70

104 Ev 63

105 ibid

106 This represents roughly 5.5 million households/12.5 million people. Q 5; Ev w11

107 Ev 65


living”. A family would need to increase its income by £5,300 a year to afford a car.108 Older people were more likely to live in low-density areas and therefore more likely to be car dependent,109 but the proportion of people holding a driving license falls with age.110

34. Increases in the price of petrol and diesel have increased costs to those families and individuals that are dependent on their cars to access services.111 Research by the AA indicated that many families were spending more on fuel than their weekly food shopping.112 In total drivers were on average reportedly cutting journeys by about 165 miles a year to avoid high fuel costs.113 Also, “very significant” increases in car insurance premiums in recent years were pricing young drivers off the road.114 The Government has delayed and scrapped planned fuel duty increases in recent Budgets.115 Such moves might help to maintain accessibility in a car dependent society, but are counterbalanced by rises in fuel costs because of the underlying market conditions.116

The localism agenda

35. The Localism Act 2010 seeks to “decentralise decision-making about, and responsibility for, services to the lowest appropriate level”.117 In regard to transport, the Department for Transport has “less control over the way that the accessibility agenda is implemented”.118 In particular:

• Oversight by central government departments and the ring-fencing of grants for specific purposes to local authorities have been removed. Schemes to address accessibility problems now compete with other local priorities, including those where the local authority has a statutory duty.119 Local authorities have around 300 statutory responsibilities for transport, more than for any other function.120

108 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, A minimum income standard for the UK in 2012, July 2012,

[www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/minimum-income-standards-2012-full.pdf]. Ev 65.

109 Ev w11

110 Ev 85

111 Ev 75

112 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/families-spending-more-petrol-food-231606036.html

113 “Drivers cut short journeys by 165 miles to beat fuel costs”, The Telegraph, 5 January 2012.

114 Transport Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2010–12, Cost of motor insurance follow-up, HC 1451, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/1451/1451.pdf].

115 Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010–12, Autumn Statement 2012: environmental issues, HC 328, pages 19-21, [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/328/328.pdf]. The Treasury estimates that pump prices were 13 pence lower than would have been the case under the previous government’s plans—HM Treasury, Budget 2013, HC 1033, March 2013, page 5, [http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2013_complete.pdf].

116 Environmental Audit Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010–12, Budget 2011 and Environmental Taxes, HC 878, paragraph 42, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/878/878.pdf].

117 Kelly Kilby (Atkins) and Noel Smith (CRSP), Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, June 2012, [http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-planning-policy-evaluation/accessibility-planning-evaluation-report.pdf].

118 Ev w50

119 Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, op. cit.

120 National Audit Office, Funding for local transport: An overview, HC 629 (2012-13), October 2012, [http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/funding_for_local_transport.aspx].


• The Department for Transport no longer monitors Local Transport Plans or local authorities’ performance against them. Although in preparing their current Local Transport Plans (from 2011) authorities were “encouraged to consider and include accessibility planning priorities”, the guidance issued by the Department for Transport has not changed since the original 2004 document (paragraph 73).121

36. A more localised approach may mean that “local needs are being met better because the local authority has more knowledge about accessibility needs in their area”.122 On the other hand, as Dr Karen Lucas told us, service delivery may vary between local areas. Those without a voice, or who are most disadvantaged, could be forgotten by a system where those who ‘shout the loudest’ are heard.123 Richard Hebditch, from the Campaign for Better Transport, thought that for localism to work, marginalised groups must be given a voice within local areas. He believed that local authorities cannot always be expected to act in “purely evidenced-based, rational ways”, citing recent cuts to bus services.124 A Transport Committee report in 2011 found that some local authorities had withdrawn bus services with inadequate or no consultation.125 Norman Baker believed, however, that localism would generally “push up performance” and that disparate delivery between local areas was a matter that local electors “ought to be able to draw to the attention of their councillors”.126

Community Organiser for High Green and Chapeltown:

Too many authorities choose to ‘do things’ to communities rather than spend the time finding out what they actually need and want first ... local people should be correctly liaised with prior to any changes being made, it is them that have to live with any consequences and they should be listened to correctly about how they will be impacted but also so they properly shape services.127

37. The localism initiative can reflect local needs more closely, but it also risks excluding vulnerable groups without a voice. While the localism agenda is reducing the Department for Transport’s influence on how accessibility is implemented, the Department cannot absolve itself from a role in guiding and advising those communities to fully embrace the requirements of accessibility.

121 Ev 75

122 Ev w50

123 Q 35

124 ibid

125 Transport Committee, Eight Report of Session 2010–12, Bus Services after the Spending Review, HC 750 [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf].

126 Q 208

127 Ev w84


Changes to local services and the way they are delivered

38. Accessibility also depends on where services and activities are located.128 The Campaign for Better Transport believed that there had been a concentration of public services in fewer, and often less accessible, locations and a reduction in local facilities such as shops, banks and post offices. At the same time the number of developments, such as retail and business parks, located on trunk roads and “not readily accessible by public transport, much less on foot or by bicycle, has grown substantially”.129 Health services had become particularly concentrated.130

A resident of Barnsley Dearne:

‘It’s gone from here; we’ve lost the cinema, 3 or 4 butchers, 3 co-operatives for groceries, a running track…’.131

39. It is difficult to build a national picture of the cumulative effect of relocation or rationalisation of local services, but during the course of our inquiry there were several announcements by public bodies of their intention to change where, and how, they delivered their services, supporting a trend of further concentration:

• The DVLA’s 39 local offices and 10 enforcement centres will close by December 2013, saving £5.6 million a year.132

• A&E units in 4 North-west London hospitals will be downgraded, with serious emergencies referred to other hospitals in the local area.133 The number of hospitals performing child heart surgery in England would be reduced from 11 to seven.134

• Department for Work and Pensions offices in 44 locations will be closed,135 after the number of jobcentre Plus offices was reduced from 823 in 2008 to 722 in 2010, reflecting a change in the volume of customers and how they are engaged with.136

• A reduction of 281 Sure Start Centres between April 2010 and June 2012. 137

128 Ev 85

129 Ev 75

130 Q 2 [Professor Jones]

131 Ev 81

132 http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/7DF74F8C-639B-45CE-9F62686F426FCDE6

133 “NHS North West London A&E units downgraded”, BBC news online, 19 February 2013, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21502719].

134 “Hospitals to close heart units after years of delays that ‘cost children’s lives”, The Guardian online, 4 July 2012, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/04/hospitals-heart-units-delays-children]. Since the Committee agreed its report the Health Secretary has suspended the Safe and Sustainable Review of Children's Congenital Cardiac Services—HC Deb 12 June 2013, Col 343.

135 HC Deb, 5 September 2011, Col 112W.

136 Q 176

137 Sure Start Centres are strategically situated in areas of high deprivation, aiming to enhance the life prospects of young children in disadvantaged families and communities. They are open to all parents, carers and children and


Community Organiser for High Green and Chapeltown:

A bus route was being changed to coincide with a new health centre that was being built in a different part of the city. Residents that would be negatively affected in our community by the bus change will not be in the catchment area for the new surgery so will be unable to use it so the bus change will be of no use to them for this purpose. The health centre should have been built where existing links were already available.138

40. Last year the Campaign for Better Transport and Citizens’ Advice Bureau completed a review looking at how transport problems were impacting on those on low incomes and looking for work, or trying to stay in work, and how Jobcentre Plus was responding. Their report highlighted four problems:

• The location of Jobcentres causes difficulties for those in rural areas, particularly when Jobcentre Plus offices insist on weekly or daily signing-on. Examples were highlighted where jobseekers can spend a significant amount of their benefits on getting to and from jobcentres.

• Those living in rural areas without a car face particular difficulties in finding work due to poor public transport provision and a lack of affordable social housing located near to employment opportunities. Housing and jobs which are available to those on low incomes are often in locations that are more difficult to serve by public transport.

• Weekend and evening public transport services being cut back due to funding cuts makes it difficult for those working shifts outside the core ‘nine to five Monday to Friday’ working week.

• Jobcentre Plus offices do not always recognise the difficulties that those reliant on public transport face and are imposing unreasonable sanctions on jobseekers whose transport difficulties make it difficult for them to find work.139

41. Our written evidence illustrated a general perception that little consideration is given to transport when decisions are taken on where to locate key services.140 The Campaign for Better Transport believed that national and local governments were not taking seriously the implications of policies and decisions for the accessibility or the location of services.141 Dr Karen Lucas found little evidence that ‘social impacts’ were considered when public services were reorganised.142 There were no statutory minimum standards placed on the providers of public sector services (except post offices) to ensure access to their services by

many of the services are free. They can provide early learning and full day care for children under five as well as providing parents with help and advice on child and family health, parenting, money, training and employment.

138 Ev w84

139 Campaign for Better Transport, Transport barriers to getting a job—Evidence from Citizens Advice clients, June 2012, [www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-barriers-to-getting-a-job.pdf].

140 Ev w1, Ev w6, Ev w26, Ev w30, Ev 73, Ev 75, Ev w37, Ev w40, Ev 81, Ev w54, Ev w61

141 Ev 75

142 Q 4


public transport or targets to improve this.143 In contrast, Norman Baker told us that there had been a “sea change in the attitudes” of those in central and local government, who were more prepared to accept that accessibility issues are part and parcel of their job.144

Use of the internet for delivering services

42. The Government has announced that the primary means of delivering information and services to people will be through the internet, saving up to £2 billion a year. Each Government department is required to prepare and publish its own departmental digital strategy, explaining how they will make their services “digital by default in ways that work for their users”.145 The Government is investing £530 million to improve access to superfast broadband for 90% of the UK population, with the aim of the UK having the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015.146

43. The Government acknowledged, however, that it “did not yet fully understand” the impacts that improving access to online public services may have on the need for people to travel to access public services.147 Some of our witnesses expected services delivered electronically to complement, rather than replace, existing face-to-face services.148 Around 20% of UK households do not have home internet access. The proportion is higher for older and low-income people,149 and rural areas experience poorer broadband speed and coverage.150 Dr Karen Lucas told us that some of those with internet access will not use it for accessing services, and would have “significant difficulties if required to do so”, because a significant proportion of the users of health, education, and welfare support require the kind of extra assistance and reassurance that only face-to-face contact can provide.151

143 Ev 70

144 Q 193

145 Cabinet Office, Government Digital Strategy, November 2012, [http://publications.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/digital/strategy/government-digital-strategy.pdf].

146 Ev 85

147 ibid

148 Qq 42-45; Ev w1

149 Ofcom, The communications market report: United Kingdom, 2012, [http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr12/uk].

150 Ofcom, UK fixed-line broadband performance, 2012, [http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms-research/broadband-speeds/broadband-speeds-may2012].

151 Ev 70


A resident of Porthleven, Cornwall:

The bus timetable was released in April. It had a few mistakes in it on times and days running. On 23 May a new timetable was introduced. A lot of bus times had been changed as were some routes, and some buses were taken out/no longer running. This information was only put up at some bus stops, not released in printed form for passengers to be able to use ... The company’s response to this is that people need to check online when they are planning a journey. Fine for someone with a computer and internet access, but a lot of people don’t have that.152

44. Jobcentre Plus is seeking to deliver more of its services remotely via the internet or telephone in order to become a “leaner, more flexible and productive organisation”. The Government expected face-to-face contact in jobcentres would reduce as more services became accessible online and through the simplification of the benefits system.153 The majority of Universal Credit claims would be made and managed online, but the Work and Pensions Committee has identified a “risk that some vulnerable people will have difficulty in accessing their benefit entitlement because they do not know how to make a claim”.154 In response to these concerns the Department for Work and Pensions told us that it was putting in place “real support mechanisms” to help people access services online, including internet access devices placed in every jobcentre, customers being directed to libraries which could help with IT. And DWP’s ‘visiting service’ would continue to provide a face-to-face service for the most vulnerable customers or those with health problems.155

45. The pattern of development in recent years, and rationalisations of Government sites, has reduced accessibility. There are no statutory minimum standards placed on the providers of most public sector services to ensure accessibility. At the same time as the Government is increasing the delivery of its services through the internet, it does not yet fully understand the impacts that that may have on the extent to which people will still need to travel to access those services.

Changes to the planning system

46. Decisions on locations for new or moved services are dependent on the planning system. The Local Government Technical Advisers Group, the Planning Officers Society and the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (TAG et al) believed that land-use planning decisions were “at least as much” responsible for poor accessibility as the transport system.156 Sustrans believed that retrospectively applied solutions to poor

152 Ev w7

153 HC Deb, 5 September 2011, Col 112W.

154 Work and Pensions Committee, Third Report of Session 2012–13, Universal Credit Implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants, HC 576, [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmworpen/576/576.pdf].

155 Qq 125 – 127, 129, 185, 186

156 Ev w11


accessibility, such as travel planning or new bus or cycle routes, could only “partially mitigate” poor location choices.157 Outside London, where public transport is deregulated and relies heavily on the provision of commercial services, poorly thought out development could increase the need for transport subsidy to enable access to services.158

47. Over the course of the last two decades planning policies have been put in place to ensure that the transport implications of planning applications are better considered, including encouraging the re-use of previously-developed land, favouring development around ‘local centres’ and locating developments close to public transport or accessible on foot or by bicycle.159 In particular, Planning Policy Guidance 13 focused on transport issues, introducing Transport Assessments and Transport Statements which require the transport implications of new developments to be set out alongside planning applications, and Travel Plans which can require measures to increase travel choices and reduce reliance on the car.

48. TAG et al believed, however, that cost pressures on those running the services outweighed the impact of these planning policies. For instance, major shopping centre developments and business parks continued to seek low cost sites with space for car parking, and education and health authorities were using the proceeds from the sale of town centre sites to fund redevelopment in cheaper out-of-town locations.160 Maria-Pilar Machancoses from Centro told us that the planning system did not ensure that the location of new or moved services was sustainable because it did not allow for longer term thinking about how a site, or the service to be delivered there, would develop over time. She thought that short-term transport measures offered by developers, such as an agreement to subsidise a bus service, were “not acceptable” because they would not make the service sustainable over the long term.161 Objections from transport officials on accessibility concerns were rarely viewed as commanding sufficient significance to change policy.162 Furthermore, in areas served by a Integrated Transport Authority163 there is no requirement on local planners to take account of the ITA’s response to a planning application because it is not a statutory consultee.164

49. In March 2012 the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) replaced existing planning guidance. The NPPF requires local authorities to “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”.165 TAG et al believed that the NPPF did not spell out the principles that would

157 Ev w61

158 Q 87 [Maria-Pilar Machancoses]

159 Ev w11

160 ibid

161 Q 87

162 Ev 57

163 In the largest conurbations local transport is managed across a number of local authorities by Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) and Integrated Transport Authorities (ITAs). We heard from Centro-the PTE/ITA in the West Midlands, and Merseytravel-the PTE/ITA for Merseyside.

164 Q 81 [John Smith]

165 Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012, [www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf].


underpin the siting of developments to make them accessible as clearly or fully as the original planning policy documents, which developers might see as a change in policy.166 Sustrans was similarly concerned that the NPPF gave accessibility planning a low priority.167

50. The NPPF continues to require Transport Statements, Assessments and Plans to be completed for developments that “generate significant amounts of movements”, though without quantifying that threshold.168 The RAC saw this ambiguity as signalling a move away from Transport Assessments and placing the onus on local planning officers to prove that the transport impact from a development would be “severe” enough to reject an application.169 Dearbhla Lawson from Cambridgeshire County Council noted that whilst transport assessments were important, they were produced “quite late” in the process. She wanted to see earlier consideration of the transport implications of local authorities’ longer term plans for growth and future development. The requirement in the Localism Act for consultation with local communities before planning applications would be helpful in that respect.170 In December 2012 the Taylor Review of the 7,000 pages of Planning Practice Guidance concluded that guidance on Transport Assessments continued to be needed, but recommended that it should be streamlined.171

51. The National Planning Policy Framework addresses the need to consider transport requirements for developments, but does not spell out the principles that would underpin the siting of developments to make them accessible as clearly or fully as the original planning policy documents or say how it should be done. In the reform of the Planning Practice Guidance, which follows the introduction of the NPPF, the guidance on Transport Assessments should not only be retained but strengthened in its coverage of accessibility requirements.

The priority afforded to accessibility

52. Many of our witnesses concluded that policies for ensuring good accessibility to services had diminished since the Making the Connections report was published in 2003. Dr Karen Lucas believed that the current focus of the Department for Transport was on creating growth and cutting carbon. Social issues had “dropped off the agenda”.172 Similarly, Dearbhla Lawson from Cambridge County Council thought that the Department was focusing its efforts with local authorities on helping them to deliver economic growth.173 Chris Briggs from Lincolnshire County Council saw a “falling off of interest in accessibility”.174 John Smith from Merseytravel believed that when looking at the

166 Ev w11

167 Ev w61

168 Ev w34

169 Ev w81

170 Qq 81, 83, 85 [Dearbhla Lawson]

171 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39821/taylor_review.pdf

172 Q 9; See also: Ev w1, Ev w30

173 Q 90

174 ibid


Department’s recent policies, it had taken a “backwards step” in choosing to adopt a narrow definition of accessibility that focused on the ‘mobility impaired’. The Government’s December 2012 Accessibility Action Plan defined ‘accessibility’ as good physical access to public transport by disabled and older people, and not the wider meaning used in Making the Connections.175 John Smith thought that the team in the Department for Transport leading on this agenda had been slowly eroded to the point that no one was specifically responsible for this area.176

53. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport Norman Baker MP told us, nevertheless, that transport accessibility to public services was a priority for the government.177 The Government “recognised that transport has a key role to play in improving accessibility”, as reflected in the £600 million allocated to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. (The local authorities who came before us were successful in securing funding for such projects, a number of which aimed to improve accessibility to employment.178) However, we note that the Fund was “aimed at promoting local economic growth and reducing carbon emissions”.179 ‘Social impacts’ arising from the projects supported by the Fund were considered only as “secondary criteria”, although Norman Baker thought that sustainable transport schemes would have a generally “beneficial social impact”.180

54. Overall, as we have discussed above, our inquiry has pointed to accessibility worsening since the Making the Connections Report was published in 2003, driven by the current economic climate, a tightening of government spending, public transport fare increases and cuts to bus services. But a perhaps more fundamental concern is that the Department for Transport’s recent policies have adopted a narrow definition of accessibility that focuses on ‘mobility’ rather than the wider issue of ‘accessibility’ used in Making the Connections.

175 Department for Transport, Transport for Everyone: an action plan to improve accessibility, December 2012,

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49089/accessibility-action-plan.pdf].

176 Q 89; See also Ev 70

177 Q 197

178 For example, Merseytravel was successful in securing £4.9 million from the fund for the “Facilitating Sustainable Access to Employment in Merseyside” project and Cambridgeshire County Council was successful in securing £5 million for its “Getting Cambridgeshire to Work” project— https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43542/lstf-summary-descriptions.pdf.

179 The Department for Transport estimates that the fund will leverage an extra £400 million of other funding for the selected projects.

180 Q 218. In total, funding has been awarded to 96 projects managed by 77 local authorities between 2011 and 2015. A full list of the projects with a brief description of each is at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/local-sustainable-transport-fund.


3 Ways of improving accessibility 55. As we have set out in Part 2, overall there has been insufficient progress at improving accessibility since the Making the Connections report was published in 2003. Many of that report’s findings appear as relevant today as they were a decade ago. There is no magic bullet for improving accessibility and it will take time for the improvements we suggest to make a noticeable difference. In this Part we explore the ways in which accessibility can be improved. In doing so, we focus on improving how Government works, rather than advocating the need for more funding.

Better joint working across government departments

56. The ‘costs’ of poor accessibility do not just fall to the transport sector,181 so accessibility to services should be an overlapping aim of transport and other policies; in education, health, welfare and work, and planning.182 Without good transport accessibility, individuals can be cut off from jobs, education and other activities affecting their quality of life. Poor transport links can leave communities isolated. Businesses may have difficulties hiring staff or keeping customers. Higher benefit payments and reduced tax contributions may follow from transport barriers to greater employment. Missed health appointments waste resources and poor access to school or college can limit life chances. A reliance on unsustainable modes of transport can have impacts on pollution and public health.183 These costs are not quantified and the “ripple effects” on accessibility of different departments’ policies, for example the impact of poor access to education on crime rates, are not identified.184

57. The governance and delivery arrangements for transport accessibility cut across central government departments, local government and the private and community sectors. The Department for Transport has overall policy lead on the accessibility agenda and oversees the public transport network in England. Its role varies across the different modes of transport.185 Other central government departments also have some accessibility-related responsibilities.186 Local authorities are responsible for local planning decisions, local

181 Q 91 [Dearbhla Lawson]

182 Q 31 [Professor Jones]; Ev 57

183 Social Exclusion Unit, Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion and Transport, 2003, [http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/making-the-connections.pdf].

184 Qq 32, 33

185 In terms of buses, the Government sets a broad framework for a deregulated market, provides dedicated funding to bus operators, provides funding to local authorities for transport schemes including to help pay for the national concessionary fare scheme. In contrast, the Government acts as the franchisor for rail services, setting the minimum service standards and the processes for determining rail fare increases.

186 The Department of Health is responsible for policy on the location of healthcare and funding transport to hospital where this has been deemed necessary by a healthcare professional, such as a doctor or midwife. Communities and Local Government is responsible for land-use planning policy. The Department for Education is responsible for policy relating to the organisation of schools and statutory provision of home-to-school transport. The Department for Work and Pensions provides discretionary help for people seeking work and assistance with the cost of visiting someone in hospital. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for a number of schemes which provide support for rural services. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills provides support for small- and medium-sized shops and encourages entrepreneurship in deprived areas.


transport schemes, statutory school transport provision and supported bus services.187 Local NHS bodies fund non-emergency patient transport services. Some 1,700 community groups provide community transport services.188 Age-UK judged that these disparate arrangements were “complex”, which made improvements to accessibility difficult to implement.189

58. A number of government strategies that could influence accessibility levels have been published during the course of our inquiry. In December 2012 an Accessibility Action Plan was published (paragraph 52).190 In March 2013 a Door to door strategy was published that aimed to “make it easier and more convenient for people to make their whole journey by public transport, supported by cycling and walking”.191 A new Transport Strategy, setting out how the Government’s activities would deliver its aims for the transport system, is expected soon, as is a new national roads strategy.192 The forthcoming Transport Strategy offers the Department an opportunity to join up existing strategies that will have an influence on accessibility, including on the ‘door-to-door’ travel experience and physical accessibility of transport. It should also set out the arrangements in Government for ensuring that the transport accessibility of public services does not remain in departmental silos.

59. In 2003, the Making the Connections report found that there was no clear responsibility for accessibility. Access to services had been seen as merely a transport issue rather than one that can be solved by wider policies. Insufficient co-ordination was also found between mainstream transport needs and patient, pupil, and social services transport.193 Derek Halden told us that the “accountability problems identified in 2003 still apply”. He believed that although most public service providers had “statutory responsibilities for ensuring that all people can access their service”, most aim to discharge this by concentrating on their “core values” and then informing transport teams of the policy results. He believed that few people working in transport perceived their role as checking that non-transport policies do not inadvertently make accessibility worse.194 He provided a “repeated many times” illustration:

A health authority wishes to build a new hospital and selects cheap land since this makes better use of the health budget. Planning agreements then often fail to secure the long term investment in transport needed to compensate for moving the health

187 The Committee took evidence from Cambridgeshire Council and Lincolnshire County Council. In the six largest

conurbations local transport is managed across a number of local authorities by Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) and Integrated Transport Authorities (ITAs). The Committee took evidence from Centro—the PTE/ITA in the West Midlands and Merseytravel—the PTE/ITA for Merseyside. The Mayor of London is responsible for transport in London.

188 Ev 85

189 Ev w1

190 Department for Transport, Transport for Everyone: an action plan to improve accessibility, December 2012, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49089/accessibility-action-plan.pdf].

191 HC Deb, 14 March 2013, Col 28WS.

192 Department for Transport, Business Plan 2011–15 (updated May 2012), [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3367/dft-2012-business-plan.pdf].

193 Social Exclusion Unit, Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion and Transport, 2003, [http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/making-the-connections.pdf].

194 Ev 57


services from an accessible to an inaccessible location, and transport authorities are faced with picking up the costs of dealing with support for public transport, congestion on the road network, and social exclusion amongst health users unable to access healthcare.195

60. We asked Norman Baker what his Department’s role was in the not dissimilar example of the reconfiguration of hospital services in Mid Staffordshire.196 He told us that his department would be involved in helping to set the overall policy frameworks of departments, such as the Department of Health in this case, but how that was then applied locally would be a “local matter”. His Department relied on officials from the Department of Health “asking themselves the relevant questions”.197

61. Mechanisms to stimulate greater partnership working were seen as key to achieving progress. Our witnesses however pointed to the absence of such cross-cutting work, with silos within and between Government departments a “fundamental problem” in securing progress on accessibility.198 John Smith from Merseytravel found it “was not helpful” that the Department for Transport was charged with the accessibility agenda because it signalled that it was a transport issue.199 The demise of the Social Exclusion Unit has hindered scrutiny of progress against its 2003 recommendations.200 Norman Baker told us that the Government was “getting better at joining up across departments”, citing positive relationships between transport and health departments on how transport, such as cycling, can improve public health, and with the environment department on the role of rural transport in preventing isolation.201

62. Norman Baker did not favour greater centralisation, however, which he thought had previously been “cumbersome” and “ineffective”. Instead, he thought that building “sensible relationships” across departments would be more effective at driving cross-government working, including by the greater use of secondments of official between departments and ministers sharing public platforms on specific issues.202

63. John Smith believed that the Department for Transport had little influence across Whitehall, and that consequently leaving it with responsibilities for accessibility could impede progress.203 A Cabinet Office lead on social exclusion had previously “worked very well”.204 We have previously called on the Government to drive forward the sustainable development agenda from the centre of Government by establishing a dedicated sustainable development Minister within a department with Whitehall-wide influence,

195 Ev 57

196 Monitor Contingency Planning Team, Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust—Recommendations of the Contingency Planning Team, March 2013, [http://www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/MSFT%20Sustainability%20Final.pdf].

197 Qq 206, 207

198 Qq 31, 52 [Professor Jones], Qq 8, 30, 34 [Professor Smith]

199 Q 91

200 Q 10 [Dr Karen Lucas], Q 13 [Professor Jones]; Ev 57

201 Q 197

202 Q 201

203 Q 91

204 Q 31 [Professor Jones]


such as the Cabinet Office.205 We recently reported on the Government’s cross-government approach to ‘sustainability proofing’ policies which involved the Minister for Government Policy, Oliver Letwin, reviewing departmental business plans on a quarterly basis.206 That approach focuses on the policies in the particular department, rather than necessarily spotting issues such as accessibility that cut across departments. Oliver Letwin told us that he would look into whether such issues might be covered in the business plan review system.207 Norman Baker thought that transport policy was better left to his department, rather than the Cabinet Office, but did see a role for the Cabinet Office in “identifying an issue and giving it more weight”.208

64. Governments, over a number of years, have failed to develop the much needed cross-departmental approach to public services accessibility. Better accessibility concerns all parts of Government and should no longer be seen as just a transport issue, but the Department for Transport struggles to bring about such a change of emphasis. We recommend that the Cabinet Office convenes a working group of Ministers and officials to improve cross-government working on accessibility. The transport, education, health, work and pensions and communities and local government departments should form its core membership. Consideration should also be given to how processes aimed at checking that sustainable development is embedded across government, including the Cabinet Office’s reviews of departmental business plans, could include consideration of transport-accessibility to public services.

Sharing best practice within local government

65. There is a “clear and urgent need to establish a robust, easy to apply and commonly agreed method for evaluating the wider societal benefits of public transport services”. Although many schemes have been initiated by local authorities to improve accessibility over the years, they have “rarely been robustly evaluated”. As a result, local authorities are reluctant to allocate resources to them.209 Professor Smith told us that:

we really need better evidence on what works … I reported to the Department for Transport in 2005 [that there was] a lack of systematic evaluation of the impact of initiatives. It is very difficult to get gold-standard evidence about what initiatives work. There is lots of qualitative evidence about individual programmes, but that systematic evaluation evidence is poor.210

66. The Passenger Transport Executive Group have developed an accessibility good practice guide, and a national coordinator of local ‘Wheels to work’ schemes was being

205 Environmental Audit Committee, First Report of Session 2010–12, Embedding sustainable development across

Government after the Secretary of State’s announcement on the future of the Sustainable Development Commission, HC 504, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvaud/504/504.pdf].

206 ibid

207 Environmental Audit Committee, First Report of Session 2013-14, Embedding sustainable development: An update, HC 202, Q 68.

208 Q 203

209 Lucas, K. Tyler, S. and Christodolou, G. The value of new transport services in deprived areas, 2008, [http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2228-transport-regeneration-deprivation.pdf].

210 Qq 7, 34


funded by the Department to help spread best practice and to help them “to become self-sustaining”. More generally, however, we heard that local authorities were not sharing what limited evaluation and best practice was available.211 There was “lots of innovation going on in small pockets right across the country” which left “people following the same mistakes and missing out on learning that is happening elsewhere”.212 A Government-commissioned evaluation of accessibility planning, discussed below (paragraphs 71-73), found that a “common concern” voiced by planners and service providers was the lack of an available evidence base to inform accessibility planning.213

67. Professor Smith believed that central government had a role in helping local authorities to share best practice.214 That may prove a difficult role for the Department for Transport which, since the abolition of Government Offices in the English regions, has been “struggling to develop its links with local authorities”.215 Norman Baker preferred to see the Local Government Association “change their game” and take on a role of helping local authorities to “share best and worst practice”.216

68. Local authorities are failing to share best practice and the lessons from local interventions to improve accessibility. This could lead to many authorities reinventing the wheel, and poor value for money for local taxpayers. The Department for Transport should work with the Local Government Association to develop a web portal to allow local authorities to share good practice examples of accessibility-focused projects.

Re-energising the accessibility planning regime

69. In the broadest sense, accessibility planning is checking that people can access services and organising solutions to fill any identified gaps. The 2003 Making the Connections report noted that no one was responsible for ensuring that this happened, and proposed a new “systematic and standardised” accessibility planning regime to be implemented by local authorities, but including a “joined up strategy across agencies”.217

70. The Department for Transport assumed overall responsibility for this new “path breaking” accessibility planning process.218 It set out detailed guidance to local authorities on accessibility planning, and required authorities to set out an accessibility plan as part of their 2006–2011 Local Transport Plans.219 Relevant agencies, such as land-use planners,

211 Q 153 [David McVean], Q 89 [Maria-Pilar Machancoses]

212 Q 34

213 Transport Committee, Eight Report of Session 2010–12, Bus Services after the Spending Review, HC 750, [www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf].

214 Q 34

215 Ev 75

216 Q 210

217 Social Exclusion Unit, Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion and Transport, 2003, [http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/making-the-connections.pdf]; Kelly Kilby (Atkins) and Noel Smith (CRSP), Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, June 2012, [http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-planning-policy-evaluation/accessibility-planning-evaluation-report.pdf].

218 Ev w24

219 http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-planning-guidance/ —The guidance sets out the accessibility planning regime as follows: a strategic accessibility assessment, local accessibility assessments, focussed on priority


Jobcentre Plus, Primary Care Trusts, local social services and local education authorities were each to be responsible for ensuring that their policies and programmes incorporated and took forward the actions identified for them in the local accessibility plan.220 The Department also published a series of papers providing guidance on accessibility planning specifically for Jobcentre Plus, education and health.221 Professor Karel Martens argued that it was a mistake to charge local authorities with leading accessibility planning because accessibility levels were primarily determined by transport investment programmes at national level, and local accessibility planning would “hardly be able to compensate”.222

71. Subsequently, however, the Transport Act 2008 gave local authorities greater freedom over what is included in their Local Transport Plans. With further recent moves towards localism, the Campaign for Better Transport feared that such accessibility planning would become “semi voluntary”.223 In September 2012 a Government-commissioned evaluation of accessibility planning was published.224 Professor Noel Smith, co–author of the evaluation, told us that the review found only “a few examples” where accessibility planning had fed through to a “direct impact on the ground in terms of achieved services”. More examples were found, however, where “existing initiatives were re-badged” as accessibility planning, and some accessibility plans were not implemented due to staffing changes or funding problems. Some local transport authorities “were going through the motions” of developing accessibility plans, which were later “shelved”.225 In a similar vein, Derek Halden believed that “only a minority” of transport authorities had “so far embraced the opportunities of accessibility planning”.226 The local authorities we heard from contested that assessment, telling us that accessibility planning was a key part of their work. John Smith told us that although not a requirement, Merseytravel still continued to use accessibility planning in preparing its transport plan and that this approach was “fundamental”.

72. Chris Briggs from Lincolnshire County Council believed that the wider failure of accessibility planning rested with other partners, outside local authorities, who had failed to give it the same “kudos”.227 This was borne out in the government-commissioned evaluation. It found that accessibility planning was “not yet being embraced” as a cross-government concern, and tended to be viewed as a responsibility only for local authorities. What little attention there was on accessibility planning in the wider public sector focused on increasing general access and not on addressing social exclusion. Accessibility planning

areas, groups & issues, option appraisal (including the identification of resources), accessibility action plan development and delivery; and monitoring.

220 Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion and Transport, op. cit.

221 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111005162410/dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ltp/guidance/ localtransportsplans/policies/accessibilityplanning.html

222 Ev w24

223 Ev 75

224 This was originally commissioned in 2008 and its scope evolved to reflect changes to the political landscape. The aim of the evaluation was to: assess whether the guidance developed by Department for Transport was effective in enabling delivery of accessibility planning as it was intended; examine the sorts of processes that lead to good outcomes for accessibility planning strategies and individual initiatives; and identify lessons learnt about how to develop and implement those strategies and initiatives.

225 Q 24

226 Ev 57

227 Qq 92, 93


guidance “did not penetrate statutory agencies and was not promoted within agencies”.228 The Department for Transport had failed to promote the policy.229 When the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions gave evidence, they did not engender confidence that the accessibility planning regime, as envisaged in Making the Connections, is being rigorously followed.230 The Department for Work and Pensions is not giving adequate attention to accessibility in its contracting arrangements for medical assessments.231

73. The Government-commissioned evaluation made a number of recommendations for improvement, including “proactive and well-targeted activity” to bring partnership working about. The Department for Transport was “best placed to take this forward”. The “revitalisation of the policy” through an “explicit re-visioning in the context of localism” and greater evidence on what initiatives work was also needed.232 Some of our witnesses favoured accessibility planning guidance being revised and re-issued.233 The Government is still to respond to the evaluation report and will do so once our inquiry has been completed.234 We might expect that significant changes will follow, however, because the Government’s initial assessment was that delivery of accessibility planning is “patchy and fragmented, and that many local authorities do not have the skills or capacity to assess local transport disadvantage and/or do not know how to address this as part of their local corporate agendas”.235

74. The accessibility planning regime—the key development from the 2003 Making the Connections report—has not been embraced by all local authorities and Government departments. The Government should publish up to date guidance which makes a compelling case for accessibility to be addressed, not just by local authorities but by all central government departments. Departmental Business Plans should explicitly state how each department is taking forward accessibility. The inter-departmental working group on accessibility that we have recommended should then hold those departments to account through regular reviews of these Plans (paragraph 64). In responding to this report, the Department for Transport should set out the actions it will take in the light of its review of accessibility planning. It should seek to implement the evaluation’s recommendations swiftly.

Refocusing and coordinating transport funding

75. The Making the Connections report found that public funding for transport was fragmented, with many public bodies involved.236 This is still the case. The Department for


229 Q 30

230 Q 144

231 Qq 179-184


233 Q 98 [John Smith], Q 146 [Flora Goldhill]; Ev w30

234 Q 225; Ev 85

235 Ev 85

236 Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion and Transport, op. cit.


Transport funds large national transport infrastructure schemes,237 subsidises rail infrastructure,238 provides funding and grants to local authorities,239 and funds maintenance of the national road network and new local road schemes.240 The Department for Communities and Local Government and local authorities’ own resources are also key sources of local transport funding.241 Local NHS bodies fund non-emergency patient transport services and local authorities fund statutory school transport provision.242

76. Transport investment is not focused on improving accessibility. Derek Halden believed that transport investment:

still tends to emphasise market pressures, such as road congestion, rather than market failure, such as the inability of people and businesses to meet their travel needs. … If we ‘follow the money’ then most transport practitioners have little incentive to support accessibility planning. When local shops and services close, people need to travel to more remote locations, so the transport sector grows with financial benefits for all those that work in the transport industry.243

Professor Karel Martens believed that a distinction should be drawn between Government investments in transport for the purposes of economic growth, which he believed should be self-financing through contributions from benefiting sectors, and those for ensuring accessibility. Government investment should explicitly aim to deliver ‘minimum accessibility thresholds’ or a ‘maximum accessibility range’.244

77. There is limited national funding specifically earmarked towards improving accessibility. The Government’s £600 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund can support accessibility as ‘secondary benefits’ (paragraph 53). However, we heard that new funding dedicated to accessibility was not necessarily needed.245 Instead, existing transport investment programmes could be revised to more directly address accessibility. Derek Halden favoured investments reflecting the results of accessibility audits.246 Professor Jones favoured making the relevant central government department accountable for the transport budget within their sphere of policy influence: “If you made the education authority responsible for the education travel budget, then they will take account of that more clearly in their decisions about location” of schools.247

237 Such as High Speed 2 (£300 million), Crossrail (£1,207 million in 2012/13), and the Thameslink project (£42 million).

From the 2012-13 budget in Department for Transport’s Business Plan 2011–15.

238 Via a grant to Network Rail (£3,658 million).

239 Including funding for Transport for London.

240 £779 million in 2012-13.

241 Including council tax, levies on new developments, borrowing, and parking fees and charges.

242 Q 120 [David McVean]

243 Ev 57

244 Ev w24

245 Ev 57

246 ibid

247 Q 23


78. In the current economic environment there is some evidence that local authorities are reducing their transport budgets;248 reducing the funding for local discretionary accessibility projects. Richard Hebditch from the Campaign for Better Transport believed that because there was less evaluation and less evidence on the impact of accessibility projects, they were particularly “squeezed” during the 2010 Spending Review. Most potential local accessibility schemes were “revenue hungry”, rather than capital hungry.249 This presented a problem because the funding provided to local authorities by the Department for Communities and Local Government had been reduced by 28%, and because revenue budgets still had to meet a range of statutory duties (such as payments to bus operators to reimburse them for statutory concessionary fares) which were largely beyond the control of local authorities.250 Norman Baker told us that he had not assessed how much local funding for transport had been reallocated for other purposes. He told us that he was interested in what the outcome was for passengers and “how we get there is of secondary importance ... I am not going to monitor local councils like some sort of head teacher marking their work”. Instead, he favoured informal monitoring through meetings and forums.251

79. Two initiatives nevertheless offer opportunities for improving the coordination of transport funding and investment, and potentially placing more emphasis on improving accessibility:

• A Department for Transport plan to devolve more control over local major transport schemes252 after 2015 to newly formed transport bodies created by Local Economic Partnerships and local authorities.253

• A Department for Education review of the procurement, planning and provision of school transport across England.254

The Government should widen the scope of the existing review of school transport to include all other local transport funding. Such a review should consider how greater efficiencies could be achieved by pooling budgets to achieve greater procurement efficiencies or sharing vehicle use for different purposes.

80. Another way of improving the accessibility outcomes from transport funding and investment would be to enhance decision-making processes. The Department for Transport’s investment appraisal guidance255 calculates the value of new transport schemes primarily by looking at the economic benefits of increased productivity in the economy through reduced journey times. However, that overlooks wider social benefits, including

248 National Audit Office, Funding for local transport: An overview, HC 629 (2012–13), October 2012,

[http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/funding_for_local_transport.aspx]; See also Ev w26, Ev w28, Ev 105

249 Q 94 [Maria-Pilar Machancoses]

250 Funding for local transport: An overview, op. cit.

251 Q 217

252 Schemes which have a cost over £5 million.

253 Funding for local transport: An overview, op. cit.

254 http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/community/a0077797/efficiency-and-practice-review-home-to-school-transport

255 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-appraisal-tools


improved well-being and increased opportunity. These social impacts are less well understood than the economic or environmental impacts, but “can be significant, especially for already vulnerable groups”.256 Derek Halden believed that although some improvements had been made to ensure that the wider benefits were identified, the investment appraisal process had been predicated on ensuring that the right road schemes were prioritised. Wider issues were “considered only as factors for mitigation”. 257 He told us:

If somebody drives to the shops then there is an economic value in that because they burn oil and so on … If they walk, that is viewed as having no benefit to the transport economy, so that switch from driving to walking would be regarded as an economic dis-benefit ... While they have introduced criteria that add a qualitative element to [capture] improved access by walking ... the core economic aspects of appraisal only value if you use a motorised mode and burn oil.258

81. In the current economic climate a lack of a methodology for articulating the social impacts of decisions in a way that is comparable with economic benefits may be putting accessibility schemes at a disadvantage, particularly in regards to large capital schemes where ‘economic benefits’ are easier to quantify.259 Dr Karen Lucas told us that many local authorities had “struggled” to demonstrate the social contribution from services in decisions on local service cutbacks.260 She advocated the development of a methodology for calculating the monetary value of social impacts of transport, validated by the Treasury.261 Similarly, Maria-Pilar Machancoses from Centro wanted to see greater help provided to local authorities so that the social benefits of transport are better captured.262 The Department for Transport was undertaking a research project that aimed to look at monetising the social impact of bus travel.263

82. Public sector funding for transport continues to be fragmented, and focused on building the transport economy rather than improving how people use the existing transport network. Accessibility-focused initiatives will also have a swifter impact on people’s well-being than large infrastructure projects. The Government should review its transport funding for local authorities to ensure that pro-accessibility services that are dependent particularly on revenue rather than capital expenditure are not disproportionately curtailed.

83. Investment decisions taken by local service and transport providers need to fully consider the three types of impacts from decisions—environmental, economic and social—to ensure that they are sustainable. However, there is no established

256 Transport Studies Unit—University of Oxford, Social Impacts and Equity in Transport, Policy Briefing Note 1: Scope of

the Problem, 2012, [http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note1.pdf]. See also Q 23 and Ev 70

257 Ev 57

258 Q 67

259 Ev 65

260 Q 14

261 Ev 70

262 Q 95

263 Ev 85


methodology for calculating the social impacts of transport and therefore schemes which improve accessibility could be disadvantaged in the investment process. The Department for Transport should extend its work on measuring the social value of bus services to incorporate all other modes of public transport. Calculating the social impacts of transport investment decisions, using these values, should be a mandatory part of the Department’s investment appraisal guidance.


Conclusions

Progress on improving accessibility since 2003

1. National transport accessibility statistics show a worsening trend. In particular, accessibility to hospitals continues to fall, with nearly half of people not having reasonable access to hospitals. It appears that the statistics are not driving action by Government departments and they are not sufficiently analysed to readily enable local authorities to be held to account. (Paragraph 16)

2. Funding for bus services, disproportionately heavily used by vulnerable groups—the elderly, disabled and poor—is reducing; inevitably contributing further to an already declining level of accessibility. Further reductions might “tip many bus services over the edge” and reduce the accessibility of public services. (Paragraph 26)

3. Lack of access to a car increasingly makes it difficult to access public services, particularly for those on low incomes and the elderly. (Paragraph 33)

4. The localism initiative can reflect local needs more closely, but it also risks excluding vulnerable groups without a voice. (Paragraph 37)

5. The pattern of development in recent years, and rationalisations of Government sites, has reduced accessibility. There are no statutory minimum standards placed on the providers of most public sector services to ensure accessibility. At the same time as the Government is increasing the delivery of its services through the internet, it does not yet fully understand the impacts that that may have on the extent to which people will still need to travel to access those services. (Paragraph 45)

6. The National Planning Policy Framework addresses the need to consider transport requirements for developments, but does not spell out the principles that would underpin the siting of developments to make them accessible as clearly or fully as the original planning policy documents or say how it should be done. (Paragraph 51)

7. Overall, our inquiry has pointed to accessibility worsening since the Making the Connections Report was published in 2003, driven by the current economic climate, a tightening of government spending, public transport fare increases and cuts to bus services. But a perhaps more fundamental concern is that the Department for Transport’s recent policies have adopted a narrow definition of accessibility that focuses on ‘mobility’ rather than the wider issue of ‘accessibility’ used in Making the Connections. (Paragraph 54)

Ways of improving accessibility

8. Many of the findings [in the Making the Connections Report] appear as relevant today as they were a decade ago. There is no magic bullet for improving accessibility and it will take time for the improvements we suggest to make a noticeable difference. (Paragraph 55)


9. Governments, over a number of years, have failed to develop the much needed cross-departmental approach to public services accessibility. Better accessibility concerns all parts of Government and should no longer be seen as just a transport issue, but the Department for Transport struggles to bring about such a change of emphasis. (Paragraph 64)

10. Local authorities are failing to share best practice and the lessons from local interventions to improve accessibility. This could lead to many authorities reinventing the wheel, and poor value for money for local taxpayers. (Paragraph 68)

11. The accessibility planning regime—the key development from the 2003 Making the Connections Report—has not been embraced by all local authorities and Government departments. (Paragraph 74)

12. Public sector funding for transport continues to be fragmented, and focused on building the transport economy rather than improving how people use the existing transport network. Accessibility-focused initiatives will also have a swifter impact on people’s well-being than large infrastructure projects. (Paragraph 82)

13. Investment decisions taken by local service and transport providers need to fully consider the three types of impacts from decisions—environmental, economic and social—to ensure that they are sustainable. However, there is no established methodology for calculating the social impacts of transport and therefore schemes which improve accessibility could be disadvantaged in the investment process. (Paragraph 83)

Recommendations

14. To improve the accountability of public bodies for their accessibility performance, the Department for Transport should work with other government departments to provide more detailed analysis and commentary for the accessibility statistics. Similarly, the Department should work with local authorities to help publish localised accessibility statistics. (Paragraph 16)

15. The Government should protect bus service funding in the next Spending Review. (Paragraph 26)

16. When the Government reviews its exemption for bus and coach staff from complying with EU regulations on disability awareness training, it should survey potential users to establish whether perceptions of disability unawareness has been making them reluctant to travel. (Paragraph 31)

17. While the localism agenda is reducing the Department for Transport’s influence on how accessibility is implemented, the Department cannot absolve itself from a role in guiding and advising those communities to fully embrace the requirements of accessibility. (Paragraph 37)


18. In the reform of the Planning Practice Guidance, which follows the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework, the guidance on Transport Assessments should not only be retained but strengthened in its coverage of accessibility requirements. (Paragraph 51)

19. The forthcoming Transport Strategy offers the Department for Transport an opportunity to join up existing strategies that will have an influence on accessibility, including on the ‘door-to-door’ travel experience and physical accessibility of transport. It should also set out the arrangements in Government for ensuring that the transport accessibility of public services does not remain in departmental silos. (Paragraph 58)

20. We recommend that the Cabinet Office convenes a working group of Ministers and officials to improve cross-government working on accessibility. The transport, education, health, work and pensions and communities and local government departments should form its core membership. Consideration should also be given to how processes aimed at checking that sustainable development is embedded across government, including the Cabinet Office’s reviews of departmental business plans, could include consideration of transport-accessibility to public services. (Paragraph 64)

21. The Department for Transport should work with the Local Government Association to develop a web portal to allow local authorities to share good practice examples of accessibility-focused projects. (Paragraph 68)

22. The Government should publish up to date guidance which makes a compelling case for accessibility to be addressed, not just by local authorities but by all central government departments. Departmental Business Plans should explicitly state how each department is taking forward accessibility. The inter-departmental working group on accessibility that we have recommended should then hold those departments to account through regular reviews of these Plans. In responding to this report, the Department for Transport should set out the actions it will take in the light of its review of accessibility planning. It should seek to implement the evaluation’s recommendations swiftly. (Paragraph 74)

23. The Government should widen the scope of the existing review of school transport to include all other local transport funding. Such a review should consider how greater efficiencies could be achieved by pooling budgets to achieve greater procurement efficiencies or sharing vehicle use for different purposes. (Paragraph 79)

24. The Government should review its transport funding for local authorities to ensure that pro-accessibility services that are dependent particularly on revenue rather than capital expenditure are not disproportionately curtailed. (Paragraph 82)

25. The Department for Transport should extend its work on measuring the social value of bus services to incorporate all other modes of public transport. Calculating the social impacts of transport investment decisions, using these values, should be a mandatory part of the Department’s investment appraisal guidance. (Paragraph 83)


Formal Minutes

Wednesday 5 June 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley, in the Chair

Peter Aldous Neil Carmichael Martin Caton Zac Goldsmith

Mark Lazarowicz Caroline Nokes Dr Matthew Offord Simon Wright

* * *

Draft Report (Transport and accessibility to public services), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 83 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, in addition to that ordered to be reported for publishing on 12 September and 24 October 2012, and 6 and 19 March 2013.

* * *

[Adjourned till Wednesday 12 June 2013 at 2.00 pm


Witnesses

Wednesday 24 October 2012 Page

Richard Hebditch, Campaigns Director, Campaign for Better Transport, Dr Karen Lucas, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Professor Noel Smith, Head of Division, Social Work and Social Policy, University Campus Suffolk, and Professor Peter Jones, Professor of Transport and Sustainable Development, University College London. Ev 1

Wednesday 16 January 2013

Derek Halden, Derek Halden Consultancy Ev 16

John Smith, Local Transport Plan Implementation Officer, Merseytravel, Chris Briggs, Head of Transportation, Lincolnshire County Council, Maria-Pilar Machancoses, Economic Development Manager, Centro, and Dearbhla Lawson, Head of Transport and Infrastructure, Policy & Funding, Cambridgeshire County Council Ev 21

Wednesday 13 February 2013

David McVean, Deputy Director, Education Choice and Access Division, Department for Education, Flora Goldhill CBE, Director for Children, Families & Maternity and Health Inequalities, and Paul Williams, Work Services Director for Southern England, Department for Work. Ev 31

Tuesday 12 March 2013

Norman Baker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Department for Transport, and Nigel Dotchin, Head of Accessibility and Mobility, Department for Transport. Ev 45


List of printed written evidence

1 Derek Halden, DHC Ev 57

2 Professor Noel Smith, University Campus Suffolk Ev 63

3 Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford Ev 65

4 Dr Karen Lucas Ev 70

5 Lincolnshire County Council Ev 73

6 Campaign for Better Transport Ev 75

7 Professor Peter Jones, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London Ev 81

8 The Government Ev 85

9 Cambridgeshire County Council Ev 99

10 Merseytravel Ev 105

11 Department for Education Ev 106

12 Paul Williams, Labour Market Operations Director, Department for Work and Pensions Ev 107

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/eacom)

1 Plymouth People First Ev w1

2 Age UK Ev w1

3 Norma George Ev w5

4 East Lancs Board Members of Lancashire Local Involvement Network (LINks) Ev w6

5 Miss Lynn Curnow Ev w7

6 Oxfordshire Rural Community Council, Community Transport Adviser Ev w9

7 Little Green Bus Ev w10

8 Local Government Technical Advisers Group, the Planning Officers Society and the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation Ev w11

9 Mr Raymond Brookfield, Secretary, West Lancashire Pensioners Forum Ev w20

10 ASLEF Ev w20

11 Campaign for National Parks Ev w21

12 Dr Karel Martens Ev w24

13 Bus Users UK Ev w26

14 British Youth Council Ev w28

15 Passenger Transport Executive Group Ev w30

16 Local Government Association Ev w34

17 Mencap Ev w37

18 Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Ev w40

19 Unite the Union Ev w47

20 Stockport Child Poverty Group Ev w49


21 Roger Mackett and Helena Titheridge, Centre for Transport Studies, University College, London Ev w50

22 Transport for All Ev w51

23 National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers Ev w54

24 Sustrans Ev w61

25 Patsy Ormrod, Wyre Council Ev w67

26 Simon Trevan, support worker, Plymouth City Council Ev w68

27 The Mayor of London and Transport for London Ev w71

28 Consumer Focus Ev w74

29 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK Ev w78

30 RAC Foundation Ev w81

31 Kerry Bentley, Community Organiser for High Green and Chapeltown Ev w84


List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2013–14

Session 2012–13

Session 2010–12

First Report Embedding sustainable development across Government, after the Secretary of State’s announcement on the future of the Sustainable Development Commission

HC 504 (HC 877)

Second Report The Green Investment Bank HC 505 (HC 1437)

Third Report Sustainable Development in the Localism Bill HC 799 (HC 1481)

Fourth Report Embedding sustainable development: the Government’s response

HC 877

Fifth Report The impact of UK overseas aid on environmental protection and climate change adaptation and mitigation

HC 710 (HC 1500)

Sixth Report Budget 2011 and environmental taxes HC 878 (HC 1527)

Seventh Report Carbon Budgets HC 1080 (HC 1720)

Eighth Report Preparations for the Rio +20 Summit HC 1026 (HC 1737)

Ninth Report Air Quality a follow up Report HC 1024 (HC 1820)

Tenth Report Solar Power Feed-in Tariffs (Joint with the Energy and Climate Change Committee)

HC 1605 (HC 1858)

Eleventh Report Sustainable Food HC 879 (HC 567)

Twelfth Report A Green Economy HC 1025 (HC 568)

First Report Embedding sustainable development: an update HC 202

Second Report Outcomes of the UN Rio+20 Earth Summit HC 200

First Report The St Martin-in-the-Fields seminar on the Rio+20 agenda

HC 75

Second Report Protecting the Arctic HC 171 (HC 858)

Third Report Wildlife Crime HC 140 (HC 1061)

Fourth Report Autumn Statement 2012: environmental issues HC 328 (HC 1087)

Fifth Report Measuring well-being and sustainable development: Sustainable Development Indicators

HC 667 (HC 139)

Sixth Report Energy Intensive Industries Compensation Scheme HC 669 (Cm 8618)

Seventh Report Pollinators and Pesticides HC 668

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o001_db_HC 570-i CORRECTED 24.10.12.xml

Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Environmental Audit Committee

on Wednesday 24 October 2012

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter AldousMartin CatonKaty ClarkZac GoldsmithMark Lazarowicz

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Richard Hebditch, Campaigns Director, Campaign for Better Transport, Dr Karen Lucas,Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Professor Noel Smith, Head of Division, Social Work andSocial Policy, University Campus Suffolk, and Professor Peter Jones, Professor of Transport and SustainableDevelopment, University College London, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: To all our four witnesses this afternoon, avery big thank you for making the time to come along.It is the first formal evidence session of our inquiryinto transport and the accessibility of public services.We think it is an important inquiry to do, but I wouldlike to start off by asking each of you to share withus whether or not you think that this is an importantissue that needs to be addressed, and perhaps to giveus a summary of what has happened since the SocialExclusion Unit’s report 10 years ago on travel andsocial exclusion—where you think the currentthinking and agenda are in terms of policymaking. Ido not know whether or not, Mr Hebditch, you wishto go first, but you are very welcome to.Richard Hebditch: Thanks very much. Thank you forinviting us. I think it is very important, and not just interms of your Committee’s agenda around theenvironment and sustainable development. Thetransport system that we have is very much gearedaround the car: it is very car-dependent, which hasimplications for the amount of carbon we get fromtransport, as well as for air pollution and noisepollution. It is also interesting in terms of theinteraction between an environmental agenda, asustainable development agenda, and a wider socialjustice agenda. This inquiry and the previous SocialExclusion Unit report are very interesting becausethey show that measures to address accessibility andsocial justice actually have a very positive impact onthe environment as well.

Q2 Chair: Does anybody wish to add to that?Professor Jones?Professor Jones: Thank you. Basically, access togoods and services is crucial to people’s lives—onecannot live one’s life just locked away at home.Accessing health, education etc is part of life, qualityof life, and a sign of a healthy society. I think whatyou are looking at is core to people’s livelihood andwellbeing.In terms of what changed, if you had looked at ascorecard, there are some pluses and minuses. I guessthe pluses are that when the social exclusion report

Caroline LucasSheryll MurrayMr Mark SpencerSimon Wright

came out, there was a lot of concern about the cost ofbus travel. While fares have gone up, more peoplenow can enjoy free bus travel or reduced-price bustravel, so some sectors—elderly people, certaindisability groups—now have the opportunity to travelfree on public transport where it is available.Similarly, over the last eight or 10 years, a lot morevehicles have been made accessible to people inwheelchairs and therefore people with pushchairs andthings. Some bits of accessibility have improved, butin many sectors, services are further concentrated,particularly in the health service, making it moredifficult for people to get there, and there have beencutbacks in bus services and so on, so I think it isquite a mixed picture, actually.Professor Smith: I have to admit that I was kind ofpulled kicking and shouting into the transport world.My specialism is social policy, and when I was firstapproached by the Department for Transport to comeand do some work for them I thought, “That is notmy area at all.” That was probably seven or eightyears ago. Since then, I have realised the obvious factthat people’s ability to access essential goods andservices, and access to opportunities, are reallyessential for wellbeing. They should be at the heart ofsocial policy. We can have social policy agendas thataddress, say, poverty or inequality at higher levels, butthe nuts and bolts of it—the real tangible elements ofwellbeing and equality—are about whether people canaccess the services and the opportunities they need. Ithink that that makes it really important. If you talk topeople who have benefited from what I callaccessibility initiatives, programmes that are set up toaddress accessibility problems, I think that you willuncover innumerable stories that are really powerfulabout these services having sometimes a life-changingimpact on people’s lives. I think that that is reallyimportant.

Q3 Chair: I do not think the Department forTransport has ever been a champion, if you like, ofthe kind of appraisal that takes into account socialconsiderations. Do you see any move by the

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o001_db_HC 570-i CORRECTED 24.10.12.xml

Ev 2 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence

24 October 2012 Richard Hebditch, Dr Karen Lucas, Professor Noel Smith and Professor Peter Jones

Department for Transport to adjust the appraisals thatthey would be doing to take on board this agenda?Professor Smith: Those appraisals were inherent to adegree in accessibility planning policy. I always seeaccessibility planning policy as being like theDepartment for Transport social policy. I think thatthat is a policy that is developed from the Making theConnections report. It is a very sophisticated policyand still has a lot of potential, but I think that it hasrun aground at the moment.

Q4 Chair: Okay. Dr Lucas, do not feel you have tocomment—it is not that everyone has to come in onevery question—but perhaps you would like to reflecton the current economic situation and whether or notthat makes it more necessary than ever that thisagenda is addressed, and perhaps, at the same time,makes it less likely that it will be.Dr Lucas: It is no secret that this is a subject veryclose to my heart, and I am very glad that theCommittee has picked up on it again because I thinkit has gone into the twilight zone rather since the SEUreport in 2003. Having been part of the constructionof that report and accessibility planning as a wayforward, I have to say that the Department forTransport were taken into that kicking and screaming.The Social Exclusion Unit would have preferredoriginally that this policy agenda be left as more of alocal-community bottom-up agenda; that was theoriginal plan. In some ways, although there has beenprogress, as Professor Jones said, around some of theconcessionary fares and to a certain extent with somelocal authorities really going forward with theaccessibility planning agenda, it has not been bestrepresented by being a transport agenda. This is whyI think the Committee is doing a very good job bythinking of this as much more a matter of access topublic services, and that being access in all sorts ofdifferent ways, which was the original intention of theSEU report; it is not just about transport services.To come back to your point and the very differentsocial context and policy context for this agenda, thisis also very timely now, because what we are seeingis so many cutbacks in services across the board andnot very clear evidence that this is being done withany proper full consideration of the social implicationsfor people who are reliant on these services, andreliant on access by means other than the car.

Q5 Martin Caton: What factors affect howaccessible public services are in transport terms? Is itjust about whether there is a bus to the doctor, theshops, or the hospital, or is it something morecomplex than that?Professor Jones: There are several factors. The workthat the Department for Transport did incommissioning software after accessibility planningwas developed in the form of the Accession software,and the current accessibility indicators very muchstress the travel time involved. That is obviously animportant factor, but it is much more complicated thanthat, for several reasons. First, the fact that there is aservice from A to B does not mean it is available atthe time that people need to use it. Secondly, for manypeople there is still the issue of fares. There are issues

of gaining access to—reaching—these publictransport services through feeling safe about going outto wait at the bus stop, or feeling safe on publictransport.There are those issues around the transport itself, andthen what we found in research in which I think all ofus have been involved, is that, as we would expect,people’s lives are very complicated: the day is aboutscheduling a whole series of things. It is not just aquestion of the bus being there; it is a question ofwhether there is time after you drop the children atschool to get the next bus to the Jobcentre or thehospital appointment, and then get back in time topick up the children or to arrange childcare. Travel formost people takes place as part of a tightinterconnected web, and particularly in suburban areasor rural areas, where bus service frequencies are notthat high, it can be very difficult to schedule things,so any reduction in service frequency or any failurein the service can have quite serious consequencesfor people.Dr Lucas: There is also a massive issue for somegroups around information and just knowledge of thesystem and of what happens at either end of thejourney. If you are a person who has not had a jobbefore and you are expected to enter a new area whereyou have never been, just navigating yourself aroundthat area might be quite complex. There has beenquite a lot of work done with people at the local level,trying to buddy them through the system, becausesome people just do not understand how to use thesystem, how to pay their fares and what is expectedof them, and there are also issues around how they aretreated by bus drivers. There is a raft of issues aroundaccessibility that are much more than just physicallywhether there is a bus there every 10 minutes.Professor Smith: All of that is absolutely right. Thereare some obvious things about physical access—physical accessibility is obviously a key one there.There is also a likely barrier around what we calltravel horizons, which is about people having theconfidence to travel to places where they have notbeen before. You can imagine the scenario ofsomebody who has grown up in an estate and notfeeling comfortable about travelling very far outsideof that estate, so that is an issue. It is also reallyimportant to say that it is complex not just in the rangeof barriers that people face, but because the barriersthey face are likely to be multiple and multi-layered.We might see somebody who says that they cannotaccess a service because there are no buses. Theremight be buses, but it might be that they do not havethe information, so you can give them the information.Then it might be the case that they feel insecure orworried about using that service, so you can providethat information and that help. Then, it could be thecase that when they start using the bus, they realisethat it is unaffordable or that it does not actually getthem to where they need to go on time. It is importantto keep in mind that multi-layering of barriers, too.Richard Hebditch: The only thing I would add is thatfor the last 30 or 40 years, we have had a very muchcar-dependent society, so location of shops andlocation of employment is very much geared towardsthose with a car, and access is increasingly difficult

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o001_db_HC 570-i CORRECTED 24.10.12.xml



for those who do not have a car. You can see that inthe fact that the journey length people are making formost trips has gone up by about 40% since the 1970s.People are having to travel further for the same sortof things than they were doing 30 or 40 years ago.

Q6 Martin Caton: Dr Lucas, your research suggeststhat accessibility to public services is veryindividualised. Does that present problems whentrying to get a handle on the issue and deliversolutions?Dr Lucas: It is very important to see the individualcontext. As Noel has just pointed out here, this multi-layering and understanding accessibility and transportwithin the context of those people’s lives andimportant, but there is a much more macro way thatyou can aggregate those things and pull certain thingstogether. It is possible to look at those things on amore aggregate level as well. The understanding isvery context-specific: what happens to an unemployedperson in Liverpool is entirely different from whathappens to an unemployed person in Tower Hamlets,but all of them may have accessibility issues to takeinto consideration.

Q7 Martin Caton: Do we have a strong enoughevidence base to understand all the environmental andsocial consequences of poor accessibility? Are thereany particular bits of the problem we should befocusing on?Professor Smith: The one thing that we really needbetter evidence on is what works. If you don’t mind,I’d like to add a couple of comments on the previouspoint about whether accessibility is too individualisedand we cannot do anything about it because it is tooindividualised. One is that it is individualised, butthere are very clear patterns in terms of people’s travelbehaviour and their use, some of them very much tiedto the life course. The examples that Karen has givenshow that the context might change, but there will stillbe young people who are likely to need to travel toeducation and employment and their barriers are likelyto be around affordability and public transport.Although the problem they face at an individual levelis complex, I think that you can address it by lookingat the patterns. Also, there is a range of options abouthow you design interventions to address people’sproblems, and some of those can be individualsolutions, for example, in the form of scooterschemes. It is a general scheme, but it gives anindividual solution to one person. That is just onething I would like to add.I think there is plenty of missing evidence. Mycolleagues will point to various aspects of that. Onething that has been outstanding, which I picked up andreported to the DfT in 2005, is a lack of systematicevaluation of the impact of initiatives. It is verydifficult to get gold-standard evidence about whatinitiatives work. There is lots of qualitative evidenceabout individual programmes, but that systematicevaluation evidence is poor.Professor Jones: Very briefly, yes, it is relatively easyto measure what does happen. It is much moredifficult to measure what is not happening. One aspectof this is the fact that people are prevented from doing

things—people are not making journeys because thereis not the transport or they do not have the confidence.That is the thing that is difficult to measure—whatis not happening rather than what is happening, asit were.

Q8 Peter Aldous: If I can just take something up thatProfessor Smith mentioned, it is going back toSuffolk, where we both come from. Looking at theWork programme, which is the programme that theDWP are rolling out to get people back into work,when I talked to two providers in Lowestoft, they saidthe main challenge and issue is accessibility: gettingpeople to work. I have been pointed in the directionof the scooter programme, but unfortunately there arenot enough scooters to go about. I just wonderedwhether, on an issue like that, the DWP are liaisingwith the DfT, or are the two departments working insilos?Professor Smith: Accessibility planning policy,coming from the Making the Connections report, is asophisticated policy in the sense that it was quiteclearly designed to be cross-departmental. I haverecently completed an evaluation of accessibilityplanning policy, and one of the things we particularlylooked at was about the degree of cross-departmentalwork, which is central—crucial—to the policy. Wefound that it is very, very poor. To generalise, I thinkthat they are very much working in silos.Chair: I am going to turn now to Sheryll Murray, whois going to start to move us towards the direction ofthat questioning.

Q9 Sheryll Murray: We will come on to theaccessibility planning in just a moment, but what isthe Department for Transport’s overall approach toimproving accessibility in its working?Dr Lucas: I think it would be fair to say that it doesnot have one at the moment, to be honest.Accessibility planning was its focus for a while, andthe latest White Paper is much more around creatinggrowth and protecting the environment. The socialissues have dropped off the agenda, and I would saythat the social research department within theDepartment for Transport has been brought down toa skeleton in terms of its staffing and its resourcing.Accessibility planning has gone on to the back shelf.It talks about equality of opportunity, but does notnecessarily think about how that might be differentfrom equality of outcome. Whereas social exclusionwas very much about bringing the bottom up to theaverage and giving those very clear targets, this ideaof equality of opportunity is not really being pushedthrough, I would not have said, with Department forTransport policy.

Q10 Sheryll Murray: Do you think that theDepartment of Health and the Department forEducation, for instance, consider it sufficiently aswell? Is it considered enough by other departments,outside the Department for Transport?Dr Lucas: No, I would echo what Professor Smithsays. I think that the idea behind accessibility planningwas that it would be a key local stakeholderengagement tool: it would provide the evidence for




the local stakeholders to work together to have joined-up solutions. That probably was never really achieved.As for the guidance that went out from the otherdepartments, although they signed up to 150commitments as part of the SEU report, they werenot followed through. The implementation of thosecommitments was not monitored because the SocialExclusion Unit became a taskforce and so forth. Ifyou talk to some health providers—for example, apublic health authority—they may say, “Oh, yes, wehave heard of that,” but a lot would say they had not.I think Education (Department of) was never probablyon board. Anything that happens in those areashappens by individual champions and/or pastrelationships with local authorities that have workedwell and, therefore, they are still liaising with thosestakeholders rather than systematically.

Q11 Sheryll Murray: That actually brings us nicelyinto my next question. There do seem to be quite afew small schemes and projects run by various partsof local and central Government. At what point doesanyone look at what is working and where more effortis needed? How well does the DfT undertake this role,if they do it at all?Dr Lucas: I guess that the accessibility planningevaluation that was undertaken by Professor Smithand the CRSP team was designed to do that a little,albeit perhaps a little too late to capture some of it.There is fantastic work going on across all sorts ofagencies on the ground. I think, as echoed by whatyou said, those initiatives are very highly appreciatedby the people who benefit from them, but they aresmall-scale.

Q12 Sheryll Murray: Are there any particulargovernment policies, in transport or otherwise, that arereducing accessibility? Whose job do you think is itto consider these and look across Government?Dr Lucas: When the Social Exclusion Unit reportcame out, it made a very clear statement that no onewas responsible for accessibility, and that is still thecase, if what you tried to do is look across the board.I would say that no, there is not an evaluation of otherGovernment policies and what they do in terms ofnegatively affecting accessibility. There is a lot of talkabout out-of-town developments and the big stuff, butthere are also smaller things like, for example, the 14-to-19 curriculum within schools, which never reallyconsidered whether people could get from A to B toC to get to these specialist areas or that there was atransport implication, some of which could be quiteconsiderable, beyond the walking distance of children;or, in after-school provision, whether there is anyopportunity for people to be able to get back afterschool if they were relying on a school bus. There areplenty of incidents where you could see, yes, otherpolicy is negatively affecting accessibility.

Q13 Sheryll Murray: I have some other questionsfor you, Dr Lucas. I was brought up—Chair: Can I just interrupt? I think Mr Hebditchwanted to come in on that point.Sheryll Murray: Oh, sorry.

Richard Hebditch: Just to add I think one of the areaswhere there is some tension is planning policy, notjust in terms of the overarching planning policy, butthings like use class orders that protect local shops,and protecting office space rather than it going intohousing. There is a worry about what is happening tothat. In education policy, I guess, with free schools,obviously the desire is to free up the system andencourage the development of free schools, butlooking at whether or not they are accessible forpeople—whether they are in the right location andthose kinds of things—is very much removed fromthe process.Dr Lucas: There is the effect of school closures aswell.Richard Hebditch: Yes.Professor Jones: Ideally, the philosophy ofaccessibility planning is that consideration is given tohow somebody could get from their home to access arange of goods and services. As we say, quite oftenthese are interlinked, with childcare linked to beingable to get to hospital, etc. Even if you go down tothe really basic level and just look at it sector bysector and forget that broader picture, even there it isnot joined up. An example two or three years ago wasin Corby where they spent £30 million opening a newschool academy on the edge of town, which led to a£300,000-a-year cost to provide school transport,which was not taken into account as part of that. Thereis a similar situation on the hospital side. Until serviceproviders are in some way made to feel responsiblefor the costs of accessing those services, there will notbe that consideration. Bus operators say now that thefirst time they get consulted about serving a newhospital is when it is just about to open, when it is toolate to actually provide good services into the hospital.Even when you narrow it down, it is still nothappening at the most basic level, unfortunately.

Q14 Sheryll Murray: I can understand what you aresaying, because in my constituency I remember, aboutsix or seven years ago the previous Governmentprovided a grant for new transport—new buses—andwhen the buses came they could not actually run theroutes because they were too big; so I can quiteunderstand what you are talking about there. DrLucas, you recommend that a social value of transportis developed and agreed by the Treasury. Is it possibleto monetise all the benefits of improved accessibility?Dr Lucas: It is not impossible, and I think there aremultiple ways to do it. There have been severalstudies that have suggested ways—social return oninvestment, accessibility benefits, journey timesavings—and all sorts of studies that have goneforward. My recommendation that it needs to be takenup by Treasury is because it has to be validated. Wehave to have everybody agree in the same way thatjourney time saving is worth X pence per passengerper mile or whatever. We have to have that broadagreement. I think that a lot of local authorities havestruggled with the lack of having a social value,because when they have been having to cut backservices, they have had to argue against other areas,other sectors, and they have not had anything to beable to show that there is a social contribution from




the services that they are cutting. If you only look atit in terms of economic effectiveness, that isproblematic. It is a wide and varied area in whichthere would be all sorts of methodological arguments,but one could come up with something that was aformula, as long as it was agreed. I think that is thedifficulty.

Q15 Sheryll Murray: Do you know of any localexamples where a social value is being used byservice or transport providers?Dr Lucas: Not now. I do know that in the Isle ofWight, for a while, they were simply using people nolonger needing to claim in relation to council tax, sothere were council tax savings, and lots of verystraightforward ways. We valued some localcommunity initiatives by just using the standardDepartment for Transport methodology, but it takes alot of data collection to do it that way. I think onceyou have proved the point, you do not need to haveto keep doing those sorts of studies.

Q16 Sheryll Murray: The National InfrastructurePlan includes a number of transport infrastructureschemes. Does that focus, on providing capital ratherthan revenue expenditure, starve funds for schemesthat could most readily improve accessibility?Richard Hebditch: Yes, is the answer. It is quiteinteresting that, in the spending review, wheredecisions are taken about obviously departmentalbudgets, the evidence—or what appears to beevidence—about the value of big capital infrastructureprojects is much stronger. Because they go through alarge appraisal process, they can talk about what theirbenefit/cost ratios are. For the kind of projects we aretalking about, there is much less evidence for all that.Because they are often smaller amounts of money, itwould cost a lot as a proportion to do that kind ofappraisal for those kinds of projects. When you cameto the spending review, you can see the revenuebudgets were squeezed. You can see that the smallercapital budgets in local transport plans were squeezedbecause there was not the evidence base, but the bigprojects, because they have their nice, fancy, shinyBCRs, they tended to survive quite well.

Q17 Sheryll Murray: Once accessibility problemshave been identified, who do you think should fundsolutions to tackle these? Will this always have to bethe central Government, or could it be other bodies—for example, developers or service users?Dr Lucas: I think it depends what you put into yourdevelopment plans and what you put into yourdevelopment laws. There is nothing to stop developersbeing charged for those sorts of things in the sameway as they have been charged with providingaffordable housing or other things.

Q18 Sheryll Murray: Play areas?Dr Lucas: Yes. It could be there. Of course, in thecurrent economic environment, one would argue thatwould be a big challenge. It works in an area wherethere is a high demand—for example, for housing—but not so much in an area where there is not that

demand, so expecting the funds to come from thosesources could be problematic.

Q19 Sheryll Murray: Going on from that, do youthink perhaps in areas where there was not thedevelopment taking place then service users shouldhave to bear the burden?Richard Hebditch: In terms of bus services, you wantthem to be self-sustaining and able to generaterevenue. That does require some ongoing supportfrom local authorities, and local authorities, with, Ithink, 95% of tax revenue going to centralGovernment, face difficulties and budget cuts. Youwould want to try to maintain a good bus service andthat requires a level of subsidy from the localauthority. It requires good partnership-workingbetween bus companies and local authorities, and thatis the way that you want to try to sustain the sort ofservices that can then support those who weparticularly want to help. On top of that, there areparticular schemes that you do, like the wheels towork-type schemes, but maintaining a core busservice is a key part of it.Sheryll Murray: Can I just have one supplementarybefore—Chair: Then I think Professor Jones wants to replyas well.

Q20 Sheryll Murray: What about community busesrun by the local community for the local community?Do you think these should be encouraged?Richard Hebditch: I think so. Peter, were you goingto come in on that?Professor Jones: No, I was going to come on to theother things.Richard Hebditch: I think they are an important partof it, particularly in areas where it is difficult tosustain a bus service, and particularly in rural areaswhere there is not the level of demand and the highenough population to do that. I think if you talk tocommunity transport operators, they do not see thatthey could take on what is currently provided bycommercial operators or local authorities. They are anadditional service that you can target, but they are nota replacement for a good bus service.Dr Lucas: They do not come cost-free; that is themost important thing.Richard Hebditch: Yes.Dr Lucas: They do not come cost-free, so you stillhave to subsidise those services if you want them tobe reliable.Richard Hebditch: There is the old adage aboutservices for poor people being poor services. Thereare some examples from the research that weconducted, near Hartlepool in the Burbank Estate,where the bus services were completely cut and allthe funding was cut, but one free bus service a weekwas provided. It sounds like they are providing aservice to support accessibility, but it is one busservice once a week at set times, and it is a minibus,so it is not that accessible. It is not the kind of servicethat people need to access jobs, so it is not asustainable solution.




Q21 Peter Aldous: One of the Government’sparticular schemes has been the sustainable transportfund, where quite a number of awards have beenprovided—I think it is £600 million, and it hasleveraged in another £400 million. I am not sure whoto address this question to, but in assessing the variousapplications that were made, was accessibility acriterion that was taken into account? In evaluatingthe schemes once they have taken place, will andshould some sort of assessment be then made todetermine their success or not as to how successfulthey are in improving accessibility?Richard Hebditch: Accessibility was not one of thecore considerations. It was part of it, but the corethings were about supporting the economy and cuttingcarbon primarily. I think it was a consideration as theylooked at things, but it was not the core consideration.On the other hand, those kinds of things tend to cometogether. The big worry we have about it is that thereis no co-ordinated coherent approach to evaluating thelocal sustainable transport fund, so it is very much leftto local authorities to talk to each other about whatevaluation they might do. It has been very difficult toget the Department for Transport to agree a sensibleway to evaluate things. That generally is a problem intransport, where we have an extremely well-developedappraisal system before schemes are ever approved,but there is a lot less interest in actually learning thelessons of what the transport spending has been.

Q22 Peter Aldous: We do have the Department forTransport coming to this inquiry, so we can take thatpoint up with them.Professor Smith: Just to add on the point there, thatis an important point when we think about the futureof accessibility planning. I think that there wasprobably every opportunity for local sustainabletransport plan funding to have taken into accountaccessibility.

Q23 Chair: Okay, we might come on to that in amoment. Professor Jones?Professor Jones: Can I just pick up on two or threepoints? Just quickly on the last point, clearlyevaluation is very important, but there is rather atradition of organisations deciding on the evaluationonce the scheme has started. It is very difficult to dogood evaluation unless you can go in before it startsand look at the conditions before the intervention, notjust afterwards.If I could comment on two of the other issues that youraised, social impacts are very much the poor relation.We know a lot about environmental impacts andeconomic impacts, but we do not even really knowwhat we mean by social impacts, let alone be able tomeasure and value them, quite often. I think there isan important aspect there in relation to evaluation inthat we tend on the whole to use market value. If weare trying to value something in monetary terms, wetry to find out what is the market value, either byseeing what the market value is or by using techniquesof asking how much money people would pay forsomething. There are also social valuations of things,and I think that is an area to which we ought toperhaps be giving more thought.

To give you an example of an extreme. If you were tolook at an area of outstanding national beauty andthere was a proposal to put a motorway through or adevelopment, and you were talking about how muchis that land worth, of course in market terms it is notworth very much because you cannot do anythingwith it; but implicitly society is saying that that isworth more than the highest commercial valuebecause we want to preserve it as it is. In that sense,there is a sort of implied social value that is muchhigher than a market value. I think that happens inmany other areas as well, but we have not reallyteased that out.On the capital-revenue thing, I do not think it is justabout capital and revenue. If you look not just at asector but more broadly at providing accessibility forcommunities to goods and services, a lot of theproblems relate to co-ordination between differentagencies. That does not necessarily take much money;it is just a question of changing cultures and mindsetsand changing the priorities of organisations. As I said,for example, if you made the education authorityresponsible for the education travel budget, then theywill take account of that more clearly in theirdecisions about location, etc. It is not necessarilyalways about more money. It is about changingpriorities and responsibilities so that people startaddressing problems from a different perspective.Chair: That is exactly the tack that Mark Lazarowiczis now going to pursue further.

Q24 Mark Lazarowicz: We have been hearing aboutvarious experiences that affect different services.Professor Smith, you just completed a review of awhole regime as far as accessibility planning isconcerned. I wonder how you would summarise yourmain findings and, in particular, the main defects tothe current regime.Professor Smith: It is important to say that ourevaluation was of the process and impact of the policyrather than the initiatives. What we looked at was theimpact of the policy on local authority planning, sothat is local transport plans, and then we looked athow those plans were implemented into practice. Oneof the findings was about the concept in terms ofaccessibility, and we found that the use of that in thepolicy was very beneficial for people on the ground.It did two things. To a degree before accessibilityplanning policy there had always been some kind ofaccessibility planning—trying to improve access forpeople—but it was very much on an ad hoc basis. Theplanning gave the opportunity for a more structured,systematic approach, so that there was some clarityabout that. It also gave people who were alwayschampioning access for people who are potentiallysocially excluded some legitimacy in saying that thiswas a direction that was supported by centralGovernment, so it was very important at that point.When we looked at what actually happened inpractice, we did find a few examples of where theplanning policy had fed through to a direct impact onthe ground in terms of achieved services. More thanthat, we found that existing initiatives were rebadgedunder accessibility planning policy. There is nothingwrong with that, but if local authorities were relying




on things that had been around before rather thantaking a fresh and evidence-based approach to whatwas needed, that was slightly problematic. Probablymore worrying is that we found some very impressiveplans that were submitted by local authorities without,when it came to it, any clear strategy for actuallyimplementing them. I do not think it would be toounfair to say that some local transport authorities weregoing through the motions of coming up with verygood plans that, when the LTP was published, were,in effect, shelved. It was also interesting to—

Q25 Chair: Can I just press you on that, because thatis quite a big statement for you to make. Are yousuggesting that local authorities’ transportdepartments are putting in applications to theDepartment for Transport for funding with nomanagement ability to actually deliver?Professor Smith: We had examples where theplanning process had been followed through toidentify what problems needed to be addressed, andthen in some cases the people who were responsiblefor putting the plan together moved on. In otherplaces, funding that was anticipated did notmaterialise In some cases, the degree to which thoseplans were realistic was, I think, questionable.The other side of it is that in some of these localauthorities, we found that really quite successfulinitiatives that were happening that were not includedin the plan. What that suggested was that localauthorities had not been making best use of all of theirlocal resources. I think that is also important to note.Dr Lucas: Can I give you an example? One of thefundamental things that accessibility planning wassupposed to do was encourage local authorities tothink about where they would spend and reorganisetheir bus subsidies so that they were targeting placeswhere they were needed at times of the day, ratherthan just following the legacy of history, so that theywould fundamentally rethink what they weresubsidising on the basis of accessibility. Basically, youwould find that the person who had written theaccessibility plan would be in the planning anddevelopment department and the person who was co-ordinating the bus services did not even know thatthere was an accessibility plan. Transport in and ofitself is an entirely fragmented beast, with people notworking together, and often not even in parallel. Youmight well have the local transport plan primarilyfocusing on the economic performance—maybe somesort of major new light rapid transit or something likethat, because it is what the engineers wanted to do—and then somewhere way down in the back tombs ofthe local authority there is somebody writing up anaccessibility plan.

Q26 Mark Lazarowicz: I understand what you say,but it is probably the nature of local authorities. Someare going to be good, some are going to be bad, thereis going to be good practice and bad practice. Overall,is the picture that accessibility planning is either apoor relation or not done at all in an effective way inmost transport planning exercises, or is it just a fewand most are making an effort? Can you characteriseit at all in terms of effectiveness?

Dr Lucas: Yes, because basically it is quite simple. Itwas a different culture to think about accessibilityinstead of mobility. Let me make this clear: to thinkabout social outcomes instead of engineering,mobility and infrastructure, and to think about whathappens instead of thinking about building systemsand about people getting to places—that is afundamentally different culture within local transportauthorities. It was not necessarily one that they wantedto have foisted upon them.

Q27 Mark Lazarowicz: Would you say that isgenerally true of local authorities?Dr Lucas: Yes, generally it is something that they arenot trained to do. It is not fundamental to a localtransport authority’s core skills.

Q28 Mark Lazarowicz: Can I come to ProfessorSmith, who has just done the review? Would youshare that conclusion?Professor Smith: I would, and I think I wouldcharacterise it like this: the local authorities who weremost successful were ones where there wereaccessibility planning officers who would championit. It very often came down to one or a few peoplewithin a local authority who understood accessibilityin its full sense and pursued it with vigour insidetheir authorities.Dr Lucas: The higher up they were within that localauthority and the more power they had, the moresuccessful they were. Also, the more that they wereable to work with other stakeholders, the moresuccessful they were. In authorities where the socialmandate was essential to their political mandate—sowhere you had an authority that had a lot of poverty,a lot of problems around access to employment andso forth—they pushed the agenda, because it wasworth it to them; whereas in another authority wherethat was more of a marginal issue, then they did notbother. Yes, a lot of them went through the protocolof submitting plans, and it is absolutely right, MsWalley, that they did put plans together to jumpthrough a hoop and they got put on shelves, becausethere was never any chance that they could berealistically—

Q29 Chair: A kind of local champion?Dr Lucas: Yes, if they didn’t have a local champion.

Q30 Mark Lazarowicz: This failing of the systemis not just the responsibility, of course, of the localauthorities. The DfT is obviously involved in theprocess as well. Were DfT failing to get to grips withaccessibility planning when they were dealing withlocal transport plans, or is that unfair?Professor Smith: One of the issues with accessibilityplanning is the fact that there was a lack of dedicatedfunding for accessibility plans, which could havemade things an uphill struggle within local authorities,but also, I suppose, the Department for Transport hadless teeth in terms of trying to drive things through.One particular point worth highlighting in what youwould expect the Department for Transport to be inthe prime position to do, but did not do, is in terms ofdeveloping a cross-government approach to




accessibility planning. What happened on the groundis that where local authorities were supposed to beliaising with Education, with DWP, with Health, theywere talking to partners who were largely unaware ofaccessibility planning policy; or, if they were awareof it, they misconstrued it and saw it very much as atransport problem. The Department for Transport didpublish guidance for all statutory authorities aboutaccessibility planning and cross-governmentresponsibilities, but for people that we spoke to inHealth and Education and other Departments, itarrived one day, this single piece of guidance thatarrived on their desk along with the piles of otherguidance, and there was no follow-through, noconversation.

Q31 Chair: When was that guidance issued?Dr Lucas: Basically, the full guidance came in 2006.It then took another year before all of the accessibilityplans were through, so 2007. You are not going to beable to monitor the effects of it until 2009, in theseevaluations, and by then the agenda has moved onquite significantly. At the same time, a number of thefunding sources that were available when thatguidance was written were no longer there—forexample, discretionary funding with the jobcentreswhere the manager’s funding was allowed to fundtransport initiatives. The Department of Health was inthe process of devolving to the NHS. There were lotsof issues along the line that basically underminedsome of the guidance that was there.Professor Jones: Just to underline this point, I thinkit is quite fundamental that a subject like accessibilityto public services is something that cuts across thewhole of Government. Social exclusion was a CabinetOffice initiative, and that worked very well. Theproblem is the Government has a mechanism forsetting up cross-government studies but not fordelivering across Government. What happened wasthat, when it got down to delivery, the feeling was, “Ithas to go to a Department to deliver it. Where shallwe put it?” The feeling was, “Let’s put it to theDepartment for Transport,” because part ofaccessibility planning is about transport, so it goes tothe Department for Transport. Immediately everybodyelse thinks, “It is only about putting on a few morebuses.” Instead of being something like this, itcollapses down to something very specific. Then, asyou say, there is a lot of emphasis on local delivery,and when people try to deliver locally and they talkto the local hospital, the local hospital says, “We donot know anything about it. It is not a priority fromour ministry.” I think that is a real problem, not justthat the funding sources are not there.We did some work in South Yorkshire. We workedwith the public there and with local service providersto talk about how to provide better services. We ransome professional workshops and some brainstormingfor suggestions for how to join up services, andafterwards the head of education came up to me andsaid, “That was an excellent scheme. We have comeup with some great ideas, but I have two primaryobjectives I have to meet as head of my authority.This is neither of them, so it will not happen.”

Q32 Mark Lazarowicz: We have covered this issueat great length, and I had better not use any more time.Just one last point, which is that part of the way inwhich accessibility would have been encouraged inthe past was by extra funding made available toencourage accessibility. Now we live in an era wherewe are talking about spending reductions, notspending increases. How might that have an impacton accessibility planning? Could it indeed lead to evena higher profile, in a sense that accessibility could bea criterion requiring authorities to judge morecarefully how they allocate their resource, perhaps?What is your view, not on whether or not it is a goodthing, but on how, in an era of reducing funding,should that relate to the accessibility planning agenda?Dr Lucas: Do you mind if I just give my example? Itis quite interesting. Derek Halden, who is one of thepeople who has provided written evidence and withwhom we worked on the pilot studies, said to me theother day, “It is interesting. When we developedaccessibility planning, it was to identify where therewere gaps in services and we could find ways to fillthose gaps. Now I am using it very effectively to makesure that the cutbacks in services that are happeningare not having a disproportionate negative effect onthe most needy within society.” I think that at the veryleast, as a safety net for all the funding changes thatare going on, local authorities need to be thinkingabout the effects of their cutbacks on those mostneedy groups in terms of being able to access key lifeopportunities. If you close a school, you need to makesure that the kids can get to the other school—thatthey can get there reliably and they can still get toafter school clubs and those sorts of things. If that isnot happening, then find ways to mitigate the worstsocial impacts on them in terms of maybe havingopportunities during school time, or changing policiesin another way could be used to help to mitigate theworst social impacts of reduced access to services. Wehave seen across the written evidence that peoplebelieve that there is reduced access to lifeopportunities as a result of these cutbacks, not just intransport but across the board. It could be a way tomake sure that the worst affected—the lower-incomegroups, the unprotected and the vulnerable—are notadversely affected by this.Richard Hebditch: I think Peter’s point about howyou can pool budgets as well to get the bestefficiencies out of local authorities is right. At anational level as well, it has been difficult forDepartments to work collaboratively with thespending review. They are all very much protectingtheir own budgets. One of the interesting ideas thatthe Treasury tried to put forward or maybe just floatedin the spending review was about joint budgetsbetween Government departments to tackle particularissues. I do not think any Government Department putthat forward in the context of 25% cuts, but that is thekind of thing we would like to see at a local level,which could help to tackle some of these issues. Ifcentral Government was serious about trying todeliver on this kind of agenda, then that is the kind ofmeasure that would be sensible.Professor Jones: The point is that when there arecutbacks in bus service provision or other forms of




service provision, it is not just a question of savingmoney. It often leads to costs in other parts of theeconomy, but we are not very good at tracing thatthrough. I think it would be valuable to do an exerciseto try to trace through the consequences of cuts ineducation budgets on crime or on health, or whatever.They do not just disappear. There are ripple effectsthat we do not understand. Therefore, to simply say,“We are saving money,” is not necessarily true. Weare probably not spending it all, but we are probablyincurring costs elsewhere within the economy.

Q33 Chair: I am very conscious of the fact that wehad evidence some weeks ago from DECC—well, itwas DECC-related evidence relating to a completelydifferent subject, but there was a tool which wasactually measuring some of that. Are you aware ofany tool or mechanism that exists that would be ableto make that kind of appraisal that you have justreferred to, of what the cost/benefit analysis would beof changing one set of service delivery, say atEducation or Health, and looking at the added costthat would then be in somebody else’s lap?Professor Jones: No. I have made various enquiriesabout this, and I have not come across anythingsignificant. I do not think people tend to look outsidetheir own sectors particularly at the impacts.

Q34 Chair: Okay. Professor Smith?Professor Smith: I agree fully with the points thathave been made. I think that resources are obviouslyimportant but we all understand the climate that weare living in. It is important to think about doingthings more effectively. That co-ordinated approach atthe central Government level is really important tofeed down to better policy making at the local level.One of the positive things to come out of myevaluation was that networking between localauthorities and a range of community and voluntaryproviders on the ground in terms of accessibilityplanning was often really good, and that was a realstrength of it. In many ways, accessibility sits verywell with localism. Accessibility is about identifyingand tailoring problems at the local level. It is about co-ordinating partnerships, and enabling people to accessthings so that they can participate in their local areas.Harnessing and using those kind of partnerships isvery important. In order to look at the effective use ofservices, we identified some plans where communityand voluntary services providing a service outside ofthe accessibility plan had not been picked up. I thinkthat better use, better local co-ordination, is veryimportant and at a high level is about betterknowledge exchange and better spread of bestpractice. My sense is that there is lots of innovationgoing on in small pockets right across the country,which is reinventing the wheel; people following thesame mistakes, and people missing out on learningthat is happening elsewhere.Professor Jones: I think that is true, thoughsometimes that local facilitation is hampered bybarriers that result from national legislation or justconventions, whatever. In many ways, one canfacilitate and help that by identifying what is it that isstopping it happening that may be due to something

from national Government that could be relaxed orremoved.Professor Smith: I think central Government has aclear role here, because you need a central point tonegotiate and co-ordinate lots of local activity.

Q35 Simon Wright: If you accept that there areparticular groups of people, maybe on geographicalor socioeconomic bases, who are at particular risk ofaccessibility problems—many of you refer toparticular groups in your evidence—who do you thinkis best placed to identify those at-risk groups and theways they may not have sufficient access to services?Dr Lucas: I think we have already seen within someof the written evidence that there are advocacyorganisations that are quite happy to speak out inthose terms. We have had written evidence from AgeConcern, for example, and a number of disabilityadvocacy groups. Mencap has come forward, as hasthe British Youth Parliament. I am not trying to pushthis idea of accessibility planning as being the onlyway forward, but it was quite carefully thoughtthrough that there was a lot of local stakeholderinvolvement intended, and that allowed a lot of thelocal advocacy groups to have a voice at the table andto state their needs. There are, of course, groups thatdo not speak out that need protecting. I think the otherthing is that it was to encourage the other sectors totalk about what their goals and their primary targetswere, who their groups of concern were; for example,young people not in education and employment, orlone parents. Those groups could come forward fromsocial policy or health policy, or health and equalitiespolicy. You could then identify that those are the targetgroups, these are the target services, and can they getto the target services? If they cannot get there, theyare not going to get the intervention. The first pointof delivery is to get them to the services that theyneed to get to or the interventions that they need toreach. That was the idea, that it was a multi-sector-orientated set of targets that were very much focusedon those groups and those individuals.Richard Hebditch: The equality duties are quiteuseful in terms of that as well. One thing we wereinvolved with was the case in Cambridgeshire wherethe local authority was going to cut all the funding forsupported bus services. Part of the challenge that wedid with local people affected was about usingequality duties to challenge whether they had thoughtthrough the implications of it for different groups insociety. I think that is a very useful way of gettingpeople to think about it.There is an issue with localism generally that weexpect that all local authorities are going to bebehaving in purely evidenced-based, rational ways,but they are not necessarily going to be doing that.Particularly with things like bus services, we have totry to have the voice of bus users given a fair say indecisions about transport spending, where often,particularly with local enterprise partnerships playinga stronger role, it is the voice of business that is seenas the most important thing. I think it is often quitedifficult for local authorities, for those working intransport, to give a voice to those who are affectedby decisions. There are some useful things, such as




Passenger Focus have produced a toolkit about howto consult if you are going to change bus services orcut bus services. Finding ways to give voice to thosegroups who are marginalised within local areas isreally important.

Q36 Simon Wright: The 2003 SEU report identifiedtackling accessibility problems as a way of increasingparticipation in society and lifting people out ofpoverty. To what extent, since that report has beenpublished, has Government responded to thatchallenge, and where else does it need to go?Richard Hebditch: Concessionary fares for disabledpeople and older people are one way we have seenthat, but if you are looking at the range of people whorely on bus services, then it is those on lower incomesand particularly young people, and there are verylimited offers for them in terms of concessionaryfares. I think that is a particular challenge, particularlyat the moment with very high rates of youthunemployment and also the challenge of wages notrising at the same time as prices rising. That is an areathat is going to be particularly difficult—making surethat young people have access both to colleges withreduction and ending of educational maintenanceallowance, but also to employment as well. Often,opportunities for employment are not necessarily inplaces that you can access very well by publictransport.Dr Lucas: A couple of local authorities have beenvery successful in using this participation inemployment focus for European objective 1 funding,and integrating it with their regeneration plans andtheir employment plans and actually mainstreaming itas part of that agenda. I do think that it has—

Q37 Chair: Is that the revenue funding?Dr Lucas: Yes, they have managed to secure revenuefunding from Objective 1 and basically to use thatwith the job agencies to provide it as part of a packageto get people back into work. The transport has beenjust one part of a wider job creation package that hasbeen funded through EU funding, both revenue andcapital funding. There has been obviously changingconditions for that over the years, so that is notperhaps so readily available as it was. BothMerseytravel and Centro West Midlands have takenthat approach in terms of working with jobcentres andseeing transport as part of the getting people back intowork package that the local authorities weredelivering together. I guess that is probably theclearest way that that has been taken up.

Q38 Simon Wright: Okay, thank you. With ouremissions targets in mind, does talking aboutincreasing accessibility to transport for some groupsimply less travel from other groups if we are tocontinue to meet that challenge? If Governmentshould aim to reduce travel, how should it approachthat challenge?Richard Hebditch: I think the key thing is aboutreducing the need to travel. The important thing is thataccessibility means being able to get to employment,get to services and get to shops. It may be that peopledo not need to travel for such long distances; that is

the key thing. The reliance that we have on cars to getaround is particularly problematic, not just in terms ofreducing carbon emissions but also in terms of havinghigh fuel prices at the moment. I was talking aboutyoung people earlier, and that is a particular challengefor them—the cost of insurance and the cost of havinga car. Measures to simply freeze fuel duty as a wayof tackling that are not enough when you have theunderlying push of higher oil prices. I think it is aboutproviding options for people to get around, so it ismaking walking and cycling safer and making surethere are local facilities and local employmentopportunities as well, but also in terms of publictransport making sure there is a decent network of busservices or rail services and that fares are affordable.The pressure over the last two years has been on faresto increase. The latest figures from Wales, where therehas been a lot of uncertainty about support for busservices—more so than in England—they have seen a5% cut in people using bus services and a 10% rise infares in one year. That is the kind of thing that makesit very difficult for people to have alternatives tosimply using a car.Dr Lucas: The lowest-income groups have seen thegreatest rise in car ownership and use over the lastfive years. This is the lowest income quintile, so youare talking about people on quite basic incomes.Professor Smith: The play between costs of drivingand motoring are very interesting. We have figuresthat show that over the last 15 years, inflation inmotoring has risen by 50%, whereas inflation in busfares has risen by 100%. Over time, it is gettingcheaper to go by car than it is by bus.Professor Jones: Can I pick up on one or two thingsthat you were asking about? The first one was abouthow central accessibility is to Government policy. Aswas said, there are good examples, but in many waysGovernment policy has focused on other areas.Nevertheless, there are secondary benefits: forexample, the growing concern about obesity is tryingto encourage people to take more physical exerciseand go out more, perhaps to sport centres or whatever.In a sense, that policy in some small way is helpingwith some access to services. Similarly, I think somechief constables now are more focused on dealingwith antisocial behaviour and things like that. Thathas come up to the fore politically, and again that hasbeen a restriction for some people on going out andusing bus services and so on. Other areas of policythat do not directly relate to this nevertheless can havea beneficial effect on helping with accessibility.The second thing you raised, to stress a point thatcame out of the social exclusion work that is reallyimportant, is that there is for other reasons to do withtraffic congestion, etc, a desire to encourage people toreduce travel, but there is a group of people for whomthe problem is they do not get out enough, basically,or they do not go out of their local area. They donot easily get access to jobs or to good healthcare orwhatever. There is that twin thing, as you wereimplying. As Richard said, getting around does notnecessarily mean going in a car; it can be using a busor rail service that has spare capacity, or it can bewalking and cycling. Obviously, increasingly there areopportunities for using teleservices and the internet to




enable you to get health advice or whatever, withoutnecessarily travelling 30 miles to a major hospital orsomething like that. So I think there are possibilities.Richard Hebditch: Also maybe it is worth adding thatin terms of the very high levels of traffic that youhave, it is actually those on lower incomes who areaffected most by that. Lower income communitieshave much higher levels of air pollution, higher levelsof road casualties and those kinds of things. They arethe ones who simply by saying, “We need to helpthem to be able to get round by car more,” arecurrently suffering more because of the current patternof transport that we have.

Q39 Simon Wright: Thank you. The physicallocation of public services is a key determinant oftheir accessibility. I just wonder do we have enoughrelevant data to indicate to what extent rationalisationin the location of services over recent years hasreduced accessibility to services.Dr Lucas: No, I do not think we do have enoughinformation or evidence. It is very difficult becausethe people who are rationalising those services aremaking arguments that that offers better quality andnot at the same time looking at the distribution of thatquality and for whom. It may well be that the idea isto be raising standards to offer specialisedopportunities for young people to participate, but Ithink quite often it is the more middle-class studentsthat maybe are benefiting from this and it is notactually raising standards among the kids that arestruggling.

Q40 Simon Wright: Are there any tools to help workout the best balance between quality of serviceoutcomes and their accessibility to the service?Dr Lucas: I do not know of any. I could not say thatI know of any. It does not mean that it is beyond thebounds of possibility to invent some, but I do notknow of anybody that is going out there and doingthat, looking at low standards versus increased—Richard Hebditch: I guess there is quite a well-developed methodology for health economics as thereis for transport economics, but they do not talk to eachother in anything like the same system. It is a goodexample of where it is difficult for different sectors tofind ways to talk to each other. Perhaps the search forthe perfect methodology is not that useful. You mightfind such a perfect methodology, but it is not veryuseful for people, and it is just about making sure thatdecisions are taken in a transparent way: the evidenceis there for people to make decisions, but notnecessarily a perfect number that you can find thattells you what the perfect solution is. We see that a bitin transport in terms of benefit/cost ratios, where theyare seen by some as being this perfect number thatyou can rely on, but they are very much open tointerpretation. They very much depend on whatfigures you put into them and small variations canproduce very different and dramatic results in an endbenefit/cost ratio.Dr Lucas: Knowing a little bit about the health sectorand knowing that the people that tend to push up thespecialisation are the people that deal with acutemedicine, whereas the public health sector deal with

health inequalities, those two have been warringfactions for the entire history of the health service.You do have those fundamental issues that publichealth is quite a different thing, and health inequalityis just a small part of even that.

Q41 Simon Wright: Do you think we need to domore to look at the impact on emissions of servicerationalisation as well?Dr Lucas: Yes. The fact that the climate changepolicy does not really even think about thissomehow—the transport strategy for climate changeessentially does not think about accessibility; it isentirely based on electric vehicles and technology.Professor Jones: If I could pick up again on twopoints, the message is that at the local level somepeople are making real efforts and doing a very goodjob with accessibility planning, but it is very patchy.Certainly, I am aware that the Post Office did somework deciding which post offices to close to minimiseproblems, and certainly in London, looking at closingsome magistrates’ courts, again work was done tolook at what would be the locations where closurewould cause least damage, but even that is only reallyfocusing on how long it takes to get there. It is nottaking account of all these other aspects ofaccessibility as well, so that is quite partial.If I could just pick up on the last point, I think that isreally quite crucial and it potentially opens anopportunity. If, for example, we are looking at theCO2 emissions of different sectors, at the moment, ifI understand correctly, the Department of Health orDepartment of Education have targets to reduce CO2

emissions, but it is very much within the operationsunder their control. It does not take account of patientsgetting to their hospitals, etc. In the private sector, theWorld Business Council on Sustainable Developmenta few years ago came up with an auditing process forlooking at CO2 emissions, which had three differentscopes or tiers. The broadest tier actually included allupstream and downstream CO2 emissions of thatparticular organisation, including all transportassociated with it. There is a protocol in the privatesector for taking account of all the direct and indirectCO2 emissions of your operations. If that was appliedhere, so the health sector or the education sector hadto take account of all the CO2 emissions of pupilsgetting to their classes in different colleges, whatever,I think that would help to change mindsets very much.Chair: Some food for thought there.

Q42 Simon Wright: Final question; some services,for example those provided by DVLA, areincreasingly moving online. How significant is thatfor increasing accessibility to services? What are thedrawbacks? Are we creating new at-risk groups in thatshift to online provision of service?Professor Smith: When we talk about peopleaccessing online services, often what they are talkingabout as using the internet is to facilitate their accessto services rather than the internet delivering a serviceitself. That is probably its main use. It should not beseen as a major tool for addressing accessibility,because a lot of the time those journeys are going tobe important, but it does minimise journeys. It allows




people to be more effective and efficient in theirjourneys. Some examples would be that if somebodywants to purchase something, they are going to do theprice checking online rather than on foot, but whatpeople do when they buy things often still is that theywill go and purchase the item in person. It is a simpleexample, but I think that it demonstrates that that isthe key use of the internet.Dr Lucas: Yes, but also the groups that do not getonline, and the groups that do not access thoseservices, tend to be the low-income vulnerable groupsthat equally do not access the services physically. It isnot a replacement.Professor Jones: Just on that, there are casessometimes where people just do not have theopportunity. People who are relatively poor areusually renting accommodation. Quite often they haveto move around because the landlord puts up rents andthey cannot afford them, etc. I have come acrossseveral people who have said they have moved into aproperty that has been blacklisted by British Telecomor whatever because of previous problems there, sothey cannot get internet access; they just will not begiven it. So there are groups that just physicallycannot get it. Also, there are people that do not havethe skills or the awareness. We did some work a fewyears ago, which I mention in my evidence, in SouthYorkshire where we interviewed a group of elderlypeople who were all very articulate, involved with theparish council, etc. Only two of them had heard aboutNHS Direct, which surprised me. You assume thateverybody knew about that. It is about knowing it aswell as having access, and it is surprising how at thebottom people do not have access to basic things orbank accounts, whatever, so they cannot order onlineand pay by credit card because they do not have acredit card. There are people that in a sense are beingmultiply excluded as we start moving into thesetechnologies. On the other hand, one could talk aboutmaybe having local centres, whether it is Post Officesor library, where these facilities are available and thereis help to use them. That might help to raise peopleup. It is all a question of how we use the technology.Chair: I think Peter Aldous is going to take us alongthat line.

Q43 Peter Aldous: Just picking up on that, part ofthe Government’s policy for rolling out superfastbroadband through BDUK is geared towards gettingto inaccessible geographical areas. If you look at theirpolicy towards social care, the policy is very muchmore care in the home. The internet and broadbandand superfast broadband are supposed to be playing avery important role in delivering those services. Areyou saying that the Government are going up a blindalley, or perhaps there is a role they have to do inraising awareness to people of the role that the internetand broadband can play for them?Professor Jones: I suppose I think it is a good idea. Ithink in many ways it will benefit businesses,particularly those in a number of types of businesseswho need the superfast broadband connections.Obviously, there is potential for using that for peoplebeing able to go to a local GP and getting diagnosisremotely from a specialist in a hospital, etc. I think

there are benefits there, but for individuals there isstill a question of training for some people. There isthe fact of exclusion, as I say, that people cannot geta line into their home because the home is blacklisted.There will be people for various reasons for whom itis very difficult—

Q44 Peter Aldous: Forgive me. This blacklisting:what does it involve?Professor Jones: It is just that if you move into arented property and there is a history in that rentedproperty of previous tenants not paying theirtelephone bills or electricity bills, whatever, then youeither are told that you cannot have a line installed byan operator or you have to go into an expensive feetariff because the history of previous tenants is thatthey have not paid. In a sense, you are penalised fora history of previous tenants.

Q45 Peter Aldous: That is something we probablyhave to take up with—Professor Jones: Well, it is an issue that perhaps isnot that fully recognised, but is a problem for somepeople.Dr Lucas: Quite a lot of work that has been done onthe substitution of journeys by ICT, within Americaparticularly—Pat Mokhtarian is working inAmerica—and this shows that really it is not asubstitute, that what happens is that people use italongside. People who work at home use ICT. Homeworkers go out and substitute and do other sorts oftravel. Maybe there is something to suggest thatwithin all of us there is a need to be out there andbe a social beast. We have not really hit upon thesocial attributes.There are a few things about social isolation in olderage. Lots of older people go out, and they just needto go out and travel, be around, because that givesthem the interaction that they need. The same withhealthcare services: a lot of old people want to go andspeak to their doctor face to face. If what happens, asin my town, that they have now concentrated all ofthe doctors’ GP surgeries in one place on the edge oftown—a brand new, fantastic facility, but no busservices to get there—then they are not able to havethat face to face care with their GP. So driving upservices in one way may well be driving downprovision for some more vulnerable clients in another.I do not think it is an either/or. Of course ICT is goingto be there. No, it is not a waste of money. Of coursewe need to do the best we can, but there will alwaysbe these groups that maybe are negatively affected orfall through the cracks.Professor Smith: I would just add, though, that theremarkable saturation of the internet has also broughta massive decrease in costs. As internet accessbecomes more and more an established norm of basicliving standards, I think that the number of householdswithout internet access, irrespective of income, willbecome very, very small very quickly.Dr Lucas: Schools are encouraging children to havecomputers in the home. Internet access is part of theschool.




Professor Smith: The cost has collapsed as well. Wemight have been having the same conversation abouttelephones at some point.

Q46 Peter Aldous: Yes, I will continue on themeasuring of accessibility and how it is done, whetherit can be done, and who should actually be doing it.The level of transport-related accessibility to servicesvery often seems to be specific to individuals. I thinkmy first question is how easy is it to aggregate it andmeasure accessibility in aggregate terms at either alocal or a national level.Dr Lucas: Place-based accessibility, actually,aggregate accessibility, is the easiest thing to do. It iswhat accessibility planning did here. It was not on anindividual basis. You took a point at the middle of alower super-output area, a census area, and you thenmeasured access to key locations. It was destinationorigin-based. That measure is possible. It has itsproblems, because different people within that areawill experience different accessibility depending ontheir walking speeds, their needs, their costs,affordability and all sorts of other things. If what youare doing is just looking at journey times from onepoint to another, you can do that; that is not a problem.The problem is that transport is not necessarily themain driver of that accessibility. For example, withsome of the national indicators for accessibility thebiggest driver of them in the wrong direction was amajor employer closing down. Suddenly access tojobs goes way downhill because the jobs are not thereany more. The control, therefore, on the accessibilityis not the transport; the control is the provision of thejobs. How you control a business closing—well, wewould all be magicians if we could do that, wouldn’twe? That is a different area. The trick is not inmeasuring it; it is in controlling the measurement andmoving it in the right direction.Professor Jones: Can I just pick up on that? Yes, Ithink it is perhaps fair to say that in the type ofaccessibility you mentioned, origin-destinationaccessibility to particular services for particulargroups, we have probably got the best dataset in theworld on that. That is updated annually, and it is avery comprehensive dataset. It is very impressive, andit has its value. The thing is, though, if we are talkingabout the problems people experience in everydaylife, that is not always sufficient. For example, wehave come across a number of people who said thatthey cannot get a job if they do not have a car becausethe employer will not give them a job. They do notgive that as the reason, but it is well known that unlessyou have a car you will not get employed becausethe buses are not reliable and, therefore, you will notbecome a reliable worker. So there is a sort of stigmaattached to that. Or cases, which I mention in theevidence, in villages some distance from Sheffieldwhere 16 to 18-year-olds went into Sheffield Collegefor education: they were getting an educationalmaintenance allowance at the time, but often the buseswere delayed or cancelled. They lost their allowancebecause they did not get there on time. The buscompany said, “Sorry, we did what we could. It is notour fault,” and the educational authority said, “Sorry,they are our rules. It is not our fault.” It clearly was

not the kids’ fault, but nevertheless they were the onesthat got penalised. That sort of thing does not getpicked up in these measures obviously but can be veryimportant for families.Richard Hebditch: I think London is quite interestingas well, because they have both the public transportand disability levels and access to transport andservices, which I think is quite an interesting approachto have. They look at accessibility and it has provedquite useful. As Peter was saying, issues aroundaffordability, those kinds of things, are not reallypicked up in the origin destination.Dr Lucas: Exposure to crime.Richard Hebditch: Yes.

Q47 Peter Aldous: Is Transport for London anexemplar that might be rolled out?Richard Hebditch: It is generally an exemplar. I thinkit benefits from levels of funding that other localtransport authorities dream of, so it can generally dothings that other local transport authorities cannot. Itis very much an evidence-based approach to how theyplan their transport system, particularly in terms ofbus services as well.Dr Lucas: Although I think some of the localauthorities would feel that they do not actually havethat much of a say. Sometimes I think Transport forLondon is sometimes seen as a bit of a top-down beastthat does not allow for enough localism, perhaps. It isnot perfect, but good.

Q48 Peter Aldous: That is one way it could beimproved to a better drilling down of the information?Dr Lucas: Yes.Professor Jones: Another quick example andsomething again that affects particular groups—thosein wheelchairs or those with buggies or shoppingtrolleys, whatever—is the fact that obviously there islimited space on buses for that provision. Quite oftenpeople will say that they missed a doctor appointmentor something because they could not get on the buswith their buggy with their young kids because it wasalready full. We do not measure that at all. Londonhas very good measures of excess waiting time, but itis always on the assumption that you can get on thefirst bus when it comes. I do not think anybody hasever measured the extent to which particular groupsare disadvantaged because they miss it. Particularly ina rural area if you have an hourly or half-hourly busservice, you can have a long wait to get on the nextone. We have done no measure of that—

Q49 Chair: Would you like to add something inrespect of the Department for Transport’s localsustainability fund, I think it is, in respect of railways?Because one of the issues certainly that I have comeacross is that we still have many railway stations withsteps that wheelchair users and buggy users cannot getup and down. The amount of money that is there foradaptation is minuscule compared to the need thatthere is to have railways accessible.Professor Jones: Yes, I think that is really important.In a sense, the problem is recognised; it is just that itis not being funded. In this particular case, there isno measure whatsoever of the extent to which people




cannot get on buses because the bus is already full. Ihave never seen any measure in London or anywherethat has measured that. For some groups, that isquite crucial.Richard Hebditch: When you were saying about rail,rail could be part of the answer to ensuringaccessibility, but there are particular problems withthe extent to which concessionary fares are eligible onrail and the extent to which they are an alternative forpeople. In Cambridgeshire when they were looking atsome of the cuts, they were thinking about, “Actually,there is a railway station here; it is a good service toCambridge,” but those who are most in need of busservices could not afford to take the train because itwas more expensive and they could not use theirconcessionary passes on the train either.

Q50 Peter Aldous: If some of the aims of increasingaccessibility are to increase participation in societyand to help lift people out of poverty, how is thatmeasured? Are we doing that properly?Dr Lucas: No, I do not think we are and I think thatis exactly what we need. We need to have themeasures that are not about journey time savings butare about increased participation. If what you wantto do is measure increased participation, you need tomeasure what you value. Journey time savings are notthe point, increased mobility is not the point, andaccessibility per se is not the point. It is about thenumber of people that are now able to access a jobwho could not before. It is about the number of peoplewho can now get to a health service who could notbefore; the number of young teenage women who canget to a family planning clinic who could not get therebefore. That is what my earlier point was. It is not justabout equality of opportunity. It is about equality ofoutcome. It is about measuring outcomes—not just theopportunity to get there but whether people are and,if they are not, why not, and then try to go back andadjust that thing. Unless you have it driven by healthgoals, education goals, crime goals, welfare goals, itwill not work.Richard Hebditch: There is a distributional analysiswithin the way DfT appraise projects, but I do notthink it is taken that seriously within the wholeprocess. It does come down to the benefit/cost ratiosultimately and journey time savings, but there is alsoan issue in terms of what transport scheme is proposedin the first place for funding. With a bias towardscapital funding the kinds of schemes that we havebeen talking about would not necessarily qualify forthat. There might be a capital element to it, but partof sustaining it is about making sure there is revenuespending to support it. That is the difficulty. If you arenot getting the schemes in the first place through thesystem, it is difficult then to be taken seriously andstart to change the system as well.Professor Jones: Can I just reinforce what has beensaid? I think it is really quite important to stress thataccessibility, however it is measured, is not measuringwhat people do, but is measuring the opportunity thatpeople have to do something. Therefore, theeffectiveness of policy is not through a measure ofimproved accessibility, but is what people do with it—whether they do manage to get to hospital on time,

etc. On the transport side, our measures of mobility—things like trip rates, trip lengths—are completelyuseless because we do not know whether we wantmore or less. Higher trip rate might mean people aregoing out more. It might mean the area is not safe sothey have to escort their children everywhere. Longertravel might mean opportunities to get to better jobs.It might mean they have closed the local hospital soyou have no choice. Our mobility measures do notreally tell you anything. It is this participation that isreally what you need to get at.Chair: I am very conscious of time, so I am going tomove to Katy Clark, if I may, for our last question.

Q51 Katy Clark: You have raised all sorts of issuesthis afternoon. Is there anything perhaps that you havenot spoken about that you think is important? Arethere any other fundamental reforms in particular tothe way that central Government departments operatethat need to be taken forward or particular policiesthat perhaps you have not had a chance to focus onalready that you think we need to be aware of as aCommittee?Richard Hebditch: If I could start, because we tendto be quite bolshie about most things, so we probablyhave lots to say. In the Department for Transport Ithink there is an issue about how much it is abouttransport users rather than just being about transportmodes. Overall, it is the combination of the appraisalframework, the combination of the types of fundingthat is on offer, the combination of the fact that it isvery focused on particular modes of transport ratherthan what it is like for users. Trying to change theDepartment around, I think, is a big challenge. JustineGreening, when she was Secretary of State, was veryinterested in that. That was the first time, I think, formany years that a Secretary of State had shown thatkind of interest. It is about trying to demonstrate thatthrough perhaps the National Transport Strategy thatis due in the autumn, but through other policies aswell. It is about how you are helping the users. Thatmight be in terms of the accessibility like we havebeen talking about or it might be users in terms ofbusinesses and things and putting them at the heart oftransport policy, not having it based on journey timesavings, not having the funding going towardsparticular modes of transport, and not having a biastowards capital funding at the expense of revenuefunding.Dr Lucas: I think my final issue would just be thatthere is a huge raft of social cultural activities that wehave not discussed at all, all of which happen usuallyin the evenings and the weekends, which at themoment are very poorly served by access other thanthe car. That is a major issue, and we have to try tomake the links between that, social capital, isolationin older age, educational awareness raising, and allthose sorts of issues. There is a big social agenda hereoutside of just employment, education and health thatwe have not thought about.Professor Smith: My last word would be to say thataccessibility is as important as ever, if not moreimportant. We have to recognise that there are realproblems about the lack of evidence. I cannot say thatclearly enough, just bold, out there.




The other thing I would say is I suppose a commenton the Department for Transport’s role going forward.With the accessibility evaluation, the Department forTransport asked me to think about the future ofaccessibility planning policy and the DfT’s role inthat. My proposal there is to recognise thataccessibility really works very well within a localismagenda, but I think there is an opportunity here for theDfT to be an exemplar of central Governmentworking with local areas in the context of localism.There is a real need for driving through the cross-agency, cross-Government—

Q52 Chair: Why do they need to do that? Can’t theyjust say it is a matter for the local authority?Professor Smith: Part of the ambiguity that ishappening within the Department now is aboutlocalism. I think that relationship has changed, butthat does not mean that the Department for Transportloses its role there. I think its role definitely movesfrom one about saying, as in the Making theConnections report, that the Department for Transportshould have a responsibility for negotiating and co-ordinating accessibility planning on the ground to onewhere it has some distinct roles. One is about Isuppose championing the concept of accessibility butI think also in terms of doing the work at centralGovernment level with other Governmentdepartments, because that work is absolutely essentialfor there to be cross-agency work on the ground andalso to have a central role in the co-ordinating of bestpractice and the problems that are experienced at thelocal level. What is happening at the moment iswithout that central co-ordinating role lots of activityis happening in small pockets, and I think that is awaste that is untenable in the conditions that we livein. If the DfT was to take that central role forward, itwould be really important to say that that needs tobe working with a forum of local partners and localagencies. I think that is the only way to take thatforward.

Professor Jones: Two points if I may. First of all,when money is tight and agencies have to cut back,they define their core role and focus their resourceson their core role. They externalise things that theywould have done before as not being their coreresponsibility. Lots of things become external costs—this happens in the private sector as well—but theyfall somewhere. They do not just disappear. I thinkthat is really crucial to understand where they arefalling and whether it is more cost-effective to givethe Department more money to avoid those externalcosts.Secondly, in a way linked to this, I think the mostfundamental problems are silos within and betweenGovernment departments. I think if one really wantedto fundamentally tackle this, one needs to come acrossincentive structures that run across departments. Thereare two we have touched on today. One would be tosay that where the public sector as a whole has aresponsibility for providing a transport service,whether it is school transport or whatever, that budgetresides with the organisation that stimulates thatdemand. It is the Education Department that has thetravel budget, the Health Department, etc, so they takeaccount of the costs of that as part of their decision.Or, as I said in relation to CO2, if you went for Scope3 CO2 so that the health sector had to take theresponsibility for the CO2 generated by all itsactivities, including travel, that is the sort of thing Ithink that would help to break down some of thesebarriers.Chair: Okay. I think that brings us to a close. I wouldlike to thank all four of you. I think we have a largeagenda, this was our first session, and it is not reallyan issue that is on everyone’s agenda at the moment.We hope that what we have heard today will lead toour future deliberations, so thank you very muchindeed.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o002_db_HC 570-ii CORRECTED.xml


Wednesday 16 January 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter AldousMartin CatonMark LazarowiczCaroline Lucas

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Derek Halden, Derek Halden Consultancy, gave evidence.

Q53 Chair: I would like to give you a very warmwelcome to our session this afternoon. Apologies forkeeping you waiting for a few minutes; we just hadother matters to discuss. Just in thanking you forcoming along today on what we think is an importantinquiry into transport issues, we wondered if youcould give us a update from what has happened sincethe Social Exclusion Unit’s 2003 landmark report andif you could alert us to the things that we ought to belooking at and the issues that we should be looking tomonitor in some way or another.Derek Halden: Okay. Thanks very much. The Makingthe Connections report was one step in what has beena process. I think internationally accessibility ratherthan purely mobility—it is a bit like the yin and yangof transport planning—came to the fore with the Riosummit and Local Agenda 21, where this was a keyfocus of “We need to focus more on accessibility”.During the 1990s of course we had accessibilityplanning introduced in PPG 13, and then that processgenerally developed from there.I think internationally everyone is still struggling a bitand watching the UK quite carefully as having donerather better than many countries and the Making theConnections report having been fairly instrumental indoing this. This focus on people and the social issueshas been quite important. If we look at the dimensionsof accessibility, we have place, where services arelocated; we have where the people are and what theircapabilities are; and we have the connections betweenthe two.So it is, “How can we make better connectionsbetween people and places?” which is quite a bigagenda because we can change any of the three ofthese; and what Making the Connections since 2003has probably made the biggest impact on has beenimproving the capabilities of people in relation totransport, but there is still a lot of work to do on thelocation of services. I am sure we will come back toother issues as we work our way around the questions.

Q54 Chair: We have a second panel of witnesses aswell to have an opportunity to look at it in a bit moredetail. I think it is just a question of what things wouldyou say our priorities should be as this inquiryprogresses and the lessons that you have learnt andthe areas where it is more difficult to keep a sense ofprogress that has been made.Derek Halden: Our first recommendation to theDepartment for Transport in 2004 was that transportappraisal should be changed because, without that,

Caroline NokesMark SpencerDr Matthew Offord

there is not any money. The way I look at it is wespend about £20 billion a year on transport. If we arespending about £20 billion a year, most of that goestowards growing the transport economy. For instance,if we invest more in roads, we can get more people todrive; if we invest more in buses, we get more peopleto travel by buses and so on. All these teams lobbypoliticians very strongly, “Give me more for mymode,” and they are all very good at buses or trainsor road-building or whatever, but everybody tends towork in their silos.Because all of these arguments for buses and trainsand roads—all argue, “We need this to improveaccessibility, to improve accessibility for jobs.” ThenI think we need to stand back and say, “And did you?”Because if they did not—and that is what the evidenceshows that in many cases they do not—then questionsneed to be asked about why in some places investingin the transport has delivered huge accessibilitybenefits but in other places it has led to closures oflocal shops and accessibility has fallen for the mostvulnerable.These are the sorts of issues being raised that are partof natural market mechanisms, so I think what wewere saying in 2004 is right at the heart of this: theremust be changes to transport appraisal—these werefinally made in 2011–2012, but that relied on bothConservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers havingmade commitments to change transport appraisal atthe 2010 general election. Why did it take until ageneral election campaign to implement therecommendations we made in 2004? That would bemy core issue. Although you are saying, “How havewe got on for 10 years,” I look at it and say we areonly just starting and we are still moving down thatpath.Chair: Let us turn a bit more to local authorities.

Q55 Caroline Nokes: You have stated that only afew local authorities are using Making theConnections as it was intended. Why do you thinkthat is, and who should be responsible for making thechanges to ensure that more do?Derek Halden: Cross-sectoral people-focused issuesare always tricky. Let us look at all the conferencesand discussions around climate change and whathappens in practice, and look at accessibility planningand all the discussions that happen around this. I thinkwe are doing pretty well. The first thing I would sayis, for such a complicated issue, a lot of strongprogress has been made but a lot more can be made.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o002_db_HC 570-ii CORRECTED.xml


16 January 2013 Derek Halden

If we look at how Nottinghamshire County Councilhave embedded all of this in their performancemanagement criteria, so you see the actual publicsatisfaction with the quality of the footpaths walkingto schools and shops—and things like this—embedded right there in the heart of their values. It isnot visibly done—something-new accessibilityplanning that people would necessarily see—but it isat the core values of the council. I think it is that typeof level of change; what we might call a total qualitymanagement philosophy—where we are constantlylooking at how we improve our engagement with thepublic, their response, and how we work withpartners—that is the sort of space that more councilsneed to be in.Let us take one of the simplest relationship in all ofthis—that between a council and its bus operators.Since 1985, councils have been responsible forsecuring social value from the bus network, ensuringit happens and driving that forward, and yet we havevery few bus quality partnerships out there. If wecompare that with many other areas where there isshared sector delivery, we would have written servicelevel agreements. These would define, for example,what would be done by each partner. In childcare—Ihave cited it in my written evidence—the sort of thingwe would say: “Social Work will do this, and Healthwill do this.” We write it down, and we have apartnership agreement that says who will pay for whatand how it will happen.Accessibility plans are all about these partnershipagreements and the transport authorities were giventhe lead role in being the brokers for all of that.It is not about taking away from localism or from thelocal authorities doing anything, but I think it isadding some incentives to say, “There are no busquality partnerships in your area. Why not?” That isthe sort of audit function that seems to be missing,and once you start to think about how we decide whatis in a bus quality partnership, it is all aboutaccessibility planning and the toolkit is what theDepartment for Transport have provided to the localauthorities to help them do that.

Q56 Caroline Nokes: Now that local authorities areno longer required to provide accessibility planning aspart of their local transport plan, have you noticed afall-off—have any stopped doing it—and in any case,do you think it appropriate that this should be dictatedat national level?Derek Halden: I do not know of any authority thatdid what I would call accessibility planning that hasdone anything other than carry on growing andexpanding what they are doing in accessibilityplanning. I think by nature central Government putsout some guidance saying, “You must do this” andeveryone, says, “How do we tick this box?” and theyproduce something, but they do not actually do it.The way I would look at it is once people get focusedat this agenda and start developing it they get betterat it and that is what we are seeing. Whereas in the1990s there might have been only 5% of theauthorities in England doing well, we probably have10% to 20% now, and in another 10 years I amabsolutely confident we will have half the authorities

in England. There is no sign that anybody is goingback once they are moving forward.

Q57 Caroline Nokes: You have alluded to it in yourcomments about box-ticking exercises. I think youpreviously said that cultural change in local authoritieshas been slow and you mentioned that someauthorities are going through the box-ticking, asopposed to embracing accessibility planning. How doyou think that cultural change that is needed can beencouraged?Derek Halden: As a consultant, I often say, “Followthe money.” When you are coming in to look at anysituation just following the money is a reallyimportant guide.One example from 2005 I thought was particularlypertinent was when Alistair Darling was the TransportSecretary, and he had stood up in Parliament and said,“My four priorities for 2005 are”, one of which wasaccessibility planning. I think HS1and other bigschemes that you would recognise were part of this,but you would not necessarily recognise four bigtransport priorities including accessibility planning.The team in Merseytravel were working their socksoff on accessibility planning to try and grow theirinfluence within a big transport authority, and it wouldhave cost absolutely nothing for the Minister to havewritten saying, “It is not clear how Merseytram relatesto your accessibility plan.” That type of culturechange in the Department for Transport on a keydecision that they would have funded would havemade an enormous difference to make the culturechange locally.A lot of it is about making the transport professionrealise this is here and it is not going away. As I say,we are talking about very big sums of money; £20billion or so a year around the UK on this. There isplenty of money to go round to deliver the sorts ofthings we are talking about. Transport investment isvery good at growing transport markets. I think this isthe point I have made already, that when you look at,“Did growing that transport market improveaccessibility, as they claimed it would,” we often findit does not. And that is the point, it often does andthis helps us differentiate between the good schemesand the bad schemes. The culture change has to bepart of that mainstream ensuring transport authoritiesreally lead and drive this agenda.

Q58 Chair: In terms of what you were saying aboutappraisal, do you see that that needs to be linkedequally at the Department for Transport and also atwhomever the local authority is in terms of how thatappraisal takes place and in terms of what the moneyshould be spent on?Derek Halden: Yes. If you read the Department forTransport appraisal manuals, they say, “Of course, youcan ignore most of this if a scheme is trivial, below£5 million.” £5 million is a lot of money. A lot of whatwe are talking about here is a safe route to school, andpeople cannot walk down to the shops, so do we needa pedestrian crossing? A lot of the appraisal istherefore missing, and there are some really importantaspects of the appraisal about whether we areregenerating in the economy.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o002_db_HC 570-ii CORRECTED.xml



A little bit of help and guidance would help—localauthorities are not always the best at rigorous,analytical techniques—but if central Government canhelp by having a set of good practice analyticaltechniques or at least facilitating others to do that—as, for example, the Taylor review says in planningthat it is not necessarily Government writing theguidance but helping others to do that—I think that iswhere help comes from.I quite like what we did in the Scottish TransportAppraisal Guidance where we went round with atraining programme and said to people, “Yes, thisapplies just as much to a pedestrian crossing or a localpedestrian priority scheme in the High Street as it doesto building the Forth Bridge,” or whatever. It is thesame set of appraisals; so yes, change is needed there.

Q59 Peter Aldous: Who should be responsible foraccessibility overall? On whose desk should the buckstop?Derek Halden: On any complex cross-sectoral issuelike this, legislation always has to be narrower. Healthdepartments have to be responsible for health;Education, for education, and so on. You cannot makethe Transport Department responsible for access tohealth, but what you can do is make the TransportDepartment accountable for reporting. For example,we produce accessibility statistics nationally everyyear. These are at neighbourhood statistics level, so ifthe Department for Transport used those to perhapswrite a report saying, “We are concerned about thefall in accessibility in…” such-and-such county, or,“We are concerned about the overall…” then it is upto the public, and this would be reported by the press.If the public are not interested then ultimately wecannot go much further, but what I see is, wheneverwe see accessibility information reported, this is amatter of real public interest and that drives thechange. Then that chief executive of the HealthAuthority would be saying, “What? You mean wehave relocated our hospitals to cheap land on theoutskirts of towns and therefore made health difficultto access,” which has happened all over the country,and then they are held to account. Once they are heldto account by the catchment of people they serve thenthat is what levers the change. On a big issue likethis, the only way it can be driven is transparency ofinformation to ensure that the public can drive thechange they need.

Q60 Peter Aldous: If what you are saying is theDepartment for Transport have the overall co-ordinating role, how is one going to ensure that otherdepartments have accessibility as an important issue;something they take full regard to rather than beingsidelined? I think you were rather indicating namingand shaming perhaps.Derek Halden: I do not think I would use those wordsbut I think that is what accountability is about. We arehoping that education and health authorities will dowell and will take account of the accessibility, and ifthey know there is a report coming at the end of theyear, they might just be focused on doing a bit betterthan they currently do. I think this is the point, that ifthey know that there is an audit taking place then it

just provides—one of the things a whole lot of areaswere missing the incentives. In fact, we are not justmissing the incentives; there still remain quite anumber of perverse incentives that lead toaccessibility getting worse. If we just turned theseround so that the incentives helped accessibility to getbetter then we would find that practice would change.It does not mean it all has to be planned top down; itjust means we change the incentives and the culturefor how the systems work.

Q61 Peter Aldous: I think you calculate the nationalaccessibility statistics for the DfT each year. Do wecurrently provide enough information to supportaccountability?Derek Halden: There are a lot of issues inaccessibility statistics. Let us think about comingdown from King’s Cross Station; I would say, “Allright, I came down the Victoria Line and then theJubilee Line while someone else would say, “Oh no,I’ve just got off at Victoria and walked and it isfaster.” It is very democratic. Everybody comes upwith a different number. The real advantage of thestatistics is in starting a debate. Whatever statistic youproduce somebody may have a different one, butwhen we see consistent statistics year on year gettingworse; for example, we know where all the houselocations are in the UK, we know where all the foodshops are, and if we are saying, “Oh, all thesesupermarkets have been built, the local grocers haveclosed and it is taking people more minutes to travelto supermarkets.” I think that is consistent.Using a consistent methodology, if we are seeing bigincreases in travel time for members of the public,then that is a valuable piece of democraticinformation. If we put that out in the public domain Ithink we will see change. Although it appears in theDepartment for Transport website at present, I do notthink there is anybody driving that accountability inthe public domain.When we launched accessibility planning, we spent ahuge amount of effort and it was the very first timeGovernment had a non-policy department website. Wehad accessibilityplanning.gov.uk. This was a big issue.You can imagine in Government trying to get the first.gov.uk that was not a government department. Today,we have the Office for Low Carbon Vehicles, andalthough it is hosted under DfT, we have the same sortof mechanism happening.It does not need to be accountability within a singledepartment.Many of the big problems we face today are cross-sectoral, and we have to work out how we deal withcross-sectorial problems. We cannot haveaccountability in any one place, but what we can dois make sure there is real visibility to it—that peopleare going to see the evidence and prompt people tocome back, and—it is that evidence that drives theaccountability. If it does not—the voters are out there.I am happy to pack up and go away if the voters arenot concerned that travel time to the supermarket goesup, but what I hear on the ground—and I see peopleprotesting in the streets about—is local schoolclosures, or county court closures was another onerecently. That was one that we did the analysis for




Government. We looked at options. What if we hadnot done? What if we had not looked at which courtsto close? Then we could have ended up with muchless accessible courts than we have.

Q62 Peter Aldous: Just picking up the specific onethat is quite close to my heart. On that county courtclosure, the Department of Justice when they carriedthat out went out for consultation. Was accessibility acentral factor that they took into account, do youbelieve?Derek Halden: What I know is that we looked at alot of different options. We looked at all the courts inthe country and, “What happens if you withdraw anyof these ones?” For example, a house that had equalaccess to three different courts would be assessed by,“Oh, you can close that one without causing too muchproblem,” whereas with another court that would becatastrophic for access if it closed. They had thatinformation.

Q63 Peter Aldous: Were there any that you statedwould be catastrophic for courts to close?Derek Halden: It might make an hour’s travel timedifference or something like that.

Q64 Peter Aldous: Were your recommendationstaken into account?Derek Halden: That is not at all for me to commenton. We were simply asked to provide the evidence toinform their decisions. Whether or not they placed ahigh value on that information or a low value, I—

Q65 Peter Aldous: Should we have a new systemwhereby we know whether they have placed a highvalue or a low value on it? More accountability andtransparency.Derek Halden: I think transparency is the key thingagain.

Q66 Martin Caton: You stated that investmentappraisal for new transport schemes remains poorlyintegrated with accessibility planning. What do youthink needs to be done to better integrate the two?Derek Halden: Transport appraisal rules start fromthe presumption, and this is part of the history, “Weare going to build big, mainly road schemes. How dowe make sure that we are prioritising the right routesand the right places when doing that?” If we were tostart from scratch and say, “Let us look at transportpolicy today, in 2013, and have an appraisal systemthat helps us evaluate whether or not we are deliveringthat transport policy system,” we would have a verydifferent set of rules.Intellectually, they pick up most things but in practice,when you look at trying to implement WebTAG rulesfor the sorts of things we are talking about—there isnothing in the national guidance about that—thesimple things that I am talking about like walking tothe shops—it is not rocket science nowadays to mapall the stuff and know that, yes, there is no streetlighting there and, therefore, you cannot walk there atnight-time or whatever it happens to be; so simplethings can be done to dramatically change access tolocal services.

If we were to start with transport policy, we start withwalking, then cycling, then public transport, and if wecannot do all of that then we do roads and that is whatthe policy says. The appraisal is the other way round.It is a case of starting from the presumption that youwill be building roads. For example, instead of accessby walking and cycling, the appraisal rules talk aboutseverance, i.e. “Let us look at the severance impactsof our road or rail scheme. Does it sever a town?” Nothow can we improve walking and cycling, but howcan we stop walking and cycling getting worse. It isnuances like that and, as I say, it is all far toocomplicated.I think big improvements have been made. If we lookat some very practical schemes that we have done,one that I was closely involved with myself was theAlloa rail scheme. When we originally came alongwe said, “Look at this, 40-minute rail journey time toGlasgow, big employment and so on, hugeunemployment under-utilised resources in Alloa”, andwe did all the appraisal but the Scottish Governmentsaid, “No congestion there; not interested.” That waswhere we were at the start of that scheme becausethere was no accessibility planning policy, but nowwe do have an accessibility planning policy. Wechanged the rules in Scotland, and it now hasTransport Appraisal Guidance explicitly to deal withthat sort of situation. In fact, Norman Bakerspecifically highlighted the Alloa scheme assomething that happened despite transport appraisal,not because of it.If you ask the question now, if you were to comealong with the same scheme with the same appraisalrules that we have in England, it is still quite hardwork to navigate the regeneration benefits and accessto jobs and have that as a priority scheme. Have weachieved what the Minister set out in 2010 as whatwas going to happen? We have made it a lot betterbut we are not there yet. I think that is how I wouldanswer your question.

Q67 Peter Aldous: When bidding, for want of abetter word, for money for transport schemes, lookingat it from the outside it seems that—talking aboutticking boxes—the big box that you need to tick is toshow economic benefit and economic growth. Thatoften tends to favour, at least in the perception of somany—you mention roads—capital schemes that costa lot of money, but you can show those benefits. Fromyour first example about lighting to the shop, you canshow an economic benefit for that. But how do wecounter the almost imbalance in terms of perceptionof economic benefit with the capital scheme and theaccessibility scheme?Derek Halden: If we take the one of lighting forwalking to the shops, it is not as straightforward asthat you would show an economic benefit. One of thethings about transport appraisal is, when they aretalking about economic benefits, they are talkingabout the transport economy. For example, ifsomebody drives to the shops then there is aneconomic value in that because they burn oil and soon. There are transport economic benefits. If theywalk, that is viewed as having no benefit to thetransport economy, so that switch from driving to




walking would be regarded as an economic dis-benefit. So you see why it is not totally aligned withaccessibility planning. While they have introducedcriteria that add a qualitative element to say, “Oh thisalso improves access by walking,” so that it is nowthere in appraisal, the core economic aspects ofappraisal only value if you use a motorised mode andburn oil.

Q68 Peter Aldous: It is worse than I thought then.Derek Halden: The wider economic benefit aspectsare not ignored, but they are not treated in the sameway as part of the core scheme. Transport appraisal isprobably quite complicated to get into and it wouldbe much easier to produce a short paper on somethinglike that if needed to explain the whole thing. If youlook at transport economic efficiency, which is thecore numbers you are talking about, they are talkingabout transport economy. What I am saying is look atthe trade in the local shops because that is a widereconomy and it might well be that a smaller transporteconomy delivers a bigger, wider economy. That isthe bit the transport appraisal does not do.

Q69 Chair: In view of what you said, do you thinkthings have moved on from the Department forTransport “predict and provide”? There is going to bea set of money. It was going to be capital money thatwas provided courtesy of the Treasury. The onlydecision-making was not whether or not there shouldbe that capital money spent on road or rail or thesmaller local schemes. It was a question of whichroute the new road should take. Are you saying it hasnot moved on from that in terms of the tools that theyare after, carrying out this kind of appraisal that wouldflag up the environmental and social issues as well asfor economic transport planning?Derek Halden: I have always preferred scenarioplanning to forecasting. The minute you decide youare going to forecast, you start with a set ofassumptions about what the future looks like andusually you end up delivering a self-fulfillingprophecy. Whereas if you look at scenario planningand you say, “Well, what happens if we do this andwhat happens if we do this,” you end up withsomething quite different.The basis of transport appraisal is forecasting andthose forecasts assume trends. As long as you startfrom that predict bit of your question, “Are we goingto forecast,” you are always starting with someassumptions about, “What is the basis of thatprediction”. So you hear transport professionals usingwords like “predict” and “prevent” and things like thisbut I do not sign up to any of that. I think it wasalways, “Predict incorrectly and under-provide.” I donot think predict and provide is a real concept. Theforecasts are always wrong.

Q70 Chair: I think that reaches the end of oursession with you. We have a further panel to take

evidence from this afternoon, but it has been helpfulin trying to set the context in which we are looking atthis inquiry. Can I thank you very much indeed fortaking the time and coming along this afternoon? Doyou have something you still want to say?Derek Halden: Perhaps commenting on yourquestions but looking forward, there is a lot we cando. If you look at where the successes have been—things like the vouchers for travel to hospital, the useraccounts, citizen account type concepts, personalbudgets for travel—accessibility planning is themachinery that delivers all of that sort of stuff. I thinkwhat a Committee like this can do is very much tosay, “This is where we are. This is how we can givea nudge in that direction because that is the job thatneeds to be done and the teams are out there in thelocal authorities and able to deliver all of that sort ofstuff.” That is the space I would like to seeaccessibility planning move in the next few years. Justas we had not touched on that point, I thought I wouldraise it.

Q71 Chair: If you feel that there is more that youwant just to share with us now on that very specificissue, please feel free to do it.Derek Halden: I am sure the local authorities havecertainly lots of good examples of doing just that sortof stuff: hospital schemes and smartcards where youcan top it up at the hospital front desk and you getyour taxi voucher and so on. This is accessibilityplanning in action and delivering great things.Although I have been talking about, “This did notwork, and that did not work; and change this”, I justwanted to say there are a lot of things out of there—funding, community transport, delivering cross-sectorprojects—delivering things. Nobody else is doing thisand none of that was happening prior to—

Q72 Chair: How is all that catalogued? How wouldanyone know about that?Derek Halden: It is very difficult. As consultants, weare often like bees cross-pollinating from one place toanother. That is the role I think we provide in thesystem. You pick up something somewhere and youhelp somebody else do the same sort of thing. That isbasically the role that I think we play, so we see this.It is about taking stock on that and seeing what isworking out there and how do we disseminate thatmore widely.Chair: Thank you. On that note, it may well be thatour Committee recommendations when we do makethem may have some contributions to make towardsthat pollination. Can I say thank you very muchindeed again? Thank you.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG02



Witnesses: John Smith, Local Transport Plan Implementation Officer, Merseytravel, Chris Briggs, Head ofTransportation, Lincolnshire County Council, Maria-Pilar Machancoses, Economic Development Manager,Centro, and Dearbhla Lawson, Head of Transport and Infrastructure, Policy & Funding, CambridgeshireCounty Council, gave evidence.

Q73 Chair: Good afternoon, and can I say to each ofyou a very big thank you for taking time to comealong today, despite the transport difficulties inLondon? I think you sat in on the previous session wehave just had, and I think your individual expertiseand experience will take us naturally on to looking atthis whole issue of accessibility and transport in alittle bit more detail. What I would like to do, giventhat you represent very different organisations, localauthorities and so on, is to invite each of you tointroduce yourselves and perhaps give the Committeea sense of what oversight you have for this issue ofaccessibility and how you go about achieving it. Arethere targets? How do you go about factoring in suchthings as employment when new proposals ordecisions are being made for either relocation or forinvestment? It would be very helpful to have anoverview, because you represent such a different setof bodies across the country—perhaps starting withyou, Mr Smith.John Smith: Yes. My name is John Smith. I am theLocal Transport Plan Officer for Merseytravel, theMerseyside Passenger Transport Executive. Prior tothat, I worked in something called the Local TransportPlan Support Unit, where I was the MerseysideAccessibility Strategy Co-ordinator. I have lived andbreathed accessibility planning for the best part ofseven years. It can be highly rewarding, but at thesame time it can be a highly frustrating piece of workto do. The key to moving accessibility forward isworking in partnership with other agencies, and indoing so, it is selling the benefit of why they need tobe involved in the accessibility planning process. Forthem, it is what is in it for them to get their interest.One of the things we did at a very early stage withinthe process was to follow the DfT guidance to theletter when it first came out; this concept of havingstrategic accessibility partnerships drawn from a lot ofdifferent sectors. We have set one for employment.We set one for education. We set one up for the healthsector. They started off with a great deal ofenthusiasm, but then, very quickly, I think some of themembers from the non-transport sector in particularbecame very disillusioned because they could notactually see anything happening on the ground,because it takes time to put ideas and mechanismsinto place.

Q74 Chair: Just to cut across there, do you think youhave mechanisms in place to achieve that? How doyou measure what you do?John Smith: In our second local transport plan, wehad specific targets for improving accessibility, whichwere almost impossible to achieve. Lots of localauthorities in their LTPs set an accessibility target forimproving journey times to a hospital, to food stores,to whatever it may be, and the statistics that thatproduces still talk a lot about travel times. Of course,you are trying to implement something there overwhich we have very little control, in terms of the

commercial bus market. We took the view in our thirdLTP not to set targets but to have a traffic lightindicator, so that we are moving in the generaldirection. We do not have a specific target set, but wedo have an indicator in our LTP that we expect to beable to meet over the lifetime of the plan.

Q75 Chair: If I could move on then, perhaps toMaría to give a quick overview.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I will keep it short. Myname is Maria-Pilar Machancoses. I am EconomicDevelopment Manager for Centro, which is the WestMidlands Passenger Transport Executive. I have beenworking for Centro for 10 years, and I was privilegedto be engaged in the whole accessibility planningactivity right from the outset, working withuniversities, planners and others as they were tryingto influence the whole agenda. It was challenging, butI think accessibility planning when it was announceddid a fantastic thing, which was bringing up to thesurface issues that not even the Department of Healthand not even the transport planners were aware of atthat time. Lots of challenges since then. It has lostmomentum, unfortunately. That is a big summary ofhow I feel about accessibility planning, mainlybecause of the economic activity, environmentalactivity and the emphasis on those areas at themoment. It does not mean that it does not happen. Ithas just lost visibility, and in the long run that is achallenge for all of us.Chair: Thank you. Ms Lawson?Dearbhla Lawson: Thank you. Dearbhla Lawson. Iam Head of Transport and Infrastructure, Policy andFunding at Cambridgeshire County Council. I amcoming from a town planning background. Myunderstanding in terms of accessibility is that, yes, itwas a big part of our LTP2 from 2006 to 2011, wherewe did a lot of mapping and analysis to look at wherethe gaps were and where the real issues were. Thathas helped us to be more targeted in the work that wedo, looking at areas where there are deprivation issuesor particular issues in terms of accessibility; so muchmore focused. Then working towards LTP3, welooked at, what is it that we need to do? We are verymuch focusing on thinking longer term and strategy,transport strategy, improving accessibility, unlockingbarriers, economic prosperity, and supporting thewider issues, because it is not about accessibility as ameans to an end. It is more about how can we improvelife chances overall, thinking about access to jobs andthat kind of thing.

Q76 Chair: Do you have specific examples, whenyou say “access to jobs”, of where there have beenplanning decisions that have been around easyaccessibility?Dearbhla Lawson: We are working very closely withthe local authorities thinking about the big picture. Itis about a sequential approach: thinking about wheregrowth should go, how that should happen and where



16 January 2013 John Smith, Chris Briggs, Maria-Pilar Machancoses and Dearbhla Lawson

do we need to ensure improved accessibility isachieved. There is a long history of ensuring thefuture growth is sustainable, targeted to those keycorridors, avoiding disperse development and, again,focusing on improvement on the key corridors andthen thinking about working with local communities.There are some good examples in NorthCambridgeshire and Fenland where we are workingmuch more closely with the local authority,community and voluntary sectors on those targetedimprovements. The Fenland access group is one suchexample, where that has been taken forward over thelast five or six years and achieving real improvement.Specific access improvements to the local hospital,making a difference where it is needed most, is onesuch example of what we are doing.Chair: Thank you. Mr Briggs?Chris Briggs: Chris Briggs, currently Head ofTransportation at Lincolnshire County Council. In2006, my title was Head of Accessibility and Policy,which was a new group set up to try and integrateaccessibility with other transport policies and with thepublic transport network. I have been involved in thatsince then. In fact, prior to that, Lincolnshire werepart of the Making Connections Work and were a pilotauthority for access to health in rural areas, which isa big issue in a very sparse rural county such asLincolnshire. We have done quite a lot of work onthat, and we did again, similar to colleagues, involveother partners and set up an accessibility partnership.Unfortunately, I think, as time has gone on and asconstraints come on budgets and so on as thingschange, we lose those partners round the table as theyfocus on other issues, and it is a bit more difficult. Butwe do try and work with our local planning authoritiesto impress upon them that, when looking at planningapplications, accessibility should be a key issue. Canpeople get to services? Are there services in thevicinity? That is not always successful.

Q77 Chair: I was going to say you impress uponthem. How successful are you?Chris Briggs: I would not say totally successful.There is obviously a strong lead on economic growth,so often that will be the deciding factor. We do stilltry and then say, “What facilities can you provide thatwill give that accessibility?” We will work with thebus companies and so on, to try and do that. I thinkwe do have to be realistic in that, on some occasions,other things outweigh accessibility in terms of adecision where to locate a business park and so on,but we then have to do our best to make that work.Therefore, I think there is something missing a littlebit in linking those two things up at times, and it isleft to the officers to do that.

Q78 Chair: Quality bus partnerships you justmentioned. Do you have one in Lincolnshire?Chris Briggs: We do not have a formal one. We arenot blessed with a lot of operators in Lincolnshire. Weare blessed with a lot of operators, but not a lot oflarge operators. We only have the one major city,which is Lincoln itself, which has one major operator.We do work closely with them to develop a

partnership approach, and we have regular meetingswith all our operators to do that.

Q79 Caroline Nokes: A specific question for MrBriggs on planning policy and whether accessibility iswritten into your planning policies, which would thengive you the tool enabling you to either refuse orpromote applications that were or were not accessible.Chris Briggs: The problem we have in a two-tierauthority, we have seven planning authorities and it istrying to influence all those seven; although now someof them are merging to form core strategies, so thatthey are not having to do seven of those. It is morelikely to be about three or four. We do try and impressupon them the need for access to the services that theyare developing. Unfortunately, there are examples ofeither hospitals closing down and then moving out oftown, as was mentioned earlier, and the planningauthority turn around and say, “Where is the publictransport?”

Q80 Chair: So you find you are playing catch-up?Chris Briggs: Yes.Chair: Peter, you wanted to come in?Peter Aldous: I think that has been covered.

Q81 Martin Caton: Caroline said something quiteimportant about the planning and accessibility. Frommy memory of being a councillor, when you get aplanning application before you, you get a report andit refers to council policies. How often would acouncil policy on accessibility appear on thedetermination of a planning application when it comesbefore the planning committee in your authorities?John Smith: Certainly in our authorities, I am notsure it happens. Because we work in a Met area, thePTA is not ordinarily a statutory consultee as part ofany planning application. We will get to see planningapplications. We can make a response to the planningapplication and do an accessibility assessment of anew service or a relocation, but the local planningauthority has absolutely no conditions to take anynotice of what we say.María-Pilar Machancoses: I completely endorse that.We are non-statutory, and we will always use thingslike accession in our responses to provide theevidence to say, “Accessibility is very poor or accessin certain areas in that particular borough isparticularly poor and, therefore”—so to encourage thedeveloper to think about it and so on. At the moment,it is only based on the transport assessment, inparticular. What I was going to say is, as you know,the planning system has changed. The nationalplanning framework came along earlier in the yearand that obviously set up a very general statement.There was tonnes of guidance on travel plans,accessibility and documentation and best practice thatwas provided to the DfT on what sort of things youcould do as a result of accessibility planning, but allof that is now with the Lord Taylor review, whichfinished just last week, I think. All guidancedocuments have been reviewed and the review hassaid, “This guidance is no good anymore,” andtransport assessments and environmental statementsare going to be part of a review. Therefore, that is an




area that we could influence a bit more and raisequestions on accessibility planning, because after allthe developer, the private sector, the promoter, will besaying, “I’m meeting the planning system in regard totransport assessments,” and so on, and accessibilityplanning does not feature in any of that at the moment.Chair: Just very briefly.Dearbhla Lawson: From my perspective, transportassessments are very important, but they come in quitelate and the work we are doing in Cambridgeshire istrying to work with the local authority to set up along-term transport strategy. We are workingalongside the local plans to look at what they areproposing in terms of growth and jobs, so that we dothe modelling then to look at the behaviours, look atthe types of movements that we are going to seelocally, so we can do that accessibility planning andlook at the key infrastructure dependencies from theoutset before anything is in the planning process.

Q82 Caroline Lucas: I want to pursue questions tothe local authorities, in particular, about how your rolelinks to the roles of others within the local authority.In terms of actually saying who is responsible withinthe local authority for ensuring that public services areaccessible using local public transport networks, isthat clearly the role of yourselves within your localauthorities? Is there a proper requirement that otherdepartments have to run past you every proposal forany new public service that is being established?Chris Briggs: From Lincolnshire’s point of view, itfalls to my group to do that. We do try and impressupon other departments and other authorities the needfor consideration of accessibility; and, like colleagues,we do use the transport assessment system to do that,particularly for planning applications. Again,internally, we have tried to develop that thinking; thatbefore someone goes out and decides that a goodplace to put a school would be 20 miles outside of thetown, they really do come and talk to us first and wetry and impress upon them that this is only going toadd costs, in terms of transport, rather than if welooked at somewhere a bit more accessible forwalking or cycling.Dearbhla Lawson: I think that is absolutely right. Iagree with my colleague here that, yes, we do sitdown, particularly when it comes to planning newdevelopments. That could be sitting down togetherwith health, education, colleagues across thedepartment, but it very much sits with us to set thepolicy approach and then undertake transportassessments.

Q83 Caroline Lucas: Does that work well or is thereany struggle? Everyone is under pressure and eachdepartment will have a million different things thatthey are responsible for. Speaking candidly, do youfind that it is fairly easy to make that process happen,whereby other departments have to take into accountthe public transport?Dearbhla Lawson: There are different pressures ondifferent departments, clearly, and with growingpopulation that is an issue. Sometimes, things comealong much later than you would like them to in theprocess. It is trying to build that in. Whether it is a

new school or new plans for a new health centre,ideally that needs to happen at the early stage. That iswhy I think we are trying to get it built in more to theplanning process and sit round and do a bit more ofthis planning for real, to think about the pressures andforecast earlier.

Q84 Caroline Lucas: Do you think there needs to besome sort of mandatory change in the planning lawssuch that proposals cannot go ahead for new publicservices unless they can demonstrate that they havebeen properly screened from a public transportperspective? Do you think that is necessary or do youthink the situation we have now is doing a reasonableenough job?Dearbhla Lawson: I think we are doing a reasonableenough job at the moment. It is how we work togetheras public sector agencies. We just need to build on thatand that engagement early on is going to be critical.

Q85 Caroline Lucas: If I could push you on that. Isthe voluntary system good enough or do we need achange in the planning law to make that mandatory?Dearbhla Lawson: The pre-app consultation is veryhelpful; and includes a requirement to consult upfrontof submitting an application to understand theimplications of change in services or new serviceprovision. I think that is helpful, but also starting theprocess with key public sector agencies will beimportant.Chris Briggs: I think the requirement for sequentialtesting is a good system that helps focus people’sminds on looking at where sites should be in terms ofaccessibility, but some strengthening to that may notbe a bad thing.Dearbhla Lawson: I would add that in terms ofworking together in planning we absolutely do that.Those requirements need to be identified upfront inthe longer-term plans, so that there are no surprisescoming along at a later stage.

Q86 Caroline Lucas: I want to ask about the role ofthe new Directors of Public Health within the localauthorities. What role will they have in terms oflinking health concerns with public transport issues?Is there a clear plan yet of how that will be linked up?Chris Briggs: Personally, I think that will be a goodthing. We are already talking to colleagues in PublicHealth before they join us, but I think that will helpus develop good close relationships. As part of theNational Health Service, it has always been difficultto get hold of the right people at the right level tomake decisions and to talk to us, particularly aboutaccess to health and non-emergency transport. Byworking together, I am sure we could effect somegood savings, but getting hold of those right peoplehas always been difficult. I know it is still a differentpart of the organisation, but I think bringing PublicHealth and their resource into local government willhelp us to work together and look for what couldbenefit the public.

Q87 Mark Lazarowicz: Just an observation, I amsure putting accessibility somewhere higher up thehierarchy of issues where you consider decisions are




being made will make a difference, but how far areyou also going to require, bluntly, much moresubstantial changes in planning legislation to changethe whole focus of development? My constituency isin Edinburgh, so it is a different planning legislationfrom what applies in most of your cases, but it is thesame general principle. I can think of two or threemajor developments over the last few years in andaround Edinburgh where there has been an issue withaccessibility, and it is basically because the majorpublic facilities have been built outside town. Theyare built outside town because it is greenfield sites. Isuspect it is cheaper land and it is easier to put downa new major hospital out of town than to try to do itinside town, and a better financial package is puttogether when you do that. You are fighting againstquite powerful countervailing forces when thathappens, surely.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: In fact, it is quite timely.Yesterday, I was at an examination in public of one ofthe local plans in our area and that question was raisedby the inspector, particularly on a site that is at themoment doing very well in terms of economic activityand jobs. It is basically an industrial site outside thisparticular borough and the question was raised about,“You are proposing new growth into that area. Howare you going to deal with public transport, forinstance?” The challenge that we have is that youcould have the dialogue with the developers in termsof accessibility public transport and so on, but thereis nothing there in the planning system that is acommitment to make it work sustainably.Subsidising a bus service for three or four years thatlooks good when you open the event, you know thenew Tesco or whatever site, is not acceptable intransport terms because it does not enable the long-term sustainability of the site. It does not address theissues. It does not even feature on the radar, the ideaof working with the authorities and the transportproviders on getting the skills and the training fromlocal areas into that particular site that we know willbe expanding in two or three years’ time. Theplanning system does not allow for that thinking atthe moment. It is not that the developer is not wantingto do it. It is just that it is not there for them to lookat as a possibility in the first place. That sort ofthinking is very important, particularly outside theLondon area where public transport is deregulated andit relies heavily on the provision of commercialservices. If a site is not commercially viable, thepublic purse will pick up that route as well.In terms of the consequences of bad planning and baddevelopment, there are consequences to everybody; tothose that want to access the jobs there and cannotaccess them, to the putting on a transport subsidy tokeep the routes going. The impact is huge and it isimportant.Chair: I have one eye on the fact that we will behaving a vote at some stage this afternoon, so I thinkwe must try and speed up a little bit.

Q88 Peter Aldous: Can we have all the panel’sviews on the Department for Transport and what yourrelationship is like with them? What is the role of the

Department for Transport at the moment? Whatshould it be?John Smith: I am going to go back to 2008 whenthe Beacon Scheme was still in operation. Part of theBeacon Scheme around 2009 was a beacon award forimproving accessibility. We, as Merseytravel, with ourlocal authorities and Halton Borough Council, werelucky enough to achieve beacon status. I think 2008was quite a timely period in time. It is five years afterMaking the Connections came out and it was twoyears since we did LTP2s, and it was almost the caseof doing a mid-term review of where we were in termsof accessibility.As part of the beacon tenure, ourselves and the localauthorities involved with that, I think it was a realmissed opportunity to kick the agenda forwardbecause in that time the report had been written. TheSocial Exclusion Unit, which was attached to theCabinet Office, had subsequently been abolished.Accessibility planning went into the equalities actionteam, and they did not pick up the requirement to doanything with accessibility planning. From that pointonwards, I think the Department for Transport lost itsway in terms of where it wanted to be.

Q89 Chair: To where it is now?John Smith: To where it is now. If you look at whathas come out of the Department recently, it is like ithas almost taken a step backwards to before Makingthe Connections because the DfT’s view ofaccessibility now and the documents that have comeout recently is about accessibility for the mobilityimpaired. Of course Making the Connections wasabout accessibility in its wider sense. Myself andMaría and our colleagues around the table spent anawful lot of time and effort convincing everybody thataccessibility is not just about, “Oh, if you improveaccess for the mobility impaired, you improve accessfor everyone.” It was about making links with theplanning system. It was about looking at how servicesare delivered and relocated. I think the DfT have losttheir way somewhat and have not recovered theposition in terms of where they were withaccessibility. The team that was there originally hasbeen slowly eroded, so I do not even think there areany individuals that have an accessibility brief withinthe Department.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: Yes. To follow on, Icompletely agree; resources are very scarce. There areno dedicated people to accessibility planning, as weunderstand. We also wanted to know what ishappening elsewhere in the country, and for aboutthree years we never heard the outcomes. Whathappened since the introduction of accessibilityplanning, all the LTPs across the UK were doingaccessibility planning, monitoring targets and so on,but nobody was actually pulling the informationtogether and saying, “As a result of this, these are thesort of things that are happening on the ground. Theseare the challenges. This is what is not working.” Wetook the action at PTEG to pick up a best practiceguide because, as you said, there was just nothinghappening. We would like to recommend the reportthat was produced in May 2010, describing goodpractice guide on schemes that came out as part of the




SEU report. I understand DfT also put a lot of efforton travel planning. That was perhaps the last time Iwas involved with DfT on social inclusion matters.

Q90 Chair: Presumably, that is the role you wouldlike the Department for Transport to have.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I think it is veryimportant.Dearbhla Lawson: I think so. Working with DfT oflate, the role is very much helping us and helping ustarget where we put our efforts in, thinking aboutunlocking and helping address some of the barriers togrowth. There is very much a growth focus now andsupporting economic prosperity is the way I see it.Chris Briggs: I concur. I agree with what John saidearlier. I think that there has been this falling off ofinterest in accessibility. The measure that was usedwas even slightly in disrepute in that people measuredit differently and nobody really pulled it together asto what it really meant in the end. In a sense, westopped measuring it once the Government decided itdid not want so many targets and measures. We werealmost in disrepute as to how it was measured,because we measured access to bus services. In ourarea a lot of them are demand-responsive transportand DfT Did not like that. They said, “You can’tmeasure what route it is,” because we planned theroute each day, but it is very successful at accessingservices.

Q91 Peter Aldous: Looking at the way forward, Iwas going to ask who should take the lead in centralgovernment on accessibility. What you are saying isthat something might pay you to go back to the pre-2008 situation and accessibility units in DfT, orperhaps the Cabinet Office taking the lead andbreaking down silos or perhaps, from what we arehearing on planning, the Department of LocalGovernment doing something as well. What are yourviews on that? Where does the buck stop?John Smith: It is an interesting question. The firstquestion is: how much influence does DfT wieldacross Whitehall? If DfT were trying to get theaccessibility planning agenda moving again, someonewho works within the local authorities, from theoutside looking in, would say, “Well, not much.” Ifyou take it back to where the Social Exclusion Unitwas attached to the Cabinet Office, that has across-Whitehall links into every single Department. Let usnot forget one of the recommendations from Makingthe Connections was to have a cross-Governmentstrategy on accessibility planning, so it was embeddedin the Department of Health and Department forEducation. That did not happen, and the fact that it satwith DfT I do not think was particularly helpful.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I completely agree. Oneof the big outcomes of our dialogue with DfT was theexposure to the national action plan for socialexclusion and that was led by the Department of Workand Pensions. Again, I do not know what happened toit; but as a result of the SEU, we managed to bringthe transport agenda into the national action plan,which was recommended and praised by the EuropeanCommission following that. It is understanding, orbeing more efficient about placing accountability, in

all Government Departments, not just on theDepartment for Transport.Dearbhla Lawson: I would agree. The only thing toadd to that is that it is important that thatresponsibility is shared because it is thinking aboutthe costs of accessibility. It doesn’t just fall to theTransport Department. We have to think about itholistically.

Q92 Martin Caton: The Government reviewAccessibility planning policy: Evaluation and futuredirections by Professor Noel Smith and Kelly Kirbyfound that local authorities were just going throughthe motions in producing an accessibility plan, ratherthan embedding accessibility consideration into theirwork. Is that a fair criticism?John Smith: I would say not.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I was very keen to sharewith you that accessibility planning is now part of ourcore value as an organisation and that we have appliedit to very interesting areas. The way we work withoperators on bus network reviews, the way wedevelop our rail strategies or freight strategies orintegrated transport, we always use accessibilityplanning as a way of measuring where it will have thegreatest impact in terms of disadvantaged areas, thegreatest impact in terms of access to jobs and accessto health, and we do capture those. We have helpedthe health sector in helping them to inform decisionsabout public transport service provision. We havehelped, as I said, major planning applications inunderstanding the wider accessibility issues. I will say,in terms of the use of accessibility planning, it is coreto our values and the way we go about our businessfrom a transport perspective.John Smith: I would completely concur. From theMerseytravel perspective the accessibility planning asit is within our local transport plan is central to ourcorporate planning and very much drives forward thework that we do as a transport authority.Dearbhla Lawson: I would concur with that as well.It is very much mainstream supporting sustainabledevelopment, thinking about the bigger picture. Interms of the action plan, we started out with a lot moreaction plans, but now we are very much focused onthose areas that really need to be targeted to improveaccessibility and opportunities. So that work hascontinued on.Chris Briggs: Yes, I agree. I would say it would notbe fair to criticise local authorities for just goingthrough the motions. The local authorities that I amaware of were trying to make this happen. I think itwas the other partners that were involved inaccessibility partnerships that did not really give it thesame kudos.

Q93 Martin Caton: Why do you think aGovernment-commissioned review, involvingacademics, comes up with a conclusion that is exactlythe opposite of your own judgment?Chris Briggs: From my point of view, it may be thatthe view is of the partnerships themselves, and howthey did not embed this in every part of thepartnership arrangements. I think local authorities—certainly the ones I am aware of, and perhaps that is




only a small sample—tried to give it our best and triedto embed it, but I think getting those key playersaround the table that wanted to do the same was thedifficult thing.Dearbhla Lawson: I think that is right. It is what youhave control over and maintaining that partnershipapproach. You have to be much more focused and Ithink, from our perspective, we have moved on tothinking about longer-term strategy as well. Not justaccessibility as a means to an end but thinking aboutthe wider aims, about economic prosperity and healthinequalities; so thinking about the bigger picture andaccessibility is mainstreamed as part of that.

Q94 Martin Caton: Do you perceive anyshortcomings in current accessibility plan practice?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: We do say that one of thebig challenges, as soon as accessibility planning wasannounced and the ethos behind it, was that it wasplaced under the umbrella of a local transport plan. Ifyou are aware, local transport plans are capitalprogrammes; they are not revenue programmes. Veryquickly, it became very apparent that any measuresthat we wanted to implement as a result of applyingaccessibility planning were revenue hungry and, in away, that is why it was even more important to liaisewith people at the Department for Work and Pensionsand the Department of Health, because they seem tohave the support mechanisms to help individualstackle access barriers, for instance, in terms ofawareness on independent living for people that hadissues in terms of confidence and travelling and so on.Those were the Departments that had the resources tosupport individuals or communities in such case, butthe capital programme did not allow for applyingthose measures. One of the big challenges that cameout of that was there was very little that we could doin terms of delivery, with the nature of the fundingthat was provided to support accessibility planning.Now we have the devolution of major schemesfunding taking place, if you think about it. So allmajor schemes and the devolution of major fundingschemes are being transferred to the LEPs and thelocal transport bodies that are emerging, and those arefocused on economic growth. We are trying, as wasmentioned earlier in terms of how the web-typeapproach that DfT uses for appraisal will be used.That is down to the local transport bodies to decide.There is still room there to say: how much of that issolely focused on creating jobs and growth and howmuch of that would also cater for accessibilityplanning in its own right?John Smith: I have to say on the devolution of themajors, we are currently putting together ourprioritisation methodology now and we will bebuilding accessibility in as part of the schemes beingput on that list. If they can demonstrate that they areinfluencing accessibility, primarily regarding access tojobs and services, then they will obviously score morehighly than if they do not have any impact onaccessibility.

Q95 Martin Caton: Derek Halden, who just gave usevidence and that I think most of you were here tolisten to, said one of the main barriers to better

accessibility planning was the culture within thetransport profession. Do you perceive that samecultural barrier within that profession?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I would say that that hashappened, and it is still there because of the processthat is in place to secure the funding. With majorschemes, you are talking about schemes over £10million, something like that. The process that DfTestablished to cater for that and to measure whatbenefit or impact they will have is very much atransport-led, engineering-led measurement. WhatLEPs are trying to tell us now is, “Transportengineers, we want to hear what impact they will haveon GVA or on land use value as a result ofimplementing that scheme,” and these are newconcepts for transport engineers.On top of the social impact, we now have thechallenge of other greater impacts that might berequired to be added to the transport appraisalequation, so it is going to be interesting. As I said,that is one of the challenges that I foresee. We arepoorly resourced and we still need to get better, andone of the things that DfT could help with is capturingbetter the social benefits or cross-sector benefits orimplementing schemes and DfT has the tools toenable us to capture that.John Smith: On this cross-sector benefit, it is an issuethat particularly interests me. Karen Lucas, when shegave her evidence, may have talked about some workthat she has done as part of the Transport Studies Unit,about building this transport poverty model to capturethe social benefits of accessibility and issues.Merseyside is working with Karen on that and how tobuild that model. We are looking to start that workfairly shortly, providing we can get the right fundingpackage together, which again comes back to therevenue issue. We are absolutely committed to thispiece of work, but we are having difficulty at the locallevel finding the funding to fulfil our side of that work.

Q96 Martin Caton: You are no longer required tocomplete an accessibility plan. Has that impacted onhow accessibility features in your local transportplans?John Smith: No, I do not take that view. I thinkproducing an accessibility plan is fundamental. Whenthe guidance with the LTP3 came out, in terms ofaccessibility planning it was fairly ambiguous orperhaps non-existent. As far as I am concerned,accessibility strategies are still part of the statutoryLTP and they should be so.

Q97 Martin Caton: The guidance has not beenrevised since 2006.John Smith: No.

Q98 Martin Caton: Does it need updating?John Smith: Yes, absolutely. One of things that wewanted to do as part of our beacon tenure was to lookat that guidance and review it and revise it in lightof the changing policy landscape. I think one of therecommendations that the evaluation of theaccessibility planning policy makes is perhaps lookingat some kind of national forum to take that forward.That is something I would certainly endorse.




Martin Caton: Thanks very much.

Q99 Mark Lazarowicz: To try to put this in somekind of context or perspective, can you give us someexamples or some accessibility-focused projects orinitiatives that have worked particularly well in yourown local area? Given you are all experts and we donot have much time, perhaps I could ask you to doone from each of your areas that would particularlyhighlight some useful ones to learn about where itworks well. One each if you can; I am sure you willhave at least one anyway.Chris Briggs: We have currently worked with a socialenterprise partner to develop a countywide wheels-to-work scheme, whereby people that are wanting toaccess jobs for the first time, if they had no other formof transport, which is quite common in Lincolnshire,they can be trained to ride a motor scooter, and wehire it out at a reasonable rate based on whateversalary they will be getting. That has proved to be verysuccessful. We started small, but we are spreading thatout countywide.Dearbhla Lawson: The one I have mentioned is theFenland Transport and Access Group. It is a veryeffective partnership that brings together the localauthority, NHS, key community interests, and lookingat how to improve accessibility and better targetcommunity transport to addressing local needs,improving access to education and to healthcare aswell. Healthcare is a particular issue and one of thethings they have managed to do is put in a new routeto a hospital, which is helping to save the NHS somemoney locally.Mark Lazarowicz: A new what, route?Dearbhla Lawson: A new route. It extended the routeto the hospital, which has helped to save the NHS. Soit is thinking about the wider public sector pocket,essentially.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I have to talk about two,but very quickly, if I may. We are very proud to kickoff WorkWise in the UK and all of the PTEs replicatedthat scheme—a scheme that worked very closely withJobcentre Plus. This is not Transport Authority-led.This is about working closely with Jobcentre Plussupporting unemployed people, accessing interviewsand accessing employment opportunities. We havenow secured support from the operators, funding halfof the ticket first, which is a success in terms ofgetting the private sector to also contribute to theethos of access and barriers to employment. We arealso working with RNIB, the National Institution forthe Blind, in helping blind people to become moreindependent in the way they live and to get to jobs,access to services and so on. We have launched awhole new campaign of travel training in regard tothat. We have many examples. I would just love tohave the time to tell you, but we are happy to sendyou the information.Chair: We are happy to receive it in writing, if youare inclined to do that.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: Okay.John Smith: Again, building on what María wassaying, the scheme that we have in particular,Transport Solutions, building on from our successfulWorkWise programme; working with particularly hard

to reach workers, residents and Merseyside, enablingthem to gain access to employment; and training,through the provision of free bicycles, scooter hire,which we have now teamed up with local creditunions, so at the end of the six-month loan, they arein a position to buy them. We do travel passes. We doneighbourhood travel teams. We do independent traveltraining. Yes, lots and lots of examples that we cansend in to you.

Q100 Mark Lazarowicz: Do you think examples ofgood practice/best practice—you have shown us otherones—are sufficiently well shared among authoritiesand the professions? Should more be being done byDfT or is there sufficient best practice sharing throughthe professional organisations or whatever? Could itbe improved?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: At the moment we arelucky that we have PTEG to bring us all together.We meet regularly. It does not include the other localauthorities, which is a shame and sometimes the ruralelement can add value to the metropolitan/urbanscenario.

Q101 Mark Lazarowicz: That is the PTEs, is it?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: Yes, that is right. So PTEsdo get together and we do our very best to lobby theDfT, to raise awareness with the Department ofHealth, the Department for Work and Pensions. At themoment it is down to our own initiative and beingproactive. There is just nothing there that encouragesthat debate from the Department of Health to happenwith transport authorities.

Q102 Mark Lazarowicz: To take you away fromPTEs, what about those who are not in PTEs? Is theresufficient best practice being shared there?Dearbhla Lawson: For me, coming to this morerecently, I think I would like to see more of thatbecause I think we are all facing a more difficultfinancial climate at the moment. We need to look athow we can have better demand response of transport,thinking about accessibility locally. The more we canshare best practice among the authorities and bodiesthe better, because it is not a “one size fits all” andthere will be different things that work in differentareas; so, yes, please.Chris Briggs: Again, there used to be Governmentsupport through regional accessibility forums andoffices, which used to be helpful for that, but theyseem to have disappeared now. Yes, it would be morehelpful to have.

Q103 Mark Lazarowicz: Given they havedisappeared, nothing has replaced them yet?Chris Briggs: No.

Q104 Mark Lazarowicz: One brief question if I can,just a slightly different issue: when you areconsidering measures to improve accessibility, how doyou take into account carbon emissions? Do youactively favour low-carbon alternatives, and how?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: You have heard of theLocal Sustainable Transport Fund, which was one ofthe funds that I would like to praise DfT for in terms




of the nature and the flexibility that has given us toimplement and to roll out some of the initiatives thatwe have done. It brings together the whole idea ofaccessibility planning with the low carbon agenda; soreducing the need to travel and what measures youcould introduce to tackle social exclusion, while at thesame time encouraging people to use sustainabletravel means like cycling, information, work fromhome, flexible working. That is a fund that the DfThas allowed us to have access to that had that bit offlexibility and revenue source for us to implement it.It is a broadly smart choices so it is very much gearedtowards low carbon, yes.

Q105 Dr Offord: There has been a reduction in theamount of Government grant given to providers oftransport and local authorities, but there has also beenthe elimination of ring-fenced budgets as well as that.My question is: how has that affected your provisionof services and particularly in your consideration ofthe possible changes? How is accessibility includedin that?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: That is a very goodquestion. Who wants to go first?Chris Briggs: I am happy to go first. Yes, reductionsin Government grants obviously has a knock-on effectto most areas within local authorities and in my areawhere I provide a lot of things with the accessibility,provide support for bus services where they are notcommercially viable, that particular budget was hit bya considerable amount. However, where money is sentfor transport my authority has always been prettygood at passporting it straight to transport issues andnot using it for other things. So that has always beenvery positive within the authority. Of course, when thebig cut came we all had to take a little bit of that.We did give a lot of consideration of accessibilitywhen making the decisions. We made sure that therewas no area within the county that was left withoutany form of service that would get them to the healthservice or the shops and so on. What it did mean wasconsiderable loss of weekend and evening services,which I think really affects the young quite a lot,because that is the time when they want access toservices to get to the local town or village.One of the things we have done, though, is use a verysmall amount of capital money—this has proved to bevery successful and, again, this answers a couple ofquestions you asked earlier about carbon—on whatwe call a rural gain grant whereby if a local shop, inorder to survive, needs to extend its facilities we willgive a 50/50 grant. They provide 50% and we provide50%. That has proved very good at maintainingvillage shops and pubs within smaller areas, therebyallowing people to access those facilities without theneed to travel and producing carbon.Dearbhla Lawson: Yes, in terms of the lack offunding or reduced funding, it does impactundoubtedly and tough decisions have to be taken.Like my colleague here, I know one of the areas againwe had to look at was the amount of money that hasbeen spent on subsidised bus services in ourauthority—a difficult decision. What we are lookingat is £2.7 million having to be reduced over time. £1.5million is now been invested to develop a programme

across the area where we are having to look atremoving the subsidised bus services, but putting inplace a programme; working much more directly withthe local community to understand what is appropriateand what is value for money, because we are havingto think about targeting investment that is going todeliver real benefits and real outcomes for thecommunity. There are lessons learnt about that, andwe are thinking about how that can be rolled out. Thatis under way at the moment, putting in place thatprogramme.We have had some good input from local communitiesand good support. They recognise that we have to dothe best in terms of the limited money that we haveand deliver the best services that we can, so I thinkthat there is some positive work going on thinkingabout accessibility. Some services will remain muchas they are but with a reduced programme. Others weare looking at: dial-a-ride or looking at mini buses orcommunity car schemes. There are a range ofopportunities being looked at, and we are also lookingat whether there are innovative approaches aroundfranchises as well, but I think some of that will requiresubsidy to get it started. It is looking long-term to howwe can deliver more sustainable transport solutionsacross the county, particularly those rural areas wherethere is not the commercial viability there currently.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I would just add bussubsidy is definitely an issue. Ring and Ride: we havethe biggest Ring and Ride service in the UK, andevery year we get challenged about how much moneywe spend on it, the amount of use—is it worth it, canwe use the money elsewhere? Ring and Ride servicesare always in the hot spot every year for the levydiscussions. Concessionary fares are also becoming ahot topic on an annual basis, in terms of: do we haveto pay 100% of subsidy to OAPs? What about thestudents? What about the job seekers? Who pays forNEETs? Who pays for the disabled? Is that somethingthat the Department should pick up for the workprogramme? All of that debate always happens. Someclarity and some joined thinking about how we mightmake the most of all those resources would be useful.Centro, from the moment of the SEU report, identifiedand allocated through the levy a fund, which we calledthe Social Inclusion Fund—now the TransportRegeneration Fund—a very small amount of money,but we wanted that flexibility to work with all thedifferent Departments: Health, Education, JobcentrePlus, and we have worked with over 120 organisationsduring the last 10 years. That fund has enabled us todo all sorts of piloting ideas, like WorkWise andothers that we mentioned earlier. Again, that fundevery year gets reewduced; now it is reduced to aminimum of £50K, although it has been successful inattracting a lot of funding—over £2 million from othersources of funding. That again has helped in terms ofworking with other agencies. However, because thatis reducing, the capability of our officers to doanything on accessibility planning is non-existent.John Smith: I would completely agree witheverything that has been said. Again, in terms of bussubsidy, I do not think we can assume any longer thatmore and better bus services are necessarily the




answer. We need to look at new ways of making ourfunding work in a more cost-effective manner.

Q106 Chair: Are you doing that?John Smith: It is certainly something that we arelooking at doing. With PTEs, we are slightly immunefrom what has happened within the local authoritiesbecause of the way we are funded through the levy.But I think, moving forward, we have to be realisticenough to know that change is going to come and theway we provide tendered services is certainly goingto change. We need to look at new ways of how wecan deliver accessibility improvements. Again, it isonly by better planning for new developments orservice reorganisations that we can start to developlooking at delivering a joint approach that deliversacross a number of different policy agendas throughimproved accessibility.For example, if you take the view of a route of aschool, we are not going to put in a school bus in butwe are going to improve the footpaths and put a cyclelane in. You get sustainable access. You also havemore people walking and cycling, which starts toaddress the obesity agenda. You are improving localair quality, which is again reducing carbon emissions.You are arguably going to improve road safety inperhaps an area where KSIs are slightly higher. Youcan start to see that by doing that what could berelatively small-scale interventions and the cumulativeeffect of those has a much bigger impact on the localcommunity in terms of improving accessibility.

Q107 Dr Offord: I hope I know the answer in regardto local authorities, having been a former councillormyself, but, particularly to Ms Machancoses and MrSmith, I want to ask you about spending cuts and howyou gauge, consult, whatever, with those people whoare directly affected through a reduction inaccessibility.John Smith: We have customer forums. We have onein each of the Merseyside districts, so there are fivein total. Anything in terms of a change, in terms ofbus service cuts, any cut that will happen, we will takeinto those forums and consult with the relevant groupsaccordingly. We also have a Community PartnershipsTeam that goes out and works quite closely with localcommunities in terms of how transport impacts ontheir lives and how any funding cuts that are going tocome about will impact on their lives. We very muchhave a bottom-up approach, in terms of ourengagement with the community. We have quiteextensive links with lots of different groups andorganisations that help develop our plans.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: We are completely thesame. We do invest a lot of time on publicconsultation. For instance, we have spent almost eightmonths now talking to Ring and Ride users, as wellas on potential users that are not using it at themoment. Trying to identify and justify the businesscase for keeping such a service alive, but we do havea lot of forums at district level that engage us with allsorts of sectors. The danger is every year spendingcuts materialise, and we need to justify a budget forthe following year; communication/engagement,budgets are very easy to cut. That exposure and that

engagement with communities, which are the onesthat bring you the evidence or information we need interms of accessibility, are now at risk in that sense.

Q108 Dr Offord: Just very quickly, what concernsme is you said about you consult with variousorganisations. When you look at social exclusion, forexample, many of those people who are sociallyexcluded are not the ones who are ordinarily orregularly consulted on issues such as the accessibilityand bus services. Would you accept that they probablyfall out of that consultation?Maria-Pilar Machancoses: I completely agree.However, the only way we can do this is to engagewith those organisations that work on the hard toreach. We have done projects with organisations suchas Mind. We have also done projects with Nacro (anorganisation that deals with young people withbehaviour problems, homeless, and these arevulnerable people that are out there. We are trying toengage with all types of groups and diverse peoplein society.John Smith: We absolutely do the same. Oneparticular group that we have is the Liverpool CityRegion Child Poverty Commission, which has allkinds of links with particularly hard to reach groupsaround the child poverty agenda. We have one of ourelected members as part of that commission. FrankField MP, who is my MP, has a particular interest inthis area. I think he drives it forward well, and it isFrank that we have to thank for having transport andaccessibility as part of that. We try all the time toforge links with those particularly hard-to-reachpeople.

Q109 Dr Offord: I will move over to the localauthority side and Dearbhla. I understand you havemade some cuts recently. You have cut from £3million and you are using that £1 million to try andencourage community groups, the third sector andothers to come forward.Dearbhla Lawson: Yes.

Q110 Dr Offord: You mentioned in yourintroduction that you try to put resources as wellwhere there were winners and losers. What are yourcriteria for identifying a winner and a loser?Dearbhla Lawson: I do not think I used those wordsparticularly, but we have to be clear here. We have toidentify priorities and think about targeting where weare going to make a difference and think about theoutcomes we want to achieve for our communities. Inareas where there is particular deprivation, thinkingabout how we can improve access to opportunities toeducation, to jobs. I mentioned the Fenland AccessGroup there. We are working also in a lot of markettowns, thinking about how we can developcommunity hubs; and outreach work as well. It isthinking about different options for different areas ofthe county, because we have a large rural county andwe need to think differently for different places.The LSTF enables us to focus on the key economiccorridors, the A14 and the A10, so we are able tothink about improving access for cycling and walking,as well as buses, along those routes. It is trying to




target investments that will help us to deliverimproved access to jobs and improve life chances.That is what we are thinking about. We are alsoinvesting in rail. One of the things we are doing istaking forward a new science park station and thatwill improve access to the north of the county as well,a long-held ambition. Thinking about theinfrastructure that we have, making the most of that,and getting it more integrated to improve access forlocal communities.I am not sure I am answering what you asked me.About benefits, we are trying to look at how we canprioritise against supporting economic growth,looking at the prosperity; also how we can help peoplelead independent and healthy lives, and alsosupporting the vulnerable. Those are three majorpriorities across our local authority. That drives whatwe do.

Q111 Dr Offord: As part of your reductions—and Iaddress this to Mr Briggs as well—you are very keento use the voluntary private third sector. Do you thinkthey are able to assist? Do you think they canundertake that role?Dearbhla Lawson: We need to work with them andlook at how we can better engage with the hard-to-reach groups. There are some very good examples ofgood work going on in the local communities, but itdoes take time to develop that and we need to workwell with the voluntary sector and the communityrepresentatives, and we need to review that over timebecause what is right now may change over time.There are complex travel patterns and we need to lookat accessibility over time. It is a relationship overtime, to make sure that we are addressing needs overtime.Chris Briggs: Yes. In some pockets, we have verygood volunteer sectors and provision of communitytransport and volunteer car schemes. My only concernon that is that it often relies on one or two key people,and should they retire or whatever then we do havecertain problems and issues. We do work with themvery closely, and we are using the Government money

that came through for community transport to developcommunity transport even stronger, because I think interms of rurality it is a key issue. If we can build onthat, that will certainly help to fill some of the gaps,and hopefully the weekend and evening gaps, and getsome of our young people able to go into the nearesttowns to access facilities there. Yes, I would say it ispatchy, but we are working with them and trying touse what funding we have to develop that.

Q112 Peter Aldous: I was going to have a quick talkon your views on the Local Sustainable TransportFund, which there was a slight thumbs up on, and therural authorities. I want to ask a particular question.The authorities have made broadband bids. Wasaccessibility part of those bids? That is just very,very quickly.Chair: We will perhaps ask Centro to just respondvery quickly on local sustainable transport because Ithink you had an issue—didn’t you?—about accessto funding.Maria-Pilar Machancoses: Yes. As I said, theparameters, the guidance on how to apply for it, werevery flexible, very engaging. That helps because, aswe say, all the issues are different in different areas.We were very pleased with the way it was approached.We too benefited from using accessibility and socialinclusion issues on those corridors as well. Not onlyare we encouraging safe and sustainable travel choiceslike cycling and walking; we are saying, “Along thosecorridors, which are the difficult “hard to reach”groups, what are the employment figures in that area?What are the local facilities in the area? What are theydoing to promote access,” and that sort of thing. Sowe are bringing it in. [Interruption.] Sorry, it is veryunfortunate.Chair: I am very sorry but we have a division in theHouse of Commons. I can assure you that, on thequestions that we have just asked, you will be able toperhaps write us formal written answers. But for now,I must bring proceedings to a conclusion. Thank youso much for your time.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o003_th_HC 570-iii CORRECTED.xml


Wednesday 13 February 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter AldousNeil CarmichaelMartin CatonZac Goldsmith

________________


Witnesses: David McVean, Deputy Director, Education Choice and Access Division, Department forEducation, Flora Goldhill CBE, Director for Children, Families & Maternity and Health Inequalities, and PaulWilliams, Work Services Director for Southern England, Department for Work and Pensions, gave evidence.

Q113 Chair: I would like to begin our session bywelcoming each of you. We want to have a look atthis whole issue of accessibility. It was very importantto our Committee that we had representatives fromdifferent Government Departments to see how wecould get this cross-cutting agenda under scrutiny.In thanking all of you for coming along, we thoughtwe would give you an opportunity to answer some ofthe academics who have been saying that only verymodest progress has been made on improvingtransport accessibility to public services since theMaking the Connections report.I would like to know, from each of your differentDepartments, what kind of priority is given to this atthe very top executive level and, basically, how areyou making sure that this is an issue that is oneverybody’s agenda and what progress has been made.Ms Goldhill, would you like to start?Flora Goldhill: Clearly, access to services is veryimportant. It is one of the social aspects that helpspeople live their lives well. In anything that we doaround health services what we need to be thinkingabout is patient and public views about what theythink they need from services.The view we take is that is the very broadest range ofactivities in respect of what makes for a good patientexperience. As we work through the NHS reforms andset up Public Health England, we think there is afantastic opportunity for local integration, betterplanning of services, so that when commissioners arecommissioning health services they are taking accountof other planning issues, and when planners areplanning to do things like new bus routes and so on,they are thinking about the service issues.We see the imminence of health and wellbeing boardsas playing a big role in bringing that all together atlocal level through joint health and wellbeingstrategies, which will be built on an assessment oflocal need. By that I mean local need in the broadestsense, taking account of the social issues that affectpeople in terms of their health as well as the healthissues themselves.

Q114 Chair: In view of that, is there guidance thatyou give to health and wellbeing boards?Flora Goldhill: I have brought for you, and I willleave for the Committee, some guidance that we sentout last year, via the Local Government Associationin partnership with the Department of Health, that

Mark LazarowiczCaroline LucasCaroline NokesDr Matthew Offord

provided advice on how to go about creating a goodjoint strategic-needs assessment and a health andwellbeing strategy.Chair: I am talking about accessibility specifically.Flora Goldhill: It talks about transport as part of that.It talks about going much more widely than thesekinds of approaches to planning have gone in the past,particularly in respect of health, and taking account oftransport is specifically mentioned in this guidance.

Q115 Chair: How will you measure how they thentake that up or how the rest of the NHS takes it up?Flora Goldhill: The measures of success in the futurewill be based on the NHS outcome measures and thepublic-health outcome measures, but local areas canalso introduce local outcome measures. Public HealthEngland and the NHS Commissioning Board will beputting out—and I think they have already done this—lots of data helping local authorities analyse therequirements, particularly in relation to health, acrossthe whole of their patches. If they see particularissues, they can create local indicators that will dealwith things like accessibility. It may not be in everyarea there is an accessibility problem, but where thereis an accessibility problem they can create a localindicator.Chair: I am not getting the sense that access by wayof transport, easy access to difference health services,is embedded in the way there will be service delivery.Flora Goldhill: If I can then go on to who is on thehealth and wellbeing boards, which are critical tocreating these joint strategic needs assessments andthe health and wellbeing strategies, there will be theDirector for Public Health, the CCGs and the localauthority planners.

Q116 Chair: I am sorry, you are misunderstandingme. That is not addressing the question that I amasking. How is Government measuring this wholeissue of accessibility? How are you using theDepartment for Transport’s guidance or the statisticsthat they produce? Are you incorporating them intothe framework of policy?Flora Goldhill: If we have not already done it, I thinkit is something we should certainly do.Chair: You haven’t already done it?Flora Goldhill: I would need to check whether that ispart of the data that has been put out. I think it issomething that we would certainly want to see put out

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o003_th_HC 570-iii CORRECTED.xml


13 February 2013 David McVean, Flora Goldhill CBE and Paul Williams

there, which will inform how people bring togetherthose assessments. The answer to your question is ifit is not there, it ought to be.

Q117 Chair: But given that the public health boards,because they were the ones you mentioned, are now,in most cases, out to consultation about what theirstrategy plan should be, isn’t it a little bit late to thinkthat they should be using the Department forTransport’s statistics and so on in how they frame thenew services?Flora Goldhill: These needs assessments will becontinuously refreshed, and they will be kept up todate. As we collect new evidence about what works,Public Health England will put that out to localauthorities. There will be a continuing opportunity tobring into these assessments and these plans activitiesto improve accessibility.

Q118 Chair: Okay; thank you. Just before I moveto your colleagues, if I may just ask—you have notmentioned hospitals. One of these statistics that we dohave from the Department for Transport is thataccessibility to hospitals is significantly worsening,and I think we have seen some of those concernsexpressed in debates in the House recently. Do youknow why that is, and are you concerned about it?Flora Goldhill: We have spoken to the Departmentfor Transport about that, and they have done someanalysis about that. I think the point that you may wellwant to make to me is: shouldn’t we be doing theanalysis? I think we will take that away and look atit, but obviously this data needs to be understood atlocal level. It could be that services are reconfigured.It could be that transport services are changed. Weneed to understand what is causing that change,particularly at local level, so it can be acted on at locallevel. It may not be a systemic problem, but it maybe. If it is a systemic problem, then clearly we in theDepartment are responsible for helping to get it sorted.

Q119 Chair: I could just turn, first of all, to MrMcVean. In terms of the Education Department, itwould be helpful to know how you are measuringaccessibility. We will come on to some very detailedquestions on this, but, just in terms of the overallDepartment’s priority, is this something that is onMinisters’ radar? Is this something that is in everypolicy decision that is being made, how to make sureeducation services are accessible, and how do youmeasure it?David McVean: Good afternoon, Chair. Yes, itcertainly is something that is very high on Ministers’mindsets. Does it feed its way into every single policydecision? Well, not every single one, because notevery policy decision has a direct impact onaccessibility. I will also say the Department is goingthrough a process at the moment of changing the waythat services are accessed in education.Previously, schools were maintained by the localauthority. We are currently going through a process ofturning schools into autonomous units so that they canbe the access point themselves directly for thoseservices. Rather than having a one-fits-all approach toaccess, what we are hoping is that by deregulating

quite extensively—and we have removed somethinglike 20,000 pages of guidance, not all of it aroundaccessibility—by giving localities, if I put it that way,rather than just schools, the freedom to innovate, weare beginning to see some of that, and that will go on.

Q120 Chair: How does that improve access by wayof transport?David McVean: There is a lot of money spent by localauthorities in bussing children from their home totheir school and back again—something in the regionof £1 billion. If I give one example: our programmeto set up free schools, where we now have the first 83schools. We are moving the schools to where thedemand is, rather than moving the child to where theservice is.Chair: Sorry, 83 for the whole of the country?David McVean: At the moment. There are another100 or so in train. In that deregulation process whatwe have removed are the barriers to letting some ofthose schools expand; so, you increase the scale andthe size of the service at the locality, rather thanhaving to create whole new service units in areaswhere there is not demand. Certainly accessibility isvery strong.

Q121 Chair: How do you measure it?David McVean: We look at things like take-up. Forexample, in early years the take-up for three and four-year-olds, which is a universal offer not a compulsoryoffer, is 96%. Therefore, you infer from that thatparents have no difficulty in accessing that.We don’t have a range of specific access measures.What we are looking at is accountabilities. Of course,one of the distinctions between health and educationis that we are dealing largely with children who mustattend—so that compulsory-age element means it isnot an optional service. It is a service they must flowthrough. We are looking at how easy that is.You asked about guidance. In our guidance, we havea presumption, for example, against the closure of arural school, which is something that many localauthorities find quite difficult because, of course, ifyou close a rural school, you do reduce access. So,much more of our decision—

Q122 Chair: How is that different from closing anurban school where people might have less access justbecause they cannot afford the bus fare or there isn’ta public-transport route? How you measure that? Thatis what I want to know. How do you measure access?David McVean: I think I will have to take that oneaway. I don’t think we have what you would regardas a suite of measures on access.Chair: So, you do not have specific measures like—David McVean: We look at a range of issues.

Q123 Caroline Nokes: I think you might have justmanaged to identify the answer, but you specificallyreferred to free schools. When you agree to a freeschool being set up, you said that you measuredwhether it was accessible by whether there wasdemand for it. Is there any measure by which you lookat the location and demand for a free school and workout whether this was the most convenient site for

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o003_th_HC 570-iii CORRECTED.xml



wherever the organisation setting it up wanted to putit, or do you look at how accessible that is likely tobe for the pupils that might go there?David McVean: It is both. We look at the levels ofdemand that the proposers for the free school arecoming forward with and saying, “We believe there isenough demand for X number of pupils in this area”.Before the Secretary of State approves thatapplication, we go through a transport assessment.The transport assessment looks at a range of aspects.These are generally drawn up by specialist consultantsfor the Department, and they look at levels of demandand accessibility by public transport. They look atprojected levels of transport in the area before theschool and after the school. They also look and advisethe Department and the proposers for the free schoolon what sort of mitigation measures might benecessary to ensure that it is accessible and it is areasonable cost.

Q124 Chair: I think it would be helpful to have aperspective from DWP in terms of how you measureaccessibility in terms of your customers. “Customers”is not the right word—claimants.Paul Williams: Certainly, Chair, and thank you verymuch for inviting me. Accessibility to our services isthrough a wider range of media than simply traditionalJobcentres. We use the internet. We use telephones.We have a DWP visiting service that will call wherea customer can’t engage with us any other way. Howdo we measure—Chair: Sorry, can I just interrupt? On that, do youalways use the cheaper telephone rates? Is there anissue about people being able to afford to make thephonecalls through to DWP?Paul Williams: We have preferred channels. We willencourage claimants to use the channel that is mostconvenient for them at the time they are making it. Iwill give you an example: if a claimant wants to makea new claim to JSA, they will dial our 0800 number,which is free, and they will have that conversationwith the telephone operator and we will take theirclaim.

Q125 Chair: There is not an issue about the cost ofphone calls for claimants?Paul Williams: No, but our preference is for thatclaimant to make their claim online via our onlineservice and use the internet at a time that is convenientto them. You asked about measurement. We willmeasure the operational performance, and we getcustomer feedback on our service lines; so, we getcustomer feedback on our Benefit Advisory Serviceand our JSA online service. We will measure howquickly our phone calls are answered.We also hold a customer survey each year where wetest how well we are doing against the commitmentin the DWP customer charter, and one of thosecommitments is about easy access. In 2011 the JCPcustomer survey found that 81% of Jobcentre Pluscustomers had no problem accessing the service.

Q126 Chair: I do not know if you have alreadyprovided it to us, but it might be helpful to see thatresponse you have had. In terms of how you measure

as well, one of the issues that we are looking at in thisinquiry is about social inequality; that is, in a rural oran urban area. I think one of the issues that I wouldbe interested to know more about is this assumptionthat everyone is going to be making online claims.Paul Williams: For Universal Credit.Chair: Therefore, how much does your policy giveflexibility to those funding the service to help people,who might not necessarily at this stage be online, tonot only get online but to have the skills to get online?Paul Williams: We will make provision for peoplewho find it difficult to get online. Currently, inJanuary, 51% of our new JSA claims were madeonline. That is approximately 150,000 people. A yearago that equivalent figure was 25–26%. Our ambition,prior to Universal Credit, is to move online take-up to80%. That is the ambition.

Q127 Chair: What about the remaining 20% of thosewho are not online? Is there going to be extra helpand support in the locality for those people?Paul Williams: DWP people will support customerseither by sign-posting to local providers who can helpwith availability of internet or IT skills, UK Onlineand libraries, but also in Jobcentres we have internetaccess devices. So, we will be able to helpcustomers—for example, those who want to set uptheir Universal Jobmatch account or those whostruggle to make a new claim online. There has beena recent announcement about Universal Credit interms of the Department working closely with localauthorities and contracting for some support servicesto provide that extra help for customers who need itto go online.

Q128 Caroline Nokes: Just following up on that,how easy it is for the online application process to becompleted by claimants who have particularly poordownload speeds and broadband connectivity?Paul Williams: It is a factor, and it is easier where wehave superfast broadband, but 51% of all our newclaims in January were made online. Customers havethe advantage of being able to do that in theconvenience of their own homes at a time that wouldsuit them. Take-up is increasing quickly.

Q129 Caroline Nokes: While I appreciate your pointabout take-up increasing, do you not think that itdiscriminates quite clearly against those who mightlive in rural areas where there are very poor downloadspeeds and the added problem of very poor publictransport? They could not get into the Jobcentre tocomplete it online in the Jobcentre; so, it is almost adouble whammy of inaccessibility.Paul Williams: I partially agree. I cover the south ofEngland so Devon, Cornwall and Wiltshire arefamiliar to me. I mean, we have superfast broadbandin Cornwall.Caroline Nokes: Not in Wiltshire.Paul Williams: I would say that if I am living in arural location, Universal Jobmatch or the ability to jobsearch online is a real boon. I am sorry; I forgot thefirst part of your question.Caroline Nokes: I just said in the rural areas you areleast likely to have remotely fast broadband and, of




course, you have the double whammy of having pooraccess to public transport, so you cannot get into theJobcentre either.Paul Williams: We can help with getting to theJobcentre, and perhaps I will have an opportunity toexplain some of the things that we can do in thatregard.Chair: We will look at that in a bit more detail.Paul Williams: All I would say is online access isclearly better for the citizen where they are able to doit—and better for the taxpayer. I think it is also betterfor individuals and for our communities. As part ofUniversal Credit, the organisations that contract toprovide those support services for IT will also helpclaimants use Skype properly to keep in touch withtheir grandchildren and to do their shopping online. Ithink there is a social good that is an important by-product of what we are doing.

Q130 Chair: Does the DWP make use of thestatistics produced by the Department for Transport?Paul Williams: I am not aware that we do, but it isinteresting that the 83%, which I think is theaccessibility of employment centres, is similar to the81% that our customer satisfaction surveys aretelling us.

Q131 Dr Offord: Good afternoon. Who in yourrespective Departments is accountable for access totransport?David McVean: In my division, we have policy andresponsibility for home to school transport policy, butit is very much about setting a policy framework thatlocal authorities and schools operate within. As I saidearlier, that has been deregulated. Obviously, I have adirector and a director-general and we continue tolook at statistics on how—the Chair mentioned socialinequality earlier.We are very interested in figures on how low-incomefamilies particularly fare in terms of attainment andof how they are supported by local authorities in termsof home to school funding. As I said earlier, we aremoving away from a top down metric monitoringDepartment to very much a deregulation Departmentand letting localities come up with the solutions thatbest fit their needs. Our Secretary of State oftendescribes it is having greater autonomy locally butmuch sharper accountability.

Q132 Dr Offord: Who is it accountable to?David McVean: Well, ultimately we have a board anda set of Ministers and they are the ones who dictatethe strategic direction for the Department. Clearly atthe moment we are very much looking at all aspectsof access, whether that be for gifted and talentedchildren or, as I said, low-income families. We wantevery child to thrive, so our approach is we eitherincrease the quality of the local schools, we bring innew providers, or we create the innovations that allowsome of what was getting in the way of access.For example, when local authorities are doing theirprocurement—and we might come on to this later inthe efficiency and practice review that we have beenholding—one of the things we found there was thattheir procurement, driven by value for money and

driven by the need to find savings, has led to acontract that is so tight that the bus must turn up at3.05 pm. If that bus does not leave at 3.06 pm, thenthe bus company—you get into that level of micro-management. What that means is that our children,particularly in rural areas, who might benefit fromextracurricular activity, hence the accessibility for us,are losing out on that because they have to get the bushome. There is no other way of getting home.

Q133 Dr Offord: Are you saying the educationaccess and choice division are responsible fortransport accessibility?David McVean: That is part of my policyresponsibility, yes.Dr Offord: All right; okay. Thank you.Flora Goldhill: Could I link the question to reducinghealth inequalities and the social determinants ofhealth to the Michael Marmot review, which made itclear how all of these things interacted? What we havein the Health and Social Care Act is the duty on all ofus in the Department of Health, and a duty on theNHS Commissioning Board and ClinicalCommissioning Groups, to have regard to reducinginequities.I think that is about analysing different approaches,different policies down to different activities at locallevel, and thinking about the impact that they have ongroups of people. We all have a duty to have regardto reducing health inequalities, and then interpretingthat into what that means locally by particularcommissioning groups and so on is done, obviously,at a local level. One of the duties on ClinicalCommissioning Groups is to ensure that the provisionof health services is integrated with the provision ofhealth-related services. Health-related services wouldinclude services that get people to healthcare facilities.We all have that duty in the Department of Health.

Q134 Dr Offord: How do you exercise thataccountability?Flora Goldhill: The Act is something that we are allturning our minds to at the moment. The Secretary ofState will have to prepare a report on how theDepartment has regard to the duty. The NHSCommissioning Board also has a responsibility toproduce a report about how it is taking action toreduce health inequalities. The Department will thentake a view on what the Commissioning Board isdoing. The methodologies behind that are all beingdeveloped at the moment.

Q135 Dr Offord: Can I bring you back though totransport accessibility, rather than health inequalities?You are saying the Secretary of State is responsiblefor that?Flora Goldhill: In as much as it is linked to reducinghealth inequality. We all have the responsibility forworking out what things we should be taking actionon that would reduce health inequality, andaccessibility where it is appropriate would be one ofthem.Dr Offord: I am still not entirely sure, because Iwould not have imagined that would be a role for theSecretary of State.




Flora Goldhill: That specific role on accessibility isnot what I am talking about. I am talking about, asyou analyse, “What are the actions that we need to betaking across the healthcare system to make surepeople can access the services they need, and,breaking that down into local action, what things dowe have to do to make sure people can get to healthservices in this location?” It is about looking at it asan integral part of reducing health inequalities.Dr Offord: We will move on to the DWP.Paul Williams: The Director-General for Operationsis responsible for delivery of DWP’s services to thepublic and responsible for the customer service. OurDirector-General for Strategy is responsible for theOffice for Disability Issues, which has an importantcross-Government interest in accessibility issues forpeople with disabilities. So, it is those twoaccountabilities.

Q136 Dr Offord: One of the next questions leadingon from that is: how do you work with otherGovernment Departments to reduce accessibilityissues?Paul Williams: Well, policy change is cleared acrossGovernment through Cabinet committees. Our Officefor Disability Issues has worked with the Departmentof Transport on their recent accessibility action plan,in relation to access for disabled people. So we dowork across Government. We will work with majortransport companies and others engaged in improvingtransport links for individuals.To give an example, we have just completed theGreener Journeys campaign in January whereJobcentre Plus worked with major bus companies—Arriva, First, Stagecoach, National Express—and welaunched Bus for Jobs across the whole of the country.That offered free bus travel in January to holders ofJCP’s travel discount card. Initial estimates are thatsomewhere in the region of 45,000 free bus journeyswere made, with particularly high take-up in thenorth-east. We will work with GovernmentDepartments and we will work with Department forTransport, but we will also work with providers in thelabour market.

Q137 Dr Offord: What about the other twoDepartments?David McVean: Again, I would echo of what Paulhas said. We work very closely, obviously, with theDepartment of Transport, particularly on active traveland sustainable travel initiatives. We would work withDWP. For example, we have been rolling out the Pupilpremium to schools for the last couple of years. Weare working very closely on that. We may come on tothat a bit later on perhaps. But we also work withlocal government as well. I know that wasn’t part ofyour question, but we work very closely with the localgovernment to understand—Dr Offord: Another arm of Government is the localgovernment.David McVean: Indeed. We would work withEnvironment. We would work with DCMS on accessto sporting issues as well. We work very closely withother—

Q138 Dr Offord: Do you have any examples fromDCMS in particular?David McVean: It is not my particular area, but I doknow that we’ve been working closely with DCMSon the sport legacy following from the Olympics, andI know colleagues are working on announcementsaround that as well. From my division, we have beenfeeding odd bits and pieces into that around how thetransport would—

Q139 Chair: What does it consist of?David McVean: I am afraid I don’t know, Chair. It isnot something I am close enough to, but I will getsomeone in the Department to send the Committeea note.Dr Offord: Yes, that would be useful.Flora Goldhill: From the Department’s point of view,as the others have said, we work very closely withCLG. Primary care trusts now are a statutoryconsultee for local planning, and that will transfer tothe NHS Commissioning Board and clinicalcommissioning groups from 1 April.We work very closely with the Department forTransport and we published the Active Travel Strategyand National Cycle Plan with them. We also workedwith CLG on the national planning policy frameworkto make sure that it reflected the health dimension. Wealso are working with DCMS on the legacy from theOlympics. In the Department of Health we work veryhard to promote our own agenda around good healthand wellbeing by thinking about it from the dimensionof, “Well, what are they trying to do? How can wecomplement each other?” We are always looking foropportunities to work with other Departments to getthat synergy and join up services and join up thinking.

Q140 Dr Offord: Individually, do you think theDepartment for Transport have championed theaccessibility agenda? Do you think they could bepushing this more or promoting it more?Chair: You can say “yes” or “no”.David McVean: I think it is very difficult. I think ifmoney were no object, then accessibility doesn’tbecome a problem. We made some estimates with theDepartment of Transport when we were looking atsome work we were doing jointly on the YouthParliament, which was a great report was produced bysome very talented young people. But we set a pricetag that none of us in the country could afford tocreate concessions for 16 to 18-year-olds. I do thinkthey push it as hard as they can, but the affordabilityand the economic climate is a severe limitation.

Q141 Dr Offord: I come to my final question. Whatdo you think we all need to ensure greater cost cuttingworking across Government on accessibility? Youmentioned the finance in the Department of Transportand you have also mentioned about the Department ofTransport itself. Are there any other Departments youthink should be involved?Flora Goldhill: I think certainly Communities andLocal Government and the links to local authoritiesand the planning system is a very importantconnection to make. Clearly we all need to be joiningup and thinking about this as a much more holistic




approach to accessibility and how access to one groupof services or facilities can support access to others.Paul Williams: I think the local authorities and thelocal transport teams are critical to engage peoplelocally and support communities that need help themost.David McVean: I would agree with all those points,but the thing I would add is, notwithstanding the pointabout online and access there, having gov.uk as asingle portal for citizens to understand where to getinformation is a step in the right direction. As Florasaid, I think there is more that we could all do totry to channel our communications in a way that iseasily accessible.

Q142 Chair: Just before we move on, in view ofwhat you said about the Youth Parliament and therecommendations they made about concessionarytravel and the importance of travel for young people,do you think that you are accurately, within not justthe Department of Education but across all theDepartments, looking at access particularly for youngpeople? Is that anybody’s responsibility to do that?David McVean: The answer from my Department iscertainly a “yes”. I mean, youth services, whether itis accessibility or education, is almost like the writingon Blackpool rock: it runs through the Department.We are all looking at youth; obviously not in earlyyears, but actually thinking about how they becomeyouths later on. How does that all weave througheverything we do as a Department? We have adirector-general who looks after that sort of area aswell, and he has tried to pull all that together. Yes, Iwould say very much so; young people are very muchpart and parcel of our thinking almost on a day-to-daybasis, going back to your very first question.

Q143 Chair: You mentioned the UK YouthParliament. Have you done a detailed response to howto take their proposals further forward?David McVean: We did. It was led by the Departmentfor Transport, and that was another example of thetwo Departments working together. Again, I canhappily send that to the Committee if you have notseen that.

Q144 Caroline Nokes: It was interesting in youranswers just before now that most of you referred tolocal transport teams. Do you think it is fair to saythat accessibility planning has never really caught onoutside of local authority transport teams, and do yourequire your delivery bodies to consider accessibilitywhen planning health and education or employmentservices?David McVean: We do not have delivery bodies inthat sense now. We used to have something like adozen non-departmental public bodies but, since 2010,we have brought them all in-house and we now havejust three executive agencies. I would have to deferback. We have a Head of Operational Delivery in theDepartment. I do know we think very long and veryhard about how those services are accessed.Primarily, our focus is on—for example, the Standardsand Testing Agency, about how young people get toexams and sit those exams in a secure and safe

fashion. I would need to go back and see exactly howthey deal with the full accessibility issue, but I doknow that they think about rurality and where childrenget to the tests. They have local operational teams, ifI can call them that, and what they do is ensure thatif the child is unable, perhaps due to the weather orperhaps lack of bus services or strikes or any otheraspect, they do make quite bespoke arrangements toensure that the child can still do whatever assessmentor test they are there to do.Paul Williams: Within DWP, Jobcentre Plus districtmanagers have their service delivery plans, and theywill take account of location and accessibility in termsof transport when deciding whether those servicedelivery plans are fit for purpose going forward orhow they could be improved.Flora Goldhill: I would say that there is a bigopportunity to do this better in health when we havethe right people round the table at the health andwellbeing boards. There is a real opportunity to bethinking about transport planning as part of the widerplanning around health services, and health andwellbeing services.

Q145 Caroline Nokes: Is the 2005 guidance from theDepartment of Transport still relevant to yourDepartments and do you use it? I will remind you ofwhat they are called. There is one that is Educationand Accessibility, Health Care and Accessibility, andWelfare to Work and Accessibility, all published in2005.David McVean: In all honesty, I do not read that on adaily basis.

Q146 Caroline Nokes: Is that a no?David McVean: Well, I think it has probablyinfluenced some of it because our policies generally—for example, we have extended rights office for youngpeople. Rather than the statutory walking distances,we fund for them to have a wider choice of servicesand a wider choice of schools.Caroline Nokes: Shall we cut to the chase here? Isthe 2005 guidance out of date? You are allowed tosay yes.Flora Goldhill: If it is not, it would certainly needto be updated, since there has been so much changesince then.

Q147 Caroline Nokes: Finally, do your Departmentshave the capacity to make sure that the accessibilityregime is re-energised and delivered locally?Paul Williams: I think so. That is a “yes” from DWP.We have something called the Flexible Support Fund,which is funding devolved to district managers withinJCP, and I think that that has had a reinvigoratingeffect as opposed to previous schemes—the Travel toInterview Scheme and things like that.Flora Goldhill: I agree. I think this is probablysomething that is making us all think much harderabout accessibility issues, and we will certainly befeeding that back and through into the system.David McVean: Yes, because, as I said before, wewant all our schools to be accessible. We want everychild to thrive, and our job is to give schools theautonomy and the freedom to do the things they need




to do but have that set of measures, and I think weneed to go back and just make sure that we have gotthe right measures for schools.

Q148 Chair: The schools have the funding and thecapacity to do that?David McVean: We have set out that we would beprotecting school funding. Whether they have thecapacity, it is difficult to say, because there are 20,000schools, but we certainly expect them to be thinking—our whole mantra in the Department for Education isthat we will put our trust in schools and theprofessionals to do the right things by their children.

Q149 Caroline Lucas: Turning specifically toeducation now, if that is all right. To some extent youhave already answered this, but do you want to say abit more about at what stage and to what extent doesthe Government consider accessibility when it startsto process an application for a free school?David McVean: Sure. We set out a timetable for whenapplications come to us. There is a pro forma. Thereis a set of criteria that I would be happy to send to theCommittee. They are well publicised. They are on ourwebsite. There are guides and everything for theproposals. When those come in they go through anassessment process, an internal sifting, which looks atthe whole gamut of aspects, including accessibility.You will not be surprised if an education vision playsa very large part, but increasingly the quality of thesponsor of the proposal and the degree of innovationthat they are bringing to the education system, as wellas aspects like value for money, are all part and parcelto be considered.Once we have got down to a point where we think wehave sufficiently credible proposals, then we begin toget into the transport assessments. That takes place aspart of the process of securing planning permissionand a little bit further down the line because, as hasbeen publicised now and again, free schoolsoccasionally have trouble finding a site, particularlyin London. So there is a series of negotiations to gothrough. Almost all will come with a site in mind, butit is then about negotiating with that particular ownerof that site and almost always local authorities.

Q150 Caroline Lucas: I wonder how much weightis given to it in the process. You rightly indicate thatyou are looking at a lot of criteria when you arelooking at an application for a free school. Given thatlocal authorities and not the Department are liable forany statutory school transport costs and therefore thewaiting in terms of the actual costs is not necessarilyin your mind—it is going to be something that thelocal authority has to worry about—is there a risk thatthat whole issue of the siting and the transport is notgiven the due weight that it should be?David McVean: They are certainly given weight.Caroline Lucas: “Due” weight was my question.David McVean: “Due” weight? I am not sure on thatone. We do not sign off on a funding agreement untilwe are satisfied that all the requirements are met. Thefigures I have in front of me say 93% of all freeschools that we have done in the last two years weremajor applications for planning purposes, so they

undergo a transport assessment, which inevitablymeans working with local planning authorities. Thereis a process that we follow through that, using theDepartment for Transport guidance, looking at all thefactors in there. All that plays into a kind of balanced-scorecard approach: not only is this going to addquality to the education in the area, but is it going tobe accessible? Can the children get there without themad school runs that we have seen previously? Allthat is a balanced goal.

Q151 Caroline Lucas: Are there any distances orlengths of time or criteria by which, even if everythingelse was positive about a particular school application,if there was an issue around accessibility you couldenvisage that that would be a sufficient contra-indication, if you like, that would mean it could notgo ahead as it stood?David McVean: We treat each one on a case-by-casebasis. There is no single one fits all. If it is two milesor three miles or a certain volume of traffic, weliterally do each one on a case-by-case basis.

Q152 Caroline Lucas: To give a specific example aswell, one of the issues around free schools, of course,is that they can vary the length of the day—the starttime and the end time. That can cause real problemswhen it comes to a local authority that is trying towork out consistent and coherent transport plans.What impact do you think that is having on statutoryschool transport provision, the fact that free schoolscan vary those start and end times?David McVean: It is not just free schools that can varythat. Most schools have been able to vary that formany years but they have chosen not to, partlybecause the local authority has been the maintainer.Caroline Lucas: Yes.David McVean: This came up from the efficiency andpractice review and some of the discussions I had withlocal authorities and the schools themselves. There arebenefits to varying the school day, and I think it is abit of a mixed bag. We have found, albeit anecdotally,that there are examples where the cost to the localauthority came down because, rather than having abus service that required one bus to be in the twoplaces at once, they were able to stagger the trips abit better and have a reduced cost. The bus providerwas able to pick up one school at 3.05pm and anotherschool down the road at 3.10pm. That staggering ofthe school times I would not say is a done deal. Iwould not say it is finished, but I think it is beginningto show some innovation for the schools and for thelocal authorities.

Q153 Caroline Lucas: You have mentioned that itwas anecdotal. That is quite interesting. Are there anyplans to do something less anecdotal and morerigorous in terms of trying to work out what theimpact of this is, because, as you say, some placesmay gain from it and some may not, but in terms ofgetting a wider picture?David McVean: The efficiency and practice reviewhas taken a lot longer than we anticipated. We havesome interesting case studies and some interestinglearning points coming out of that as well. One of




the big learning points we have identified is that localauthorities do not share practice between themselvesvery well. If one has solved the problem of sessiontimes or has a better procurement process or has founda different way of working with their schools that hassaved money, they are not sharing it very well withone another.Part of what I hope, when we publish the report, isthat we will create an environment where localauthorities do talk to one another. By way of anexample, in the north-east, partly coming out of thereview and the discussions we held, some of theauthorities in the north-east are getting together nowand working collaboratively on their transportstrategies; on how they might create not just five busservices but a single bus service that is much moreflexible and more cost-efficient.As a Department, no; we are trying to become just anenabling Department rather than the directiveDepartment. We create the environment. We willenable the good practice to become more public andhope to sort of compel local authorities a bit more tobe a better procurement source.

Q154 Caroline Lucas: You mentioned the report. Isthat the report that was due in November 2011? If itis, when do you think the most likely date is for itstime of arrival—or is it, like the usual trains fromSussex, not coming at all?David McVean: Soon, I hope. If I might explain, thereason it has taken quite so long is that we started itnot long after local authorities were beginning tocome to terms with their initial budget reductionsfollowing their 2010 election. They were not ready tocome to us and talk about new models and deliveryand about working in partnership.

Q155 Caroline Lucas: Before the summer, wouldyou think?David McVean: Yes, absolutely.

Q156 Zac Goldsmith: I think the current Mayor ofLondon and the previous Mayor of London atdifferent times looked at the possibility of rolling outfor London a kind of US-style yellow school busscheme. Both times I believe that it ended up with theDepartment of Transport and both times I believe itwas ruled out on cost grounds. I have not seen all thedetails, but I am just wondering whether or not—before I go on, I think both Mayors did settle on thebasis that it was a solution to congestion more thananything else, but is that anywhere near the politicalagenda at the moment or has it been struck offentirely?David McVean: At a national level, the yellow busscheme? No, I have not been asked to go away andthink about that. The example I gave about the localauthorities coming together to procure a service acrossa much wider area is certainly one that would—if itsaves money and creates a better service and makesmore accessibility, I think we would want toencourage local authorities, but we would not besaying, “You must do it this way”.

Q157 Zac Goldsmith: Could I ask a slightlydifferent question? I am jumping in, but one of thebiggest concerns raised with me relates to theeducation maintenance of this reduction orreplacement—I think the figure was around £600million before, and it is about £180 million now. It isan alternative scheme, but one of the main concernswas that this was going to inhibit people’s ability totravel to school. There were other issues as well, butthat was the main concern that I think was putforward. Do you think there is a case to be made fortailoring that alternative budget much more closely fortravel needs as opposed to more generic needs that theEMA needs to support?David McVean: £560 million was the last figure forthe EMAs. There is no evidence as yet that it hasactively stopped young people staying on orparticipating, but we are not resting on our laurels. Wehave lodged a review to look at how the bursary isbeing used. The other thing I would say is that one ofmy other responsibilities—Zac Goldsmith: Sorry. Can I ask you, is the bursarygoing to be as generic as the EMA or is it going to bemore tailored around particular uses?David McVean: The bursary allows individualproviders—schools or colleges—to decide whatsupport that young person needs. It is a bit like a pupilpremium. Rather than having a kind of umbrella,“These things must happen”, we are saying both interms of the EMA and the pupil premium, “It is downto you. We will make the money available, such aswe have in the climate, and you then decide whattailoring, whether that is transport or laptops or IT orother aspects”.The other example is that I have spoken to a numberof further-education colleges myself who are activelyputting in their own funding over and above this.Although the bursary is around £180 million, that isprobably not the true figure of support that is goinginto young people because the providers are saying,“This is in our interests to have these young peopleattend”, and they are putting in their own funds aswell.

Q158 Caroline Lucas: You gave a good example oflocal authorities coming together within a region towork out travel plans, and I guess to some extent thatmight lead to a shift to more sustainable transportperhaps, too. But looking at that sustainability issuein particular, are there any more examples that youwould have about how to reduce the pollution andcongestion and parents taking kids to school by carthe whole time? I know for many of us it is somethingthat causes major problems around schools in themornings.David McVean: A couple, if I may; I am sorry tohark back to free schools, but part of the process ofapproving the free school itself is not just a transportassessment but what they tend to flow into is a travelplan for each of the schools, which I believe I made—

Q159 Chair: Can I just check on that? Is thatassessment done by the Department, or is it done bythe school itself?




David McVean: It is done for the school, but we havea set of consultants who work with the school, whowork with the local planning authority. It goes backto your question, “Does the Department have thecapacity to do this?” We have the people, but notnecessarily the skills. We have consultants who comein and draw up these plans on behalf of the proposerso that the local planning authority can haveconfidence that they have been drawn up by credibleindividuals.Those plans have contained within them quite specifictargets around both sustainability and the greenagenda. If I could give you one example, the FreeSchool Norwich. One of their specific targets in theirtravel plan was to reduce car use from 25% of parentsto 10% to 15%—the precise figure escapes me for themoment—and the school is required in their travelplan to monitor this through annual surveys, but notjust reducing car use—they also have targets aroundincreasing cycling or walking, picking up Flora’spoint about the health aspects of this. Those are quitespecific; not nationally driven in the sense of theDepartment dictates, but it is how the whole policyframework is coming together around the free schoolitself.

Q160 Caroline Lucas: I appreciate the example, andit is a good one, but I suppose it just feels that thereis a gap between lots of well-meaning rhetoric up hereand what is happening for most of us seeing it on theground on a daily basis. Maybe it is just a question oftime, I don’t know, but it just feels like it is takingan awful long time to address this, and it cannot bethat difficult.David McVean: I sort of agree with the point, but theDepartment put out something like £108 million onthe sustainable travel plans; that was in a biddingprocess over a number of years, designed to doexactly the thing we had. When we evaluated that in2010 or 2011—I forget the precise date—we only sawa 1% shift in parental attitudes to travel to school.

Q161 Caroline Lucas: Why is that, do you think?Why is it so intractable?David McVean: It may come back to something elsethat we found in the efficiency review. Parents arequite anxious in the modern society about their child’ssafety. We found that some local authority buses werenot up to the standard that parents would want.Seatbelts, for example; although they are required andthe Department for Transport sets out guidance veryclearly for local authorities in their procurement inthat aspect, there is still a kind of mindset amongmany parents. As a parent myself, I fully understandit. “Is my child not just accessing the school, are theygoing to get there and back safely?” I think that is ahard shift to make. I am not sure the national rhetoricwill shift it. It does require the local—

Q162 Caroline Lucas: Maybe it is about integratingwith other plans, isn’t it, like 20-mile-an-hour limitsor the whole wider transport environment is a saferone than—David McVean: Yes, and it is that local decision-making. It is that local influence, the local authorities

and the schools themselves encouraging parents tohave their child walk to school or to cycle to schooland not bring the car.

Q163 Caroline Lucas: I am just mindful of time, sojust a last final question, Chair, was about Sure Start,and concerns that Sure Start centres are consolidatingand some closing altogether. The question is whetheror not the Department is looking at what that meansfor accessibility if those Sure Starts are consolidatingin fewer places.David McVean: When I spoke to my Early Yearscolleagues in advance of this meeting—29 Sure Startcentres have closed, but your point is about themergers and everything else. One of the duties on thelocal authority is about securing sufficient childcare intheir areas. There is guidance we put out that askedthem to look at how parents access those services at areasonable cost. Again, we look to the localauthorities rather than from the Department. We setout statutory guidance, “These are the things weexpect you to look at”, and they are required to reportto the Department annually. We are only just in thatprocess of now looking at those reports and seeingwhat is going on, particularly as we are looking at therollout of the two-year childcare as well. But I wouldalso say that—

Q164 Caroline Lucas: When you are looking at that,will you be looking at it from an accessibilityperspective as well as overall provision?David McVean: I am sure we would be, yes.

Q165 Chair: But how will you be doing that?David McVean: I am not close enough to that. Itcomes back to our central core point, our purpose asthe Department. We want to ensure every childthrives, and if you are spending several hours on thebus there and back every day, there is evidence thatsays that that is not a great environment for the child;never mind the behaviour and discipline aspect thatyou go through. It is not just about settling for themodel we have. We announced a few weeks ago that,apart from looking at Sure Start children’s centres, wewant more schools to become childcare hubs so thatthey are more local for the parents.

Q166 Chair: How are they more local than SureStart centres?David McVean: As local authorities are consolidating,it is possible that those services will be more remotefrom others. Just to give a sense, what we are doingis supporting local authorities through an organisationcalled Achieving Two Year Olds, which helps thelocal authority map where their Sure Start centre isand where their parents are. It does come back toanother theme—I appreciate it is not early years, butit is relevant—that local authorities are quite poor inusing their information: knowing where theirchildren’s centres are, knowing where the childrenlive and knowing where the bus stops are, forexample.Caroline Lucas: It does not sound like rocket science.David McVean: The ironic thing is that all of thatdata is made freely available through the Public Sector




Mapping Agreement to every local authority whowants to use it. When we started the review ontransport in 2010, less than half were aware of it. Partof what we have been doing is making them moreaware of how, for an investment of a few hundredpounds, maybe £1,000, in the software—we do notpurchase that for them—they can begin to makeservices more accessible and still save money. Oneexample, East Riding have, they claim, saved over £1million since 2006 but have still improved their busservice.

Q167 Peter Aldous: Just turning to the Departmentof Health, I think Ms Goldhill will maybe answerthese questions. The new NHS structure: what effectdo you think it is going to have on the way thattransport accessibility is considered?Flora Goldhill: Certainly there is a big opportunityfor that to happen. The Clinical CommissioningGroups will be members of the health and wellbeingboards, where these kinds of things can be discussedand integrated into the planning for health and care,so there is a big opportunity to do this better in thenew system.Another development that I will just mention is theintroduction of Healthwatch England and localHealthwatches. I think we mentioned a few times howimportant it is to get users’ views into servicedevelopment and to get that in from a very early stage.Local Healthwatch will be a conduit for doing that.Local Healthwatch also has a place on the health andwellbeing boards, so they can also bring the patientand community view to bear in the planning process.

Q168 Peter Aldous: Moving on, when decisions arebeing taken on health service reconfigurations—and,for instance, you might look at congenital heartsurgery—what guidance is there to help decision-makers weigh up transport accessibility issues againstimproved health outcomes?Flora Goldhill: The Department has producedguidance on the service reconfiguration. It is calledChanging for the Better, and it does expect everyaspect to be taken into account, includingaccessibility. However, I have to say that the view isthat when reconfiguration issues are considered, thisis not always done as well as it could be. I think thereis a need for a greater focus on the accessibility issues.However, just talking about the children’s heartservices, I do understand that was an issue that wasvery much taken into account before therecommendations were made.

Q169 Peter Aldous: Thank you. If we just move onto public health, what role will the new directors ofpublic health have with regards to transport?Flora Goldhill: The one thing that I pick up in whatDavid was saying—I know Directors of Public Healthwill be passionate about the 20-mile-an-hour speedlimit. There is a huge amount of evidence on how thatsaves lives, and that is exactly the sort of thing thatthey will want to be promoting as employees of thelocal authority. They will be the advocate forimproving public health in local communities, andthey will be the main source of advice to the elected

members on health—so an important role and one thatwe are very excited about. They will be backed up byPublic Health England, who will be putting out asmuch evidence as they can about good practice, whatworks, and making it as accessible as possible to localauthorities with the Director of Public Health in thelead.

Q170 Peter Aldous: When public health directorsare up and running, how do you see the active travelagenda linking to the accessibility agenda?Flora Goldhill: If I can try to link a number of thethings that I have said, it is about what people need;how they access services. It is about their experience.It is about mapping all of that out and bringing ittogether in the assessment of what a local communityneeds, and if things are not working, that is where thefocus should be.If accessibility is a problem, there is a big opportunityfor the Director of Public Health to point out howaccessibility is inhibiting access to services and how,by introducing things that can work better for users,services will deliver better. It goes back to some ofthe things that David has been saying about education.Directors of Public Health are passionate aboutdelivering better health for their communities, just asthe Department is passionate and the NHSCommissioning Board and the CCGs are passionateabout improving health. It is about, from theDepartment’s perspective, through Public HealthEngland, supporting Directors of Public Health withtools, evidence, best practice and that sort of thing.

Q171 Peter Aldous: Given that hospitals are the leastaccessible public service by foot or bicycle, is itpossible to have active travel to hospitals?Flora Goldhill: It would be possible for groups ofpeople to have active travel. There is quite a bigdiscussion to be had around that, because often peoplewho are visiting hospitals are people whose health isnot good, for whom perhaps active travel is not thefirst mode of travel that they would be thinking about.They are often people who are taking children tohospital or who are accompanying older people tohospitals; so, active travel may not be the first port ofcall, so it is important that patient transport systemsdo exist and that the commissioners of services fromhospitals are cognisant of how people are going to getto the services.The other thing that I would just like to mention isthe NHS Constitution, which sets out what people’srights are and people have rights of access totreatment within a certain amount of time. Hospitalsand commissioners will want to deliver those rightsfor patients, but it would be a serious problem forthem if they are in breach of some of the things thatthey are required to do around access.

Q172 Peter Aldous: You beat me to it. I was comingon to the NHS Constitution and the pledge therein,but I don’t think the pledge specifies what it means intransport terms. Can you just elaborate on that?Flora Goldhill: It is not specifically about transport.The access is about waiting times; it is about how longyou have to wait. That is the interpretation of




“access”. That is the explanation that we haveobtained from lawyers. However, in order to deliverthat access, you need accessibility; so I think they gohand in hand.

Q173 Peter Aldous: Have you set maximum traveltimes to get to health services in that or not?Flora Goldhill: No, we have not. This comes back towhat the patients’ experiences are and pulling that alltogether, and through local Healthwatch, informinglocal activity, and if there is a national issue, throughHealthwatch England making sure that we are hearingit. But there are many ways that the Department willhear that there are problems that cannot be dealt withlocally. If this is a bigger problem that we need toaddress, I am sure Healthwatch England will bring itto our attention.

Q174 Peter Aldous: We are seeing a greaterinvolvement of the private sector in providing non-emergency patient transport services. Do you see thisas a first step towards bringing together all thedifferent types of transport to be provided by localauthorities?Flora Goldhill: There is an opportunity there. Again,it is about what is good practice in planning, and weare encouraging that kind of approach at national levelto make sure that not just the users get the bestservice, but the taxpayer gets the best value as wellfor the money they are spending on different transportservices. Where we can integrate them, we ought tobe thinking about that and encouraging it.

Q175 Neil Carmichael: Given that maternity in myconstituency is seeing an increased number of homebirths and there is emphasis on independent living forelderly people, what kind of pattern of transport doyou think we need to be thinking about toaccommodate the needs that will arise from those twodevelopments and others?Flora Goldhill: Thank you for raising that, because itis very important—about moving services closer topeople’s homes where people want to use services.That is a very important component in planningservices. Not only is it better for the individual patientor mother, but it also delivers high-quality services, abetter experience and a better quality of service. Italso reduces the need to travel, which is part of thelonger-term sustainability agenda.It is also important in the sense that, as we developthings like telehealth and telecare, that will alsoreduce the amount of travel and give people theopportunity to get a wider range of information thanthey might otherwise have had. In terms of homebirths, it is more about the workforce travelling to themother. In terms of services closer to home, theyshould be higher-quality and they should be bettervalue for money, and there is an opportunity forinnovation linked to telehealth and telemedicine.

Q176 Martin Caton: Mr Williams, you have told us,as has the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, that inthe future the Jobcentre network will be smaller, withgreater use of call centres and the internet. You havetold us also that accessibility has been taken into

account in developing this new model. Can you tellus a bit more about how you have ensured thataccessibility is taken into account?Paul Williams: I mentioned district managers andservice delivery plans and the work that they will dolocally to decide on the best balance of services. If Icould take a step back from that, I have explained theUniversal Credit will be digital by default, and Italked about our preferred channel of contact and therange of internet, telephone and face-to-face channelsthat we have. We also understand, and research hasshown, that face-to-face contact between a JSAclaimant and their personal advisor is important ingetting claimants to work more quickly and also inmaking sure that they report changes of circumstancemore quickly. That face-to-face element is still veryimportant to what we do to make sure that claimantsget back into work and back into the labour market asquickly as possible.Within the overall context of DWP looking to reducethe size and cost of its estate, we still have a JobcentrePlus network. If I could just share with you somefigures, there are currently 722 Jobcentres; in 2010 itwas 741, and then going back to 2006 it was 823.Where we have rationalised, it was often where wehave more than one Jobcentre in one town and, asvolumes have changed and the way we engage withour customers has changed, we have been able toreduce.

Q177 Chair: In some cases you have reopenedJobcentres, having closed them because they weren’tnecessary.Paul Williams: Yes, and I mentioned the districtmanagers, service delivery plan and the approach ofdevolving more decisions to district managers locallywhere we can through the Flexible Support Fund.Those kinds of changes are still consistent with theoverall approach of rationalisation. Another importantchange of approach is that we will look, where wecan, to co-locate so that, if we can share premiseswith the local authority that will offer a one-stop shopperhaps for local citizens and still maintain servicesto a community without necessarily the expense of abespoke Jobcentre, we would certainly pursue that.

Q178 Martin Caton: Are more closures in thepipeline?Paul Williams: The DWP business plan for 2012 to2015 talks about reducing our estate by 60 buildingsin 2012–13 to make a saving of £40 million perannum. I would imagine that some of those will beJobcentres where we co-locate, but many of them willbe buildings where we are rationalising our estate aswe change the way we deliver our overall business.Face-to-face contact is still important. I mentionedthat report earlier that found that, without that face-to-face contact during the first 13 weeks of a claim, aclaimant on average would claim for between six andseven days longer than they would with that face-to-face contact. So, face-to-face contact is still animportant bit of what we do. Of those 60 buildings,there will be some Jobcentres, but many more thanJobcentres.




Q179 Peter Aldous: I do not want to get tooparochial, but there is a particular case in the east ofEngland with ATOS and their work assessments, inthat people across Norfolk and North Suffolk have totravel into Norwich for assessments. Obviously, a lotof the people will be disabled. ATOS then have leasedpremises a long way from any public transport, withno parking provisions outside the premises and on anupper floor with no lift. You are dealing with peoplewho often are disabled and not able to get up stairs. Ijust wondered, in those sorts of situations, if there isan adequate system in place, because clearly thereaccessibility was not taken into account.Paul Williams: I understand the problem, and DWPcontracts for its medical services with ATOS. Wherea claimant will find it very difficult to get into thecentre for testing there is provision for home visits. Iknow that happens, but I know it is not the norm. Weare about to re-contract for our medical testingservices, and, rather than one national supplier, I thinkthere will be a number of lots that we will contractfor. I know that some of those providers are thinkingabout delivering that service in a different way.

Q180 Mark Lazarowicz: On that very point, I amsure, Mr Williams, you have heard other examplesaround the country, as we MPs have, of similar kindsof stories. While it is true that the contract is beingrenegotiated, as you tell us, and hopefully these pointswill be taken on board, doesn’t this suggest that thiswas a classic example of how there wasn’t a joined-up approach to accessibility issues? From the start,this should have been high up, whoever gave thecontract to ATOS, to make sure there was this type ofissue taken on board. What concerns me is not thisissue of the assessments at ATOS; it is an issue of youtake people away from the groove in which they arethinking and they do not think about accessibilitybeyond that. This seems to me a classic example ofthat happening.Paul Williams: I do take the point about joined-up.Part of the contract when it was let would be aboutproviding a service that is able to fulfil that service topeople within a given area, as would Workprogrammes and Work programme contracts andlocations, as with Jobcentres. I take the point aboutthe possibility of a more joined-up approach.

Q181 Caroline Lucas: Will that be in a newspecification, then? It is not going to happen by itself,and the one that we have just heard about shouldclearly never have happened. What real assurance canthere be that greater scrutiny will be given to thataspect in future?Paul Williams: I will take the point back and ask ourcontracting commissioning people to think about howwe look across DWP services. I am sure we do it andcontracts are fairly standard things, but I do take thepoint that, as the way we deliver our services expands,then a consistent approach to accessibility isimportant.

Q182 Chair: I refer back to my very first question.Who in each of the Departments has the overallresponsibility for making sure that this is factored in?

It seems that if there is so much deregulation goingon, whether it is for free schools or for different partsof DWP. Who has that responsibility for puttingforward the plan? I think it would be perhaps helpfulif you could—Paul Williams: Within DWP, the Director-General forOperations is responsible for contracted services aswell as JCP services. I know that some medicalexamination centres are in Jobcentres, but the natureof a national service is that availability of premises inlocations will vary.Chair: I think it might be helpful to know what is inthe specification that he works from, but I must returnto Martin Caton.

Q183 Martin Caton: I think we are all on the sameline here, and it comes back to my first question,which is asking if you could give us some more detailsof how you ensure accessibility is high on the agenda.You have told us that the managers of the Jobcentreshave to take it into account. What does that mean? Isit just, “Accessibility, tick”, or do they do someresearch? Do they look into different options andscore accessibility against other potential sites?Paul Williams: If we are talking about accessibilityin terms of an individual jobseeker and helping themovercome barriers to get to work and to remain inwork once they have it, then I can give you plenty ofexamples of where we are doing that day to day. Onthe other hand, if you are talking about the locationof the Jobcentre, which is my area of expertise, to befrank, they haven’t changed that much over the years.When I say they haven’t changed, I mean that theyhaven’t changed in location that much over the years.We have continued to locate within the communitieswe serve as far as possible. Individual managers,district managers, would not have that kind offlexibility over location.

Q184 Mark Lazarowicz: Can I come back on apoint? I appreciate this may not be within your remitat all, but it just might illustrate a problem that someJobcentres, as you say, have been there for decades.In my experience, certainly in my area aroundEdinburgh, most have over years acquired and beengiving access to people with disabilities in variousways and that has been done because they are fairlypermanent offices. But the more we move to a systemwhere different aspects are contracted out, the moreimportant it will be when you contract bits out thatthey also meet the standards of access that havebecome pretty common within the Jobcentre estatemore generally. Again, I have a concern that thereisn’t a system to ensure the same type of accessibilityis built into a service that has been contracted out. Isthat the case?Paul Williams: I am sure it must be in thespecification, but I do not have the specification withme, so I would need to check.Chair: But you will let us have the specifications?Paul Williams: Yes.

Q185 Martin Caton: Mr Williams, right at thebeginning of this session, you painted a really heart-warming picture of Jobcentre Plus staff taking the




elderly and the vulnerable by the hand and takingthem down a rosebed path to the promised land wherethey understand new technology, they can use theinternet, giving them much better contact with theirfriends and families and grandchildren. It soundswonderful, and I am sure there is a truth in it; thatwill be one aspect of what happens.But we know, from what is happening in oursurgeries—and we know from what the Citizen’sAdvice are telling us about the numbers going tothem—that there are large numbers of thosevulnerable and elderly people and many do not haveuse of internet. They are not happy even dealing withsomething on the telephone. They want face-to-facecontact. Even ones that have the internet and can useit and use it for other purposes—again, we get this inour advice offices—will want to come and talk itthrough with somebody.I welcome what you said in the previous answer—thatyou recognise that face-to-face contact is important.What I wonder is whether you have any way ofassessing how much capacity you need for doing that.I can see the direction you are travelling with newtechnology; I can’t see, from anything you have saidso far and other things we have said, how you aremaking sure that you can properly cope with thatincreasing demand.Paul Williams: I think we are doing a lot, if I maysay so. The vulnerable and the disadvantaged peopleare not able to access IT in the way that they wouldlike and we would like. We are putting in placesupport mechanisms, and they are real supportmechanisms. The internet access devices that havebeen placed in every Jobcentre over the past sixmonths are there to be used and for us to assistclaimants to use them to access IT.Within our local communities there are a variety oforganisations that will do the same, but I appreciatethat sometimes some of us need a little bit more helpand support with doing that. I went to ChippenhamJobcentre the other day, and they were telling meabout the local authority and an initiative they aregoing to introduce for digital champions. As part ofthat, the local authority and Jobcentre, the digitalchampion was going to work in ChippenhamJobcentre a couple of days a week to supportcustomers with the internet access devices.

Q186 Martin Caton: I think all that is good and thatis obviously a real option for some people, but do youaccept that there are some people, however much youhelp them, who are not going to go down that road?Paul Williams: Yes, and I think that is why a face-to-face service will always need to remain. I mentionedour DWP visiting service to the most vulnerable. Wehave something like 1,000 staff engaged in going outto claimants’ homes where, for various reasons—perhaps to claim their pension, the pension credit—they are not able to do their business with us in anyother way. Yes, I recognise that there will be aminority of people who have to engage with us face-to-face, particularly the most vulnerable and thosecustomers with health issues. You will be aware thatJobcentre Plus is dealing more and more now withcustomers who have health issues.

Q187 Neil Carmichael: Recognising the need forface-to-face contact, which we all do, presumably youwelcome the extension of broadband access, becausethat is going to help a lot of people in rural areas.One would have thought, certainly in my constituency,access to broadband is of critical importance.Paul Williams: Absolutely, and a colleague earlierasked about varying broadband speeds and thedifficulty that can cause with connections—not justwith accessing public services but all services.You asked about young people earlier. Clearly, youngpeople have accessibility issues to a greater degree,because they are more likely not to be car owners.They are more likely not to have passed their drivingtest, and insurance is an issue. I just wanted to bring tothe Committee’s attention the Jobcentre Plus discounttravel card that came in on the back of the 2003Making the Connections report. We have agreed withthe national train operators for a 50% discount on allrail travel. Initially, it was for youngsters, for NewDeal, but since then it has been extended and now itis available to everybody claiming JobseekersAllowance once they have been claiming for 13 weeksor more. That service has been running for 10 years,and estimates are that there are 20,000 activeJobcentre Plus travel discount card users in thesystem.Chair: That is helpful; thank you.

Q188 Martin Caton: I do accept that is a goodinitiative, but, moving on from getting to theJobcentre to thinking of enabling people to get towork, the Campaign for Better Transport told us inevidence that Jobcentre staff often do not recognisethe difficulties that people reliant on public transportface. Are Jobcentre Plus advisors trained to helppeople deal with their transport issues?Paul Williams: Yes. It is part of their day-to-daywork. In some locations, transport issues are more ofa barrier than others—south London compared withDevon and Cornwall, for example. Advisors will havedifferent approaches, but every one of our advisorshas the Department for Transport route planner on ourintranet, so they are able to call up quickly and easilythe fastest route. We spend considerable amounts onsupporting claimants’ travel to interviews andclaimants’ travel to training each year.I evangelised a little bit about the Flexible SupportFund earlier and some of the good work that ishappening in a variety of ways in differentcommunities and localities. To give you an example,in south-west Wales, the district manager is grantfunding a company or organisation called RightDirection Solutions Incorporated, and that isproviding free transport for customers living in ruralareas to access specific work opportunities in Swanseafor the first four weeks of employment. I could giveyou a number of examples like that from all over thecountry where district managers are assessing the needin their labour markets and coming up with innovativesolutions to address those issues.

Q189 Martin Caton: I represent one of the Swanseaconstituencies, so I was aware of that initiative, and itis good.




Do you require Work programme providers to identifymeans of transport for getting to work, or do yourequire them to help with transport costs?Paul Williams: Yes, we do. Work programmeproviders are contractually responsible for travel aswell as some other costs—childcare, caring costs,support costs—while the participant is on the Workprogramme. An element for travel costs is includedwithin the funding received from DWP, and that ispart of the overall contract package. The contractorshould advise participants of the evidence they needto claim refunds of travel costs when they start theprovision. So, we do.

Q190 Martin Caton: Have you been collecting dataon how much of an issue getting to work is for thoseon the Work programme?Paul Williams: No, I am not aware that we have. Iasked some of my contracting colleagues if they hadbeen aware of many complaints from Workprogramme participants about travel, and the answer Ireceived was no, it was not a huge source ofcomplaint. There is an issue about use of the JCPtravel discount card in that we can only issue that cardup to the time that the claimant starts with the Workprogramme. That is because of cross-funding issues,but Work programme contractors are responsible forfunding those travel costs.

Q191 Chair: I think we have reached the end, butyour last comment just raises an issue about thedifference between people who are on the Workprogramme and travel costs. You might havesomebody who might be required under the Workprogramme to work on a zero-contract-hours basis,where there was not necessarily any pay coming in,

and whether or not the support for travel would applyin those circumstances. I think my question is howmuch you or people on your behalf in this de-regulated world are doing and how much they arelinking up with the wider travel transport needs.Paul Williams: The Work programme is responsiblefor providing those travel costs. Where travel costsare appropriate, where the personal advisor within theWork programme judges that it is important to supportthe claimant financially to go for that job interview orto take work in that contract—and if that job is likelyto last for six months, the Work programme can thenclaim the higher sustainability payment—I wouldexpect the Work programme personal advisor to bemaking that judgment about what is appropriate andwhat is value for money for the customer and for theWork programme.Chair: Okay; thank you for that. Just one final thing.You have all talked about the role of local authoritiesand meeting some of the local requirements. I am veryconscious of time, but if any of you have anyexperience or examples of how within yourDepartments account has been taken of the increasedcosts for local authorities as a result of changes inyour policies, particularly where there is deregulation,it would be very interesting to have some kind ofindication—not necessarily now, but in writing—ofwhat is fed, perhaps through the Cabinet Committeein terms of DCLG, in terms of expectations about howvarious needs will be met at a local level.But at this stage, I welcome the fact you have beenable to come and give evidence on behalf of yourrespective Departments. It is a huge agenda that weare attempting to face with this inquiry, and I thankeach of you very much indeed for giving up your timethis afternoon.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG04Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o004_db_CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT 12.03.2013.xml


Tuesday 12 March 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter AldousNeil CarmichaelMartin CatonKaty ClarkZac Goldsmith

________________Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Norman Baker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Department forTransport, and Nigel Dotchin, Head of Accessibility and Mobility, Department for Transport, gave evidence.

Q192 Chair: Can I start by extending a very warmwelcome, both to you, Minister, for coming alongtoday, and also to your official, Nigel Dotchin? I amvery much aware that, in terms of this whole subjectof accessibility, there is one aspect of it that is aboutdisability access, but, as you know, our scrutiny isreally looking at the whole broad range ofaccessibility to public services and particularlyimproving transport. We wonder if you could start bytalking about the progress that has been made, orperhaps not made, since the Making the connectionsReport was published 10 years ago. That seemed tous to be something of a seminal report that was,perhaps, all embracing. I wonder how much itrepresents a starting point today or how much theDepartment for Transport is currently working to that.Norman Baker: First of all, can I say I am pleased tobe back at the Environmental Audit Committee afterseveral years’ absence? I am glad to see you are stillhere, Chair, in an enhanced capacity from when I waslast with you. The SEU report had 37 cross-Government policies in it. You will appreciate that itdates from 2003. Therefore, seven years of it wasacted upon prior to this administration, so obviously Iam less familiar with exactly what they did in thoseseven years. It is fair to say we do not refer to it on aday-to-day basis in the Department, but I do hope ithas been regarded as useful previously by the lastGovernment, and certainly we have taken it forwardin terms of the policies enacted subsequently.We certainly agree with the concept of accessibility inthe planning regime. That is a matter that you maywant to pursue with CLG Ministers rather than me. Interms of recent Department for Transport measures,which you might say fall out of the concept of thatreport, there is obviously concessionary travel forolder and disabled people, and there is the enhancedrole for community transport. There are measures toimprove the accessibility of trains, buses, coaches andtaxis. There have been steps taken to improve theaccessibility of railway stations, either through theAccess for All regime or the Secure Stations Scheme.There is the Public Service Vehicle (Conduct)Regulations, which require drivers to take reasonableprecautions to ensure the safety of all disabledpassengers. There has been enhanced work for theBritish Transport Police. There are Wheels 2 Workschemes and other innovative ideas that we funded inthis Government under the Local Sustainable

Mark LazarowiczCaroline LucasMr Mark SpencerDr Alan Whitehead

Transport Fund, which I think has made a bigdifference.There has been most recently—just to take itforward—which you will hopefully have seen, theDepartment for Transport’s own accessibility actionplan that was published in December simultaneouslywith an equality action plan.

Q193 Chair: Thank you, and it was remiss of me notto mention the fact of your earlier membership of theEnvironmental Audit Committee, days I look back onwith great fondness.Carrying on from the point that you have made aboutthe importance of the Making the connections report,and the fact that perhaps it has been overtaken byevents, how would you quantify the realimprovements that there have been? You have justgiven us a whole list of different things that have beendone, but what is it that is making them happen? Is itby accident or is it by design, if you are not referringback to that document?Norman Baker: It is partly about attitude. I thinkthere has been a sea change in attitudes, partly amongthose who are responsible for dealing with thesematters on an elected basis, and I mean Members ofthe House of Commons, Governments—both the lastone and this one—and local councils, who are moreprepared to accept that accessibility issues are part andparcel of what they do rather than something you addon at the end. I think that was an attitude in the pastthat has hopefully gone forever.Similarly, with the transport operators, my personalview is that the response to people with accessibilityissues has improved markedly with the traincompanies, compared to what it was in the past. It isimproving as well, although not as fast as I wouldlike, with the bus companies and the response theyhave to people with accessibility issues. I think thereis some way to go with the taxi trade. Again, it isimproving but not as fast as I would like. So, theattitude has changed. That is ultimately what is goingto drive change.Secondly, there have been regulations that have beenhelpful and have focused the mind. I include in thatthe requirement for trains to be fully accessible by2020, the requirements for buses to be accessible by2015, 2016, or 2017 (depending on type of bus) and2020 in terms of coaches used on scheduled services.That focuses the mind and makes sure that we aremaking progress on that front too. It is also the case

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG04Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o004_db_CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT 12.03.2013.xml


12 March 2013 Norman Baker MP and Nigel Dotchin

that there have been a number of gains, I would notsay by accident but as a consequence of otherGovernment policies. For example, the Green BusFund, which has been deliberately introduced toreduce carbon emissions from buses, has also had thebenefit of replacing inaccessible vehicles. That hasmeant that the new buses coming in have accessibilitycriteria that are better than the ones they replaced.So I would say that, by and large, the quality of publictransport is improving in terms of accessibility. Thatis partly driven by attitude, partly by regulation. It isnow becoming mainstream. I suppose it is almost acliché, but it is still relevant, to say that theParalympic Games has been a significant usefuladdition to the mindset of the British people inrecognising that the way we think about accessibilityneeds to change and is changing.

Q194 Chair: I was interested in what you say aboutregulation. Would you say that the regulations thatrelate to this whole sphere of policy would be able toresist any de-regulations that might be coming aboutfrom within the coalition Government?Norman Baker: There are no plans to change the dateby which all vehicles have to be fully accessible.

Q195 Chair: Okay, referring back to what you weresaying about making trains accessible, I know this isa discussion that has taken place in other places. Theissue is: it is all very well to make trains accessiblebut it is not much use if the railway stations are notaccessible. In terms of the funding that is available forthat, and the process by which it is determined whichstations do get the disability access, is there anyspecific funding on that that will help?Norman Baker: Yes. We have had the Access for Allfunding, which was begun under the last Governmentand has continued under this one. We have had a hugenumber of stations that have been dealt with as aconsequence of that policy. There has also been a mid-tier programme of cheaper but importantenhancements to stations, and that has meant that anumber of stations have been improved as well. Ientirely agree with the point you make that if thestations are not accessible then it is irrelevant how thetrains are, you have to do both.You will appreciate that what we are doing is dealingwith a Victorian infrastructure, 150 years old or more,and our Victorian forebears, wonderful though theywere in many ways, did not think about accessibilityissues, and that has to then be retro-fitted. Where youdo retro-fit them—I was able to formally open theimproved Bromley station last week, another one inthe Access for All programme—then that makes afantastic difference to that station. It has not simplymeant that it is far more attractive, because it has alsobeen combined with other monies to improve thestation generally, as much as the station forecourt andthe canopies and so on, but it meant that people whowould find the train system unattractive or, at worst,inaccessible now no longer have those barriers. I donot simply mean people with physical disabilities. Iam thinking of mums with prams, people carryingheavy luggage and so on, for whom a huge flight ofstairs was a barrier.

So, that programme is carrying on. We havecommitted a further £100 million to the Access for Allprogramme in the next five-year period under controlperiod 5, from 2014 to 2019. We are looking to geteven better value per pound spent from Network Railthan we have done so far. We think they could bemore efficient with their money than they have been.That is part of the McNulty Review and thatprogramme will continue.If I may say so, I have dug out the position onKidsgrove Station and I will write to you separatelyabout that.

Q196 Chair: I shall look forward to having a fullreport on that. That is very helpful. Carrying on fromthat, the issue that you are talking about is aboutimprovements and looking at not just transportfunding but perhaps contributions from other partnersso you get a whole cocktail of funding to get thisproper access. How much do you see that linking intoeconomic growth, and do you think that there is a caseto be made to the Treasury for a bigger proportion ofTreasury money to come to the Department forTransport, because in the end it is going to achieveeconomic growth?Norman Baker: Well, I am always happy to receivemoney from the Treasury at the Department forTransport. I regularly indicate that is my preferencewhen I speak to Treasury Ministers. If I may say so,the position we have is that the Department forTransport has been very successful in attractingmoney from the Treasury since 2010, particularly forcapital projects and investment, simply because wehave made the case to the Treasury right from day onethat money spent on transport achieves widerGovernment objectives. It helps economic growth. Itcuts carbon emissions if it is spent properly, and itcould also add to social inclusion and other desirableoutputs. So we have been successful in identifyingmoney from the Treasury.Every time we allocate money, of course, we have todo a cost-benefit ratio. We have to make it stack up.It is quite proper that we do that for taxpayers’ money.However, the reality is that money spent on publictransport and money spent on walking and cycling,has a very good cost-benefit ratio. That is one of thereasons why we have been able to attract largeamounts of money from the Treasury, including, forexample, £600 million for the Local SustainableTransport Fund, which did not exist under theprevious Government, a brand new fund of money.With match funding from local councils and thirdparties that has now transited into over £1 billion ofmoney on local sustainable transport. I think that isa really good achievement, which demonstrates theconnected nature of the Government acrossDepartments, the fact that we recognise that investingin a large number of small schemes can be reallysensible and beneficial, and also the value of attractingexternal funds to boost what we are putting inourselves.Chair: That is helpful, thank you.

Q197 Mark Lazarowicz: How much of a priority forGovernment is transport accessibility to public

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026127 Unit: PG04Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026127/026127_o004_db_CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT 12.03.2013.xml



services? I am distinguishing that from the steps thathave been made to make buses, trains, platforms moreaccessible, whatever, to a situation where you canensure that public services are accessible to the publicgenerally so, for example, you do not end up with ahospital that is miles away from a railway station. It isthat kind of relationship between the services, actuallymaking sure they are accessible to the public for veryspecial need but also more generally. How far is thata priority for the Government?Norman Baker: It is a priority. If I may say so, I thinkwe are getting better at joining up across Departments.It is always a challenge, in any Government in anycountry, to join up across Departments and preventsilo mentality from developing. For example, I have aproductive working relationship with Anna Soubry atthe Department of Health, who is very interested inwhat transport can do to aid public health. Forexample, she is very keen on cycling. I have beentalking to Richard Benyon on how we can make suretransport works properly in rural areas, so we do nothave isolation in rural areas. There is a connectionacross Government on these fronts.We produce statistics annually for local authorities tohelp them plan local services. We base these statisticson travel times by different modes, car, bicycle andpublic transport, but we also measure—to come toyour point—the distance travelled to eight keyservices: hospitals, GPs, primary school, secondaryschool, further education, food stores, employmentcentres and town centres. So we directly try to use ourstatistics to inform our policy and the statistics relatedirectly to accessing key public services.

Q198 Mark Lazarowicz: That is interesting. Canyou explain a bit more then about how far thatparticular one you just mentioned, how far has itgone? What is the current state of that work?Norman Baker: In terms of the statistics, that iscoming back to the Chair’s original point. That isbased on the 2003 social exclusion report, so that is anexample directly of how that report is still applicablenowadays. What we do is try to ensure that we informother Departments, when they are planningenhancements or whatever they are doing, what theinformation we have is so that they can use thatsensibly in their planning decisions. We areparticularly keen to ensure CLG, of course, is awareof these connections because the planning function isa key one. Certainly when we are devising our owninterventions, then we will take account of our ownstatistics. As I say, we also make it availablepredominantly to local councils so that they, in turn,can then base their local investment decisions on theinformation we provide them.

Q199 Mark Lazarowicz: Do you expect theforthcoming transport strategy to develop this issue oftransport accessibility to public services?Norman Baker: Yes, absolutely. The transportstrategy will include accessibility as a key part of it.There is not much point in having a transport strategyunless it provides access to something. That is thewhole point of a transport strategy, so it will be there.What the transport strategy will do is that it will pull

together the various strands of what we are doing. As Isay, I have mentioned two documents we have alreadyproduced. There is a door-to-door journeys documentthat I will be releasing shortly, and I will come on tothat because that is about accessibility as well acrossthe transport system. If you like, these are daughterdocuments that will then feed into the strategy that isproduced in due course.Mark Lazarowicz: Thank you.

Q200 Neil Carmichael: There are quite a lot ofagencies and Departments involved in transportaccessibility, local planners, health organisations andso on, and of course your Department. Who iseffectively in charge? Where does the buck stop whenit comes to transport accessibility?Norman Baker: We are the lead Department for that.That is officially our role in Government but clearlywe cannot do everything ourselves. Following onfrom the point just made by Mr Lazarowicz, weclearly have to make sure that we are co-ordinatedwith other Departments, and of course, most keenly,the Cabinet Office, who also have an overall,overarching responsibility across Government.

Q201 Neil Carmichael: I am going to come on tothe Cabinet Office in a moment but, before I do, oneof the things this inquiry has already learned is thatthere is a sense of there being too many silos dealingwith this subject. How would you undertake to getthose silos to merge in together more effectively?Norman Baker: As I hinted a moment ago, it is aquestion for any Government in any country at anytime how that works. There are two ways of doing so,one of which I do not particularly recommend. Thatis to have a great deal of centralisation at the centreof Government, which I think is not helpful and hasproved to be cumbersome and ineffective over theyears when it has been tried. The other alternative isto try—laboriously but effectively—to build sensiblerelationships across Departments, based on goodrelations with officials, good relations betweenMinisters. Sometimes there may be a case for a personbeing seconded from one Department to another for aparticular function, so they are embedded in aDepartment and perhaps there is a swap that can bearranged. Those sorts of actions are more effective inthe end in driving cross-Departmental working.It is also important to send out a message to theexternal world and to send it out to local authoritypartners. I mentioned Anna Soubry. She and Iappeared on a platform together, I think in Leicester,to promote cycling and health. That was not just wellreceived, but I think people were astonished that therewere two Ministers from different Departmentsappearing together and even saying the same thing.So more of that, I think, and certainly, for example,as far as cycling is concerned, which does cross overa number of Departments, I am very keen we shouldtry to replicate that as we move through the year.

Q202 Neil Carmichael: That is helped by the focusnow on public health because of the interest in gettingpeople to cycle and outdoor activities, pursuits and so




forth. Those kind of overarching policies must bequite useful to you as well.Norman Baker: Indeed. That is exactly right and weare taking advantage, both Anna and I, of the changesto the health framework to say, “Here is a newresponsibility for local authorities. How can we makesure that we try to help them get off on the right footand see the potential for what they can do?”, linkingup themselves, say, social services or transport in theirown areas. Our function on that is a key one todevelop at the moment but there are other functionsas well. I mentioned Richard Benyon at DEFRA. Ihave also been talking, for example, to David Laws atthe Department for Education about school transport.There are all sorts of links.Perhaps the key for us is to identify where there is afunction where we are leading, which is notnecessarily a front-line function for otherDepartments. It may be fifth or sixth on their list ofthings to do but nevertheless they have an importancein that area. It is for us to say, “I know this isn’t yourprimary function, but can we just direct your attentionto this for the time being?” No doubt they will do thesame in reverse for us, where we can help out withwhat they are trying to do.

Q203 Neil Carmichael: Thank you. Going back tothe Cabinet Office, some time ago we were worryingabout sustainability across Government, and we werethinking that the Cabinet Office would be a good placeto start in making sure that sustainability did go acrossGovernment, and of course there are the Department’sbusiness plans that we tested Oliver Letwin on. Doyou see scope for those in terms of improvingaccessibility?Norman Baker: I certainly think that Oliver Letwinand his team have a role to play. As I say, there is adanger in any group of people, however eminent, atthe centre having too much control over Departments.My view over the years—over successiveGovernments—is that transport policy is betterdelivered by the Department for Transport than it isby the Cabinet Office, No. 10 and No. 11. The samecan apply to most functions of Government I suspect,so we have to be careful about that.What they can do is send out a clear message that co-ordination is important, that taking an issue seriouslyis important and that when that comes from the centrerather than from a Department, that has more effect.That is what I would like to personally see the centredoing—identifying an issue and giving it someweight. There are issues where clearly Oliver Letwinand his team are involved. For example, he and I arechair and vice-chair of an internal Governmentcommittee that is looking at “how green is yourGovernment”, effectively, and what each Departmentis doing to minimise carbon emissions and savemoney. We do have those connections that do workand do exist.

Q204 Neil Carmichael: Do you think they areeffective enough to avoid any unintendedconsequences or policy conflicts that might occur intransport accessibility? I can think of one or two, forexample the DDA versus some other priority.

Norman Baker: There are always conflicts inGovernment because, necessarily, helping achieve oneend can have a detrimental effect on a different end.There is not an easy answer to that. For example, ifwe were to allocate a huge amount of money to oneparticular objective, that would be money that wouldcome away from somewhere else. Even on a basiclevel of funding you can see there is a conflict.Sometimes they are policies that conflict—mostnotably HS2, if you want to include the rail network,which I think is highly desirable, and it will have asmall carbon benefit overall. Nevertheless, there is animpact on the landscape so there is a trade-off there.These trade-offs are inevitable.What is important is that, across Departments, we areopen with each other and we don’t resort to silomentality. We say, “We recognise you have a problem.This is what we are trying to do” and we try to find amature way to solve that problem. I think it usuallyworks. As you are probably aware, there is a formalprocess for clearing Government policy acrossDepartments. In the end if two Departments do notagree, then it can be resolved further up the chain.

Q205 Neil Carmichael: One last question. One thingI pick up in my constituency is that people—particularly disabled people—find it really annoyingthat transport systems sometimes are not obviouslyconnected to each other. Is that a thrust of theDepartment for Transport in terms of taking someaction?Norman Baker: If I had asked you to ask me aquestion, that is probably the one I would have askedyou to ask me, because I can then say that very shortlyI will be releasing a document on door-to-doorjourneys, which has been researched with people whouse public transport or want to use it, and which hasinvolved train operators, cycling groups, buscompanies and the rest, who will therefore own thedocument. It will not simply be a DfT document. Theywill own it and take forward the steps that are set outin it.The whole purpose of that is to prevent obstacles andhurdles from occurring, or remove them if they arethere, for people who want to make a journey fromtheir front door to someone else’s front doorsustainably but do not do so because one part of thejourney doesn’t work for them. When they arrive atthe railway station they don’t know how they aregoing to complete the last mile of the journey. Theyare worried about one of the train stations because ithas poor lighting or the bus doesn’t connectsomewhere. This is what this is about, trying to sortthis out.We will be publishing that document precisely, first ofall, to encourage the use of sustainable transport, butalso to make transport easier to access for those whowant to use it and to encourage that modal shift.Neil Carmichael: Thanks very much.

Q206 Chair: Referring back to one of MrCarmichael’s questions about silo mentality and howyou resolve disputes that might occur betweendifferent Departments, how do you deal with newpolicy that is developing? For example, within the




Department of Health, in Mid Staffordshire there isthe possibility now that there might be areconfiguration of health services. In the report thatwill go to the special administrator, one of the issueshighlighted is about access by way of transport. Howdo you then make sure that somebody somewhere islooking at accessibility to reconfigured hospitalservices? For example, that might be alongside patienttransport services. It might not be done byconventional transport means.Norman Baker: To be honest, that is a very goodquestion. We are involved at the Department ingeneral policy setting. So, as and when theDepartment of Health has a policy on transport or hasa policy on access to services, or indeed even a policyon a general national reconfiguration policy—if it hassuch a policy—then we would be consulted on that,along with other Government Departments, and wouldhave the opportunity to feed in and say, “We do notthink this takes account of X, Y and Z”.It is much more difficult if you have a localised mattersuch as that, and it is not the role of the Departmentfor Transport to say what should happen in Mid Staffsor anywhere else. That is essentially a local matter.We do rely on, first of all, the Department of Healthand its own officials asking themselves the relevantquestions.

Q207 Chair: How do you rely on them doing that?Norman Baker: Because there should be an overallstrategy, which has been set at Government level,upon which the Department for Transport has beenconsulted and fed in and our comments taken onboard, which then sets the framework, and presumablythey refer to the framework in applying it locally. Wealso have to rely on local councils and others toidentify the consequences for them, because theaccess issues for any hospital will be predominantlyfor a local council to evaluate rather than us. If thehospital is planned to be a long way from the busnetwork in the middle of nowhere, then the localcouncil ought to be involved, and should be involvedin that process, and making their views known aboutthe consequences of that.Chair: I will move on to the whole issue of localauthorities by turning to Mr Aldous.

Q208 Peter Aldous: Minister, I think yourDepartment no longer approves local transport plansor monitors progress against them. Therefore, how doyou get an oversight of developments on localaccessibility, both good practice and bad practice?Norman Baker: We still require councils to producelocal transport plans but we do not require them tosubmit them to the Department for Transport forapproval. So, they are still there and they are stillaccessible by us to see what they are doing.Essentially, this comes down to the localism agendaand the fact that we think that centrally we have beendoing too much, and that we shouldn’t be requiringlocal councils to have to be accountable to theDepartment for Transport for everything they do, andthat applies to other Departments as well.Of course, the consequence of localism is mixed. Onthe one hand, you end up with far more innovation

and original ideas, and you have decisions being takenby people who are closer to the voters who elect themand all those sorts of benefits, which I think you areright about. On the other hand you will get moredisparate delivery, which means that you will noticethe difference between what is happening in one areaand another. However, that is then a matter that localelectors ought to be able to draw to the attention oftheir councillors and ask them why their performanceis so much worse than some council next door.

Q209 Peter Aldous: To take an example,Cambridgeshire County Council, their approach hasbeen to stop support for all tendered bus services.Your approach to that would be, “Up to you,Cambridgeshire. You have to justify yourself to yourelectorate and to your transport users and if they don’tlike it, tough”. You would not be saying toCambridgeshire, “Hang on, do you think you havethis right?”Norman Baker: I have said publicly—and I am happyto say so again—that I think it is disappointing thatCambridgeshire has taken the view it has on local busservices. That is out of line with a number of othersimilar counties that have, in fact, protected their busservices, although that is a matter for them. They havetheir own mandate and they will have to answer forthe decisions they take. I think it is very regrettablethat councillors are taking decisions to, effectively,make services more inaccessible than they werepreviously.

Q210 Peter Aldous: As you said, local authoritieshave implemented many types of schemes to improveaccessibility, and some of them have been very good.I wonder, is there any means of evaluating suchinitiatives and showcasing best practice andencouraging other authorities to adopt them? Perhapsthat is a role for your Department.Norman Baker: We do co-ordinate and evaluate onoccasions. For example, we are doing that withhighways maintenance efficiency, where we are tryingto make sure that councils are spending their moneywisely and not having to go back and repair somethingthey repaired three weeks ago, which I am afraid doeshappen sometimes. We are also evaluating the LocalSustainable Transport Fund money. It is a lot of publicmoney. We need to make sure that when we havehanded that money out it is being well spent. It is nota heavy evaluation but it is a sensible, balanced one.Under the new arrangements for devolution to localtransport boards, we will also have an agreed regimein place to make sure that the money is properly spent,because ultimately we are responsible for money wehand out. So, those safeguards do apply.I have been encouraging the Local GovernmentAssociation to take on this role far more. I have saidto the LGA that they need to change their game,because it seems to me the LGA’s role, traditionally,has been to come cap in hand to Government and say,“We don’t like this, we want more money” or, “Wedon’t like something that you are doing”, and Isuppose they will carry on doing that. However, in myview, what they should also be doing is identifyingbest practice and, indeed, worst practice among local




government members, and promulgating that so thatpeople are able to make judgments. Local governmentneeds to be more confident than it so far has been.Government has handed them a whole lot of power,which I am very happy about, but I think they areslightly behind the curve in identifying the optionsand the freedom they now have.

Q211 Peter Aldous: Thank you very much for that.In a previous session, a couple of our witnesses spokeabout the culture of local transport authorities, whichthey felt was holding back progress on accessibility.Dr Karen Lucas said to us, “It is a different culture tothink about accessibility instead of mobility. To thinkabout social outcomes instead of engineering,mobility and infrastructure is a fundamentallydifferent culture”. Do you think your Department hasa role in changing that culture?Norman Baker: I think we have a role in making theright background noises, certainly. You are right if youare implying that accessibility comes in two forms: itcomes in whether or not you can get on the bus, butit also comes in whether the bus is actually there inthe first place. Both those matters are clearlyimportant. They both have to be answered yes ifsomeone is going to be able to get from A to B if theyhave accessibility issues. So, yes, I think we do havea role in trying to cajole people along those routes.In terms of local councils themselves, as I say, theyare now going to be much more varied in performancethan they have been hitherto. They have beenconstrained in these small segments of the pie chartby previous Government regulations, restrictions,funding streams and everything else. The ceilingshave largely gone, but so have the floors. Whethercouncils sink or rise will depend much more on theirown efforts, and that is how it should be. However, Ido hope councils will take account of what I wouldregard as a duty in a way—not legally a duty—tothink about accessibility issues and their populationswhen they get the new freedom, which they aregetting, to make sure that is factored in. If the localcouncil decides that the only thing it wants to do isbuild a huge dual carriageway somewhere and donothing else, then in my view I am afraid that is nota transport policy.Peter Aldous: Thanks very much indeed.

Q212 Caroline Lucas: Carrying on with that, whatwould happen in that scenario, then? Cajoling doesnot necessarily sound the most effective way ofchanging culture. It might have a role, but is thereanything else that is a bit more interventionist that youthink your Department could do in terms of that?Norman Baker: I hesitate to use the word“interventionist” because that is not really where weare at at the moment. We are genuinely trying tofollow a policy whereby we are a bit more hands-off. We want to concentrate on strategic issues in theDepartment for Transport, big stuff that we have todo, whether it is HS2—

Q213 Caroline Lucas: Isn’t there a risk though? Ofcourse you need to be doing that strategic part, butpresumably you would acknowledge that, by the

Department taking more of a hands-off role, there isa risk that some of the culture changes you have saidthat you would like to see will not happen. So whatwould you do with that part of the equation?Norman Baker: Let me turn it round and say it thisway. If you had a Government in power thatcontrolled most of the levers, there is a risk that theywould adopt policies that are unhelpful foraccessibility, and then councils that wanted to dosomething would be unable to move because ofrestrictions from central Government. That has beenthe case sometimes in the past. So you will get apatchwork solution.What I genuinely believe is, first of all, that it is rightthat local councils and the people locally should beresponsible for what happens locally and get closer tothe impact of what they are doing. Secondly, I alsobelieve that generally this will push up performance.You will know, in a whole range of environmentalissues, that councils that have wanted to do things inthe past have been prevented from doing so. I happento think that if they are given the freedom to do that,then while some will rise some will sink but, overall,ultimately, the level of performance will increase.

Q214 Caroline Lucas: Do we have evidence of thator is it too soon?Norman Baker: It is a sort of gut feeling, so I do nothave any evidence yet because we have only juststarted down the localism road, so I think it is tooearly for that. Nevertheless, I genuinely do believethere are lots of innovative people in localGovernment who just want to get off the leash and dothings. When they start innovating, then I think otherswill follow suit.

Q215 Caroline Lucas: Funding for buses has beenreduced and the ring fence around transport fundingto local authorities has been removed. Whatassessment have you made about the impact of that,in terms of whether local authorities are redirectingthe money that had originally been ring-fenced forlocal transport to other areas, and what impact is thathaving on accessibility?Norman Baker: There has been a reduction right atthe beginning of the Government from the CLGfunding to local councils, which was a generalreduction. Clearly, in most councils’ cases, that willhave impacted on what they are doing for tenderedservices. There has also been a reduction in BSOG,for which we gave them a very long notice periodbefore that was reduced. Much longer was given, forexample, in Scotland and Wales for the reduction inBSOG. If you look at the figures, passenger journeysare actually holding up very well and showed anincrease last year in England as opposed to theprevious year. So they are holding up well.It is also worth remembering that about 80% of busservices—78%, I think—are commercial bus servicesthat require no subsidy from the public purse. Theyhave been holding up pretty well in addition. I do notwant to give the impression or allow the impressionto settle that there is some sort of crisis in the busindustry. I think the bus industry has respondedimaginatively to difficult circumstances and a lot of




councils have responded imaginatively, either bycombining routes, by talking to bus companies andcoming up with a mixture of tendered and commercialservices that were not there previously, or byamalgamating bus services that are run as passengerservices with, perhaps, the use of the vehicles forsocial services or children’s school access purposes.Some councils are doing that very well and othersaren’t.

Q216 Caroline Lucas: Do you know how muchmoney has been transferred as a result of not havinga ring fence? Do you know whether there are casesand, if so how many cases, of where money thatwould originally have had—Norman Baker: I cannot tell you how much councilshave individually transferred. No, we don’t know that.

Q217 Caroline Lucas: At some point, wouldn’t wetry to find that out in terms of an impact assessmentof the policy?Norman Baker: No, because I am not going tomonitor local councils like some sort of head teachermarking their work. We are not doing that. I aminterested in what the outcome for bus passengers is.That is what I am interested in. How we get there isof secondary importance. Obviously, I do talk to localcouncils and I talk to the LGA and we talk to busoperators. I have a bus forum that meets every sixmonths, and by the way I have extended themembership to include those representing accessgroups to make sure that they are represented on thatbody. That meets every six months, and we have arigorous examination at that point and presentationsfrom local councils and the bus operators of what ishappening. That is how we monitor it—in that forum.

Q218 Caroline Lucas: Are you doing anything tohelp transport managers look at the social impacts ofeither expanding funding in transport or reducing it?Those social impacts, in terms of accessibility tovarious public services and so forth, are they givenequal weight to economic impacts and environmentalimpacts, and if they are not should they be?Norman Baker: They are given a weight. They aregiven a weight in the way we evaluate projects in theDepartment. That is part of the cost-benefit ratioanalysis and the factors that are taken into account.They were given weight in the Local SustainableTransport Fund when decisions were taken on that.

Q219 Caroline Lucas: Perhaps the question isn’thoned sufficiently, but what I am trying to get at isthe relative weight for social impacts versusenvironmental or economic. Because there is a schoolof thought in some of the evidence we have heardthat would say that the social impacts are not givensufficient weight. What I am trying to ascertain iswhether that is the case and what mechanisms are inplace to ensure that it won’t be in the future.Norman Baker: Let us try to deal with the LocalSustainable Transport Fund, as an example that Iknow best. There were two mandatory criteria that hadto be met, which related to whether or not the schemethat was proposed was going to create growth and

whether it was going to cut carbon. To be successful,all schemes had to demonstrate they were going tomeet those two criteria. There were secondary criteria,which included desirable social consequences wewanted to see from those schemes. They wereweighted, and they were given a number in theformula to work out what the final figure for eachscheme was, but they were not themselves a bar ifthey weren’t met. However, I sincerely believe that ifyou promote a sustainable transport scheme, whetherit is a bus lane, or an improved bus station, or whetherit is including cycling, walking or making the towncentre more attractive, those schemes themselves will,by and large—although they may not be the purposeof the intervention—generally have a beneficial socialeffect as well.

Q220 Caroline Lucas: To draw a conclusion fromthat—and that is a really helpful example because youhave an environmental criterion there, a mandatoryone and an economic one in terms of growth—do youthink there is an argument for having a third socialcriterion, or do you think we can interpret your answeras saying that is unnecessary because it is appropriatethat it has a lesser weighting and it will work out inthe wash, essentially?Norman Baker: Put it this way: I think the twobiggest challenges we face at the moment are to dealwith the economic situation that we are in, and—asyou will appreciate more than most—to deal with theclimate challenge that we face. I am determined weshould not neglect that in what we do in theDepartment for Transport.There are other hugely desirable things we want to doon transport. One is about accessibility per se. One isthe social consequences of what we do. One is theimpact on the landscape, whatever. There is a wholerange of stuff that we would like to do as nice add-ons. I think the—

Q221 Caroline Lucas: Wait a minute, can I stop youthere? “A nice add-on”, is that what you would saythat the social impact assessment would be?Norman Baker: I do not want to diminish it. What Iam saying is that the two absolute key things we aredoing are creating economic wealth and cuttingcarbon. There are also things we want to do as wellat the same time, which are not mutually exclusive,and are factored in and are given weight within thesystem but not the same weight as those two primaryobjectives. However, as I said a moment ago, I believethat if we deal with the two primary objectivesproperly, and particularly the environmental side, thatwill almost inevitably have beneficial socialconsequences as well.

Q222 Caroline Lucas: My last question is abouttransport fares. Have you done work looking at theimpact of rising transport fares on people’s access toservices and getting to work and so forth?Norman Baker: I do not know if we have done workprecisely on that point. Do you know that?Nigel Dotchin: We have looked at rail fares, in thelight of the recent fare rises and so on, but we haven’tdone anything recently on bus fares.




Q223 Caroline Lucas: What was the conclusion onthe rail fares?Nigel Dotchin: Basically, we have not seen anydecrease in the number of passengers using them. Itmay be too early to come up with some conclusionson that, but this whole issue about rising fares comesup time and time again, in terms of access to workand so on.Norman Baker: The case is that the social mix—thisisn’t true for everyone of course, but by and large,people who use the trains tend to have moredisposable income than people who use buses and,therefore, in a sense, if we are thinking about accessas a financial barrier to public transport, the buses insome way are more important in that sense than thetrain is, which is why I am reassured that bus numbersin terms of passenger numbers are holding up, in factmarginally increasing.Just for the record, there has been a 52% increase intrain passenger journeys over the last 10 years.Despite the economic recession, we have seenpassenger number shooting up year on yearthroughout the recession, sort of China-style GDPincreases of 6% or 7% a year, and there is no sign ofthat levelling off.I think we are seeing a societal change in people’smindsets. Whereas public transport used to be seen asa second class option that you would use if you didnot have access to a car and, as soon as you couldafford a car, you would abandon public transport, Ithink that is changing. Many more people are nowsaying, “I want to use public transport as a first choiceand I will use the car as a second choice”. That is asocietal change that I am observing, which is reallyquite interesting and rather encouraging.

Q224 Caroline Lucas: One last little follow-up, ifthat is all right. Just following the logic that you wereexplaining, from an accessibility point of view, that itis probably more relevant to worry about the busesthan the trains. On that, could you clarify whether ornot your Department has any powers over bus fares?On rail fares, there was the decision of theGovernment to cap at a certain level of increase. Doyou have the powers to do that on bus fares?Norman Baker: I am almost certain we don’t, becauseobviously all the commercial services werederegulated by Mrs Thatcher—in whose room we aresitting—in 1986. Other services are tendered servicesorganised by local councils or, indeed, separatelyarranged through Transport for London through theMayor. So, I am almost certain we don’t. If we dohave any, I will be surprised but I will let you know.I will write to you if we do have any.

Q225 Katy Clark: We have heard that accessibilityplanning arrangements have not been operating asenvisaged in making connections. In your view, howsuccessfully has the accessibility planning regimebeen?Norman Baker: I am not sure I accept the premise ofthe question, but I should say just for background,in December 2008, the Department commissioned anevaluation of accessibility planning to understand theprocesses by which this would be operationalised, if

that is the word, and the impact that has on the workof local authorities. I think that evaluation report hasbeen submitted, Chair, to your Committee as part ofthe Government’s evidence to the Committee inquiryinto transport and the accessibility of services. All Ican say is I have an open mind on that matter, and Ishall wait and see what recommendations you comeforward with to see whether or not we should dofurther work on that.Generally speaking, as you will know, I think theEnvironmental Audit Committee is a very importantfunction of Parliament and I shall await with interestthe recommendations that come to this Departmentfrom this inquiry.

Q226 Katy Clark: At the moment do you have aview on how successful the regime has been, or doyou have an open mind? Is it something you are stillthinking about?Norman Baker: I would like to see what you comeup with as part of your evidence. I do not have afixed view on that. I think there have been importantadvances in the accessibility regime. There have beenother areas where we might have gone further.

Q227 Katy Clark: You obviously will have given thewhole issue some thought. What do you think theissues are that would prevent accessibility planningfrom having a greater impact? Where do you see theproblems as being?Norman Baker: It probably comes down to mindset,which I mentioned earlier on, rather than anythingelse. Nigel, do you have anything you want to addto that?Nigel Dotchin: No, I think it is that. The evaluationthat we have submitted addresses some of thoseparticular issues. For example, it talks about how youremove the silos within local authorities. It also talksabout the important role of individual champions,people who are enthusiastic about this, taking itforward, because there are lots of obstacles that theyhave to overcome. It is like a lot of things, there area lot of competing bits of guidance that people haveto operate. So it is identifying who is responsible forthis. It is almost like translating the challenges facedby central Government into local government. Thereare lots of different areas of responsibility. It is howto join them up as well. The challenges are there at thelocal level and it is about how you overcome those.

Q228 Katy Clark: I appreciate you are still toreceive our report, but at the moment do you have avision of where you are going in terms of this wholearea? Do you think there is a need for further work tobe done, for example further guidance? Is thatsomething that you are thinking about?Norman Baker: The vision I have is that all publictransport becomes accessible to everybody,irrespective of who they are and where they are andeverything else, and that people are not preventedfrom using public transport either because of the lackof public transport or because of the particularcondition in which they find themselves in. That iswhere I want to get to. We are getting there slowly.As a matter of fact—and I think this is a matter that




has been true across the last two Governments, as wellthis one I hope—as a country, without beingcomplacent, we are further ahead than some othercountries in this regard, but we have further to go,which is why we published our accessibility actionplan. I do not know if you have seen that, Chair, butit was published in December. We will send you acopy if you do not have it. It is why we continue toengage with operators, users and others to try to makesure that outstanding issues are dealt with.I should say, because I think it is relevant, that inpreparation for this action plan—again, this was notsomething that I just sat down with officials round atable in a smokefilled room and wrote—we got usersto come in and talk to us about it. We had all thepressure groups. We had user representatives, peoplefrom disability groups and so on, who came in andtalked to us about their problems and what theywanted to see, and that is the documented result ofthat process.

Q229 Katy Clark: How are you getting the widerpublic sector, not just local authorities butGovernment Departments, agencies and so on,involved in this so that they also have a stake in thewhole process?Norman Baker: As I mentioned earlier on, it is aboutbreaking down those silos between GovernmentDepartments. I think we are making progress on that.There is obviously the Minister for Disabled Peopleas a key member of Government to help with thatprocess. However, I think it is important that weensure that the logic, as well as the fairness of theposition we adopt at the Department for Transport ismore widely understood.

Q230 Chair: Thank you. Can I just go back to thepoint that Caroline Lucas was making about busderegulation and Mrs Thatcher and what happenedunder the then Conservative Government? Could I justask you to perhaps speak about the quality buspartnerships? As I recall, that was a proposal thatcame forward more recently, which was looking atways of getting quality bus partnerships that wouldtake account of the fares or of what was needed to fillthe gap between the bus service that was desirable andthe bus service that actually existed. Is that somethingthat you would see as playing a part in improvingaccessibility?Norman Baker: Where the partnerships have existedbetween local councils and bus operators, by andlarge, the provision for the passenger has improvedimmeasurably as a consequence of that. There areexamples across the country, whether it is inBrighton—if you speak to Caroline Lucas overthere—or elsewhere, where the bus services havebenefited, irrespective of political control, from a goodrelationship between a council and a bus operator.Where there has been a breakdown, then often it hasbeen a very poor service for the passenger and it hasbeen a scorched earth policy on both sides.I have wanted to encourage partnership. That is whyI set up the Better Bus Area Fund, which is a way ofdriving those two sides together and giving them afinancial incentive for working together. If you work

together and come up with a solution for your area,you can get an uplift in the amounts of money that weare giving to you and that is a process that is underway now. Sheffield was the first recipient of that, andthey have some really innovative ideas to driveforward the increase in bus passenger numbers.What we are also doing is encouraging, within therules of the competition regime, bus companies towork together—rather than running themselves off theroad and following each other every two minutes asthey sometimes do in the worst examples, to worktogether with a proper planned schedule with multi-operator ticketing. There is nothing more irritating forsomeone than to have a return to their suburb, then tofind that the bus that comes along is not the companythey have a ticket for and to wait another 15 minutesfor another bus to come along. That is mad and it isin nobody’s interest to do that.What we have seen, for example, in Oxford is thatthere is an arrangement there between Stagecoach andGo-Ahead, which is entirely in the interests of the buspassenger and avoids that through multi-operatorticketing but is in the interests of Go-Ahead andStagecoach as well. It is that sort of practice that weare very keen to enthuse about and to draw attentionto, and we will do more of that in our own work.

Q231 Chair: Is anybody measuring how that is beingimplemented? Do you know which areas werecovered and which areas of the country were not?Isn’t it the case that in areas that previously had aPassenger Transport Executive, there is much morescope for integrated transport planning than in areasthat were outside those reference areas?Norman Baker: It is certainly true that, when youhave a concentrated urban area, it is easier to dotransport planning than when you haven’t. That isperhaps self-evident. It does not mean that other areascan’t have transport planning. For example, in thesecond wave of city deals, which has been announced,20 cities up and down the country, they are not theManchesters and Liverpools of this world, they aresmaller. Sorry to refer back to Brighton again, butCaroline will know that I know it very well. That isnot simply a Brighton issue. That is Brighton andWorthing to the left and Lewes to the east, and so on.So you can pick up what is your travel to work area,which may not be a PTEG area, and I think thatlooking at matters in that regard is probably a goodway forward.

Q232 Dr Whitehead: You have national accessibilitystatistics, as you have mentioned, produced by theDepartment. How do you use the statistics from theDepartment’s point of view?Norman Baker: We use them predominantly to helplocal authorities plan local services. Of course, wealso analyse them ourselves to identify trends and tosee whether any higher level interventions arenecessary.

Q233 Dr Whitehead: Are there any trends thatworry you in those statistics?Norman Baker: The average journey length isincreasing, which is not entirely helpful. I think it is a




reflection on how society operates. I am concernedabout—this is not a transport matter particularly,except that we have to pick up the consequences—thefact that we are seeing the closure of shops, theclosure of post offices sometimes, although hopefullythat has now stopped, sometimes pubs shutting downin areas, and hospital services being concentrated inone area rather than in a more disparate arrangementas has hitherto been the case. Those things worry mepersonally on a societal basis.

Q234 Dr Whitehead: You say they worry youpersonally. The hospital access statistics, for example,show a couple of percentage points decrease over thelast year in accessibility, and a constant downwardtrend over the last four years before that. Would thatbe something the Department would, say, flag up forother Departments, or would be proactive on?Norman Baker: We do flag up issues when they cometo our attention, and, certainly, I have just flagged upsome now that I am aware of at the front of my mind.Ultimately it is not our responsibility, as you willappreciate, as the Department for Transport to dealwith the provision of services elsewhere. For example,there may be very good clinical reasons why hospitalservices are concentrated in one particular area.Indeed, I am sure that those involved in the NHS willtell you that is sensible, and patients are better offfrom travelling slightly further rather than havingwhat they would regard as a less good service at theirimmediate local hospital. That is not for us at the DFTto deal with; we obviously do draw attention to thetransport consequences and we certainly hope thatother Departments, in the provision of services, willbear in mind the transport consequences of anyrationalisation.

Q235 Dr Whitehead: When we asked the Health,Education and Work and Pensions Departments lastmonth about how they used the statistics, they said,“Not very much”. Indeed, one Department said theyhad not heard of them.Norman Baker: If you would like to give my officialsdetails of which Departments are not using them, ornot using them very much, then I shall very happilydraw them to their attention.

Q236 Dr Whitehead: That is a positive view, andI’m sure we will do that. Over and above that, as astarting point, would you expect those Departments tobe making good and regular use of the statistics? Afterall, I think we would all agree that the front-line rangeof statistics are pretty good, aren’t they?Norman Baker: They are quite good. I think peopleshould use them, they are there. They are paid forfrom taxpayers’ money, they ought to be used. Iunderstand why Departments, whose primary functionis education or health, or whatever it happens to be,are concentrated on whether or not waiting times arelonger or whether children’s GCSE performance isgood. I understand why it is their primary function tolook at those things, but it is part of my function, andthe Department’s function, to remind them that thereis another issue underneath the radar that is, quiterightly, further down their list of priorities but

nevertheless important, which is: can people get toyour hospital? Can they get to your school? If theyget there are they getting there sustainably or are theygetting there unsustainably? That is a legitimatequestion to ask. I would hope that other Departmentsare in fact trying to incorporate those questions intheir overall planning.

Q237 Dr Whitehead: I have mentioned that theaccessibility statistics look pretty good overall, butcertainly, in terms of the analysis that yourDepartment provides alongside those statistics, I thinkit is also fair to say that that analysis is pretty muchconcentrated at the national and regional level. Atlocal level, yes, you have raw data, but that is all. Doyou accept that as a criticism of the statistics? Do youthink that that perhaps indicates a shortcoming,certainly to the extent to which people may be ableto look at more localised applications of accessibility,particularly in view of the fact that that is one of theparticular things that you highlighted as one of theuses of the statistics?Norman Baker: I wouldn’t accept the word“criticism” because I think it is right that weconcentrate our efforts on national statistics. We are anational Department and not a local authority, so Ithink it is proper that we do that. It is also properthat we help local authorities, and we do, by makingstatistics available to them. For example, the softwarepackage most commonly used by local authorities iscurrently ‘Accession’. A new software package isbeing developed for launch later this year. This willlook at how they can use statistics locally. We havenot been funding that but we have been helping themwith that and pushing them in the right direction, tosay, “This is how you might deal with this”. I thinkthat is our role, to be supportive but not to bedirective.

Q238 Dr Whitehead: Would you conclude from thatthat the way the statistics are compiled and presentedat the moment is as good as it could be, as far as morelocal transport planning decisions are concerned, butalso in terms of transparency as far as enabling peopleto understand how the services are going in gettingmore local accessibility?Norman Baker: I think our role is to make dataavailable to local authorities and then for them to useit as they best see fit for their own purposes.

Q239 Martin Caton: What do you see as the futurebig challenges for transport accessibility likely toappear on the horizon in the not too distant future?Norman Baker: I think there is going to be a long tailof work to do with physical accessibility, not so muchwith vehicles, which will be dealt with, but withrailway stations. No matter how much we plough intothat, there is a long tail there. Some stuff just looksunmoveable—the tube network, for example. I didn’trealise until I became a father just how awkward it isto carry pushchairs around the tube network, it reallyis, and yet there is no obvious solution to some ofthat. That is going to be there for quite some timeand there is no obvious answer to that, so that is onechallenge as to how we try to deal with that.




I suppose the second challenge is to make sure that weuse information in a way that gives people somethinghelpful to them when they are planning their transportjourneys, and makes the system more accessible bythe way we provide the information. A lot of that willbe internet-based because that is the way we aregoing. Also bearing in mind that 18% of people eithernever use or rarely use the internet, we have to find away of making sure those people are not left out ofwhat we are doing in terms of the transport challengesahead. It is a question of discouraging non-digitalchannels but without excluding people who rely onthem.There is the challenge—it is not particularly for us,but we are obviously involved in it—of what theGovernment and councils do with land use planning.The relationship between planning and transport isquite an important one, as you will appreciate. That isnot something we control directly, but we have a dutyto say from the Department for Transport to otherGovernment Departments such as CLG, or to localcouncils, “If you do that you are going to create a bigproblem”. We are not going to get involved inindividual hospitals and schools, but if there is a majorproposal for, say, a rail freight interchange, then theconsequences of that are significant in terms of whatthe network does and so on. So I think there are issuesgenerally where we will be involved at that level.Overall I am optimistic that the structure of the publictransport system is getting better, the vehiclesthemselves are improving, that the mindset isimproving and the need to ensure accessibility is nowregarded as more mainstream, as it should be, andmore than it was. So there are challenges are ahead,but I am optimistic.

Q240 Martin Caton: That is very useful, Minister.As the accessibility lead Department—for instance, onthe digital by default policies of the Government—doyou see it as your role, as a Department and as aMinister, to seek to influence all other Departments sothat we do not have the exclusion of that 18% to 20%that you quite rightly drew attention to?Norman Baker: Yes, I do see it as our role to makesure that we factor that in. We do factor these thingsin. Ministers across different Departments have beendiscussing broadband, for example, and while someDepartments will naturally focus on one aspect of that,and what it means for the economy or whatever it maybe, we will also focus on the consequences of that interms of accessibility. Not only that, but we areinterested in the growth aspect as well, of course.However, these elements come into the roundeddiscussion that comes when you have differentDepartments sitting together discussing issues of thatnature. So, yes, we will continue to raise these issues,and indeed other Departments raise them as well.They are also interested. It has not been raised so farbut, just for the record, we are also pushingalternatives to travel, which are also part ofaccessibility. I am the lead Minister for that. I amdelighted to be a Minister for not travelling as well astravelling. For example, that involves learning fromthe Olympic Games, identifying that we do not alwayshave to come to work five days a week in a particular

building in London and use the same train every day.Sometimes we might want to travel at different times,sometimes we will want to stay at home and workfrom home. All those sorts of benefits that can accrue,both personally and environmentally, need to bepromoted. We are doing that with other Departmentsand with private companies like Microsoft and BT.

Q241 Martin Caton: You mentioned the planningreform proposals earlier on. Do you see the changesin planning as an opportunity to better integratetransport in the future? Is that something that you aretaking a lead on, and how are you going to push thingsin the right direction?Norman Baker: The planning changes that areproposed and discussed are obviously subject toconsultation around Government Departments.Therefore, as a Department, we have been fully ableto give other Departments including CLG our viewson the transport implications and desirability ofparticular outcomes and policies.

Q242 Martin Caton: So you are hopeful we aregoing to get better integrated?Norman Baker: I am confident that we have madeour case to CLG, and other Departments, as to thetransport implications and the transport desirabilitiesthat can be achieved through a better planning regime.

Q243 Chair: Just pushing that a little bit more, youdid mention at the very outset how, with the CabinetOffice, if there was a dispute between twoDepartments there was some way of reconciling that.Given that in the case of the NPPF there has now beenthe Taylor review, which I understand is proposingthat existing statutory provisions for planning, and forthe planning system on transport, should be deletedand new guidance issued. Does what you have justsaid mean that you are confident that the Departmentfor Transport’s take on what that new guidance shouldbe will be there when it is all known and published?Norman Baker: I am not an expert on the Taylorreview, so I am not going to dive in to that. What Iwould say is—as I said a moment ago—that planningand transport are inextricably linked in many ways,and we have made known our views on theimportance of ensuring that any planning regimefacilitates rather than damages the prospect offacilitating local transport.

Q244 Chair: Finally, rising petrol prices. Manypeople feel this is just as important as rising fuelprices, and it is about how you square the circlebetween what is environmentally desirable, what issocially desirable and how that links in with transportpolicy. I wonder, in terms of the huge increases thatwe have seen in other modes of transport, what youare doing to help those in rural or outlying areas wherethe cost of petrol is quite high.Norman Baker: There is a specific policy to help veryrural areas, which the Government is pursuing interms of fuel prices. It is important to recognise thatpublic transport fares have gone up above inflationover a very long period of time, over decades. I usedto regularly table parliamentary questions that listed




that information when I was in opposition. However,we also have to recognise that for some people the caris a necessity and also a significant expense for peoplewho are often quite poor. That is one of the reasonswhy I have been encouraging industry not to introduceE10 fuel at the moment, because my judgment is thatof the number of vehicles that are incompatible withE10, a large number are vehicles from, say, 15 yearsago, run as motors every day by people who are quitepoor and cannot afford a newer vehicle. I am very lothto have a policy that penalises people who are quitepoor and rely on a motor vehicle to get around. Wehave to be very careful about that for social reasons.Of course we recognise the value of the motor vehicle.We also recognise the challenge of fuel prices.What I would say is that the answer to both theenvironmental challenge we face and to that issue ofuncertain fuel prices, and fossil fuel supplies comingfrom often uncertain parts of the world, is todecarbonise the transport system. If we decarbonisethe transport system, we are no longer subject to fuelprices going up and down because we are not usingfuel in the same way. There is a path that we haveadopted on that—we are spending £400 million in thisspending review period on decarbonising the car androad vehicles. I think that is money well spent.Therefore I think we will end up ahead of the game,not just in terms of decarbonising the transport systembut also in terms of helping British industry, becausewe are ahead on that in European terms. We areattracting money in to places like the north-east nowto invest in this, and the Nissan Leaf production andso on is evidence of that. We are decarbonising thecar like that, we are decarbonising the rail system byour massive electrification programme, and we arehelping buses with the fourth round of the green busfund. All those measures are designed to make surewe are not vulnerable to fuel price increases becausewe just simply bypass the fuel. That is where I wantto get to.

Q245 Chair: You are confident that you have thedialogue with the BIS Department to make sure thatthe innovation, the research and the application of thattechnology is going to be there, with the funding that

you need from the Department for Transport to putthat into effect?Norman Baker: Absolutely. We have a four-yearfunding programme, and that money is inviolate, that£400 million I referred to. I share responsibility withMichael Fallon at BIS directly for this agenda. Wemeet regularly to talk about it, and we are at one onthe direction of travel we are engaged on.

Q246 Dr Whitehead: I wonder whether you arehaving dialogue with other Departments about therelative carbon intensity of the electricity that iscoming the way of the vehicles that have beendecarbonised by the Department for Transport.Norman Baker: The answer is yes, I regularly speakto Ed Davey about such matters.

Q247 Dr Whitehead: Do you have any encouragingwords to say to him about the extent to which thedecarbonisation of vehicles, and indeed transport,would be greatly helped by the fact that the fuel thatwent in to them might be decarbonised or not? Orwould it make the decarbonisation work or otherwise?Norman Baker: If electric vehicles are used there isa reduction in carbon emissions, as I understand it,even if the fuel used to generate the power istraditional fossil fuel. Not that I am advocating that,but there is certainly an air pollution benefit from that.However, DECC, of all Departments, is committed totry to deal with climate change and to reduce ourcarbon emissions. They fully understand that the useof the grid may change with electric vehicles and thatis factored into their forward plans. Again, in termsof this cross-departmental work, we regularly talk toDECC about such matters both at an official andministerial level.Chair: There we must leave it. It has been anextraordinarily informative session. We are gratefulboth to you, Minister, and to Mr Dotchin for comingalong this afternoon. I very much hope that, when itarrives on your desk, our report will influence theDepartment for Transport’s thinking on this. Thankyou very much.Norman Baker: I shall look forward to it. Thank you.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026766 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026766/026766_w012_steve_TRA 43 DWP (Additional).xml


Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Derek Halden, DHC

1.0 Summary

— There remain many market and policy pressures that lead to poorer access for some people.Markets serve majority populations better than minorities, and accessibility benefits are oftensacrificed by public agencies and service providers to achieve single sector efficiency goals.Despite these difficulties, accessibility goals have increasingly become more explicit in policyover the last decade, and progress has been made checking that accessibility needs are beingmet, and tackling identified problems.

— The implementation of accessibility planning as envisaged by the SEU in 2003 is still work inprogress.1 Faster progress could be prompted by changing how transport investment decisionsare made, and nurturing new professional practices.

— The transport industry views improving accessibility as its core business, but is often unclearabout who has benefitted from transport investment, and for what trip purposes. More auditingis required to ensure that accountability is clearer. Only a minority of transport authorities haveso far embraced the opportunities of accessibility planning, and the general culture of transportplanning and delivery continues to be focused on promoting more mobility, which does notalways lead to greater accessibility.

— Accessibility planning in the transport sector, parallels similar evidence led, people focused,partnership delivery initiatives in other sectors. Initiatives for people and patient focused carein health, and child centred learning in education, adopt very similar principles, and have facedsimilar challenges. People focused approaches should be distinguished from client and customerservice improvements, since non users can be the main beneficiaries.

— Transport related social exclusion is still widespread. Despite improving accessibility being thepolicy rationale for investing in transport, the current public funding of £20 billion+ fortransport each year may still be making more impact on growing travel demand than improvingaccessibility; perhaps also creating more exclusion than it solves; and compounding land usechanges which continue to make some essential services less accessible.

— Without the improvements made through accessibility planning over the last 20 years,accessibility in the UK would be worse, the economy weaker, society more unequal, and therewould be more emissions from transport.

2.0 Evidence Base for This Response

2.1 This response draws evidence from experience over 20 years of accessibility planning, and has beenprepared by DHC founder, Derek Halden. Derek helped to introduce and implement accessibility policieswithin the Scottish Office between 1991 and 1992,2 and subsequently researched the theory and practice ofaccessibility planning at the Transport Research Laboratory until 1995 at a time when the concept was gainingground within policy.3 Since 1996 DHC has pioneered many aspects of the practice of accessibility planning.DHC developed guidance for the Scottish Executive between 1998 and 20024 and subsequently along withUniversity of Westminster developed accessibility planning processes in England from 2003 to 2005.5 Since2006, DHC has been helping DfT to prepare the national accessibility statistics referenced in the call forevidence.6 References are made to some of this work, as footnotes.

3.0 Q1—How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services?

Access to services is very much better than it might have been, but the implementation of accessibilityplanning in transport policies is still work in progress.

3.1 The case for government action is greatest where there is market failure. With levels of accessibilityfalling for many people as travel times and costs rise, tackling these problems is probably the greatest marketfailure in transport. Yet transport investment and delivery still tends to emphasise market pressures, such1 The recommendations DHC and University of Westminster made in 20034 to DfT on how to deliver accessibility planning have

still only been partially executed.2 Scottish Office 1992—Roads Traffic and Safety stated that —“it is not the government’s policy to meet all travel demand but

rather to ensure that the accessibility needs of people and business, including for tourism, are met”3 Eg Labour’s 1997 manifesto “Consensus for Change” committed government to basing future investment priorities in transport

on their accessibility benefit rather than simply responding to the demand for travel.4 DHC 2000. Guidance on Accessibility Measuring Techniques and their Application. Commissioned and Published by the Scottish

Executive. Further work was also undertaken to draft transport appraisal and land use planning requirements with ScottishTransport Appraisal Guidance being first published in 2003 and National Planning Policy Guidance NPPG17 and PlanningAdvice Note 57 being revised in 2005.

5 The main report from this work is the final report by DHC and University of Westminster 2004—Developing and PilotingAccessibility Planning is still available from http://www.dhc1.co.uk/projects/accessibility_developing.pdf

6 National Accessibility statistics for 2006–2011 are at http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-statistics-2011/

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026766 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026766/026766_w012_steve_TRA 43 DWP (Additional).xml


as road congestion, rather than market failure, such as the inability of people and businesses to meet theirtravel needs.

3.2 Since 2003,7 when a new cross governmental co-ordinating role on accessibility was allocated to DfT,there have been two distinct transport sector roles in improving accessibility:

— As a champion for cross-sector action for better accessibility

— Delivering improved accessibility through transport.

3.3 The first role could potentially be led by a non-transport government department, and this was consideredby the SEU in 2002–3. Government is seeking to redefine its role as a champion for the needs of citizens,rather than just a provider of public services,8 so transport was selected as the sector best suited tochampioning accessibility change.

The transport sector as a champion for better accessibility

3.4 Although the theory of accessibility planning can be perceived as complex, the practice is actually verystraightforward. Accessibility planning checks that needs are being met, and organises solutions to the identifiedproblems. In 2003 the SEU noted that no government department was formally responsible for either checkingor organising, and as a result other pressures were leading to a decline in accessibility for many people.Transport’s wide ranging remit and covers issues like checking that, when land use changes or public servicedelivery is re-organised, citizens can still access the new sites, and then ensuring that transport and othercomplementary changes are made to secure access for all. Some elements of this have worked better thanothers.

3.5 Becoming responsible for accessibility requires that there must be some accountability for failure ifaccessibility gets worse. However few people working in transport yet perceive their role as critical in checkingthat health departments do not inadvertently make accessibility worse when they re-organise service delivery,or education authorities do not inadvertently build new schools in inaccessible locations, or that land useplanning authorities avoid permitting developments which lead to the closure of local accessible grocers. Thepressures on accessibility have continued to increase since 2003, and the transport sector has only partiallychecked the impacts of the changes, or organised solutions to identified problems.

3.6 Practical progress has been achieved by DfT championing the cross sector agenda through the annualpublication of accessibility statistics. DHC has calculated these for DfT each year since the statistical seriesstarted, and we have observed the encouraging use being made of these statistics by many governmentdepartments and campaign groups.9 Examples can be identified where decisions of the Departments forHealth, Work, Justice, and other departments have been influenced by accessibility statistics, and have deliveredmore accessible solutions as a result.10

3.7 In the call for evidence, the committee refers to these statistics11 and summarises some results forpopulations that were considered to be within “reasonable” travel time thresholds. As far as we are aware,when publishing these statistics the Department for Transport has always avoided making judgments about“reasonableness”. DfT is responsible for checking for change, and prompting co-ordinated action, so theindicators are used to support these roles. DfT has sought to ensure it does not inadvertently blur the clearaccountabilities for accessibility within each tier and sector of government12 so has used continuous indicatorsfor monitoring. For example access to health is a statutory Department for Health responsibility, but transportauthorities can usefully prompt action by health authorities if checks on accessibility reveal that the travel timeor cost of reaching health services is increasing.

3.8 Much more could be done. If transport departments nationally and locally were formally required toreport annually to their colleagues in other departments and sectors their concerns about accessibility issues,then this might prompt more action. This is discussed below under local transport planning, but the sameprinciples apply nationally. A cross sector reporting requirement would prompt DfT to raise issues with otherdepartments and help to keep accessibility planning on national agendas. The 2003 SEU conclusion, that7 The Social Exclusion Unit recognised that to deal with a cross sector problem there would need to be cross sector action led by

DfT—see SEU 2003. Making the Connections.8 Eg in a 2010 speech on public sector reform the Prime Minister said “if politics is about anything, it’s about focusing on

those things people really care about—and making them better”. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-speech-on-modern-public-service/

9 A recent review of the uses of these indicators by DHC is at http://www.dhc1.co.uk/projects/useandabuseonline.pdf (alsopublished in Research and Transport Business and Management Volume 2 by Elsevier). See also the Forum for the FutureSustainable Cities Index http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/sustainable-cities-index/overview which used the indicatorsbut has been discontinued due to lack of funding. When funding is restricted cross sector initiatives like sustainability are morevulnerable than narrower core agendas such as campaigning for cycles, trains and cars.

10 See the review of the uses of indicators above.11 http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-statistics-2011/12 Although the SEU 2003 report used the term “reasonable”, when we applied this theory to practice we demonstrated that

reasonableness was a subjective viewpoint. For the design of accessibility planning as applied by DfT, continuous indicatorshave always been used. Further details are in DHC and UoW 2004—Developing and Piloting Accessibility Planninghttp://www.dhc1.co.uk/projects/accessibility_developing.pdf and the DfT Statistical Guidance describing how the indicatorsshould be used http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/accessibility-statistics-guidance.pdf

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026766 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026766/026766_w012_steve_TRA 43 DWP (Additional).xml


accessibility would continue to be seen as a secondary order problem by all departments unless specific actionwas taken, is pertinent.

3.9 The national analysis is based on travel time. Time is a necessary condition for access, but is only oneof many parameters. In the future it should be possible to add more dimensions to accessibility statistics, butin the meantime other dimensions of access can be considered in more local analyses and include the personalcapabilities of each group of people.

3.10 The travel time to local services and facilities is regarded internationally as a factor of increasingimportance when determining the livability of a place. The DfT statistics are seen a pioneering example, sincethey include not just drive times to facilities, but walk, cycle and public transport travel times. Ensuring thateach resident of the UK can walk and cycle to as many local services as possible is not just good socially andeconomically, but ensures that local access choices are competitive with longer distance travel. Transportauthorities have achieved many successes securing local access improvements as part of place making,regeneration and neighbourhood planning agendas. The new focus on accessibility has provided a policyframework for this joint working. Research has shown that previously roads and public transport managers hadfound it difficult to relate their job description to these wider goals and accessibility planning has helped toovercome these joint working problems.

3.11 Using statistics requires care. The national statistics have shown a steady increase in the travel times tohospital which is partly misleading, as only some hospital services have been centralised, with others nowbeing delivered from more accessible local health centres. The statistics challenge practitioners to ask relevantquestions, to prompt further action.

Delivering better accessibility through transport investment

3.12 If we “follow the money” then most transport practitioners have little incentive to support accessibilityplanning. When local shops and services close, people need to travel to more remote locations, so the transportsector grows with financial benefits for all those that work in the transport industry. One of the aims of givingaccessibility planning responsibilities to transport authorities was to ensure that accountability was clear fordelivering better accessibility for all—not just more transport.

3.13 However, policy statements about improving accessibility are often vague, and delivery often does notoptimise accessibility benefits for all citizens. Some have argued that separate funding is needed to deliveraccessibility plans providing a funding incentive, but, other than for training and pilot project development,this is not either what the SEU suggested in 2003, or what we recommended in 2004 to DfT on how toimplement accessibility planning. With £20 billion+ of public funding being invested in transport each year, arelatively small fund to support accessibility improvements would make only a small impact compared with re-aligning mainstream transport investment to be consistent with accessibility plans. We therefore recommendedaccessibility audits of all transport investment, to ensure that transport delivery is consistent with accessibilityaims.

3.14 These audits could be part of requirements that all government funded transport investment should beconsistent with NATA (New Approach to Transport Appraisal). Many improvements to transport appraisal havebeen made to NATA since 2003–4 but transport appraisal remains poorly integrated with accessibility planningfor the following reasons:

— Transport appraisal remains focused at growing the transport economy, rather than the widereconomy and society, and wider issues are considered only as factors for mitigation.13

— In NATA, mode shift from car to walking is regarded as a negative economic effect, as ittransfers value from the transport economy to the wider economy. Instead of looking atopportunities for access by walking, NATA uses the concept of severance to demonstrate howroad and rail infrastructure might make local walking trips more difficult rather than valuingwalking trips in their own right.

— Transport efficiency is measured in the economic appraisal, but transport effectiveness indelivering accessibility improvements is only partly covered and even this relies on a complexproxy measure called “transport option value”. This was introduced in 1998 and we have yetto see an example of this type of analysis being performed successfully outside major railprojects. As a result NATA notes that the transport option value criterion remains in draft.

— The recent introduction in 2012 of the personal affordability appraisal requirement is extremelywelcome, but has not yet had time to work its way through into widespread practice.14 Thisnew 2012 requirement also reports the consistency of transport investment with localaccessibility plans which also for the first time recognises local accessibility planning asrelevant to transport investment decisions. Personal affordability is not the only NATA criterionthat needs to be better grounded in local accessibility plans.

13 Eg Social and distributional impacts are appraised rather than social and distributional aims from local accessibility plans.Transport is designed primarily to serve narrow transport needs rather than starting from wider social, economic andenvironmental aims and identifying the best transport investment to deliver these wider aims.

14 A more general requirement to appraise personal opportunities for travel was introduced in Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidancein 2003, so there is some experience showing how appraisals of other factors can be successfully undertaken.



3.15 A corollary of not understanding the benefits for people, is that technical appraisal is less useful thanit should be in supporting decisions by elected representatives15 and voters. For example, transport ministerNorman Baker alluded to this when he highlighted the Alloa railway project as an example of how transportdelivery happened despite, not because of, transport appraisal rules. Just as child centred learning in educationneeds to use techniques that can be used by parents, teachers, social workers and health professionals, so thetransport planning toolkit needs to change to support more integrated delivery approaches. For example, thecurrent DfT analysis and reporting requirements, despite their recent revisions, would do little to help thetransport sector work well with Job Centres to improve access to work.16

3.16 If the most common trips made by UK residents to access local stores and services by walking are stillregarded in transport appraisal as being of no value to the transport economy, it is of no surprise that highstreets are starved of the transport investment needed to make them pleasant, attractive places to visit. Localwalking trips are the most environmentally sensitive, socially inclusive and economically efficient ways toensure good access.

4.0 Q2—Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affectingthe accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public servicesadequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transportneeded to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

Core business is viewed in narrow single sector terms with cross sector concepts like accessibility beingregarded as secondary issues, but clear public accountability for all sectors is assisted by the publication ofevidence of accessibility change

4.1 Most public service providers have statutory responsibilities for ensuring that all people can access theirservices. Most aim to discharge that responsibility by concentrating on their core values in health, socialservices, education, leisure services, employment services, legal services, and other provision, and informingtransport providers about the transport difficulties. However transport departments could not possibly fund allthe transport needed without a massive increase in transport budgets as they currently spend far less on revenuesupport for transport than other sectors like health, social services, and education. Accessibility planning hassought to deliver better value joint approaches, but tactical budget dumping has undermined progress. Betteraccessibility is an overlapping policy aim between transport and other policies, but turning these shared policiesinto jointly funded solutions has been more difficult.

4.2 A classic situation which has been repeated many times across the country has been as follows. A healthauthority wishes to build a new hospital and selects cheap land since this makes better use of the health budget.Planning agreements then often fail to secure the long term investment in transport needed to compensate formoving the health services from an accessible to an inaccessible location, and transport authorities are facedwith picking up the costs of dealing with support for public transport, congestion on the road network, andsocial exclusion amongst health users unable to access healthcare. There have been examples where transportauthorities have used their accessibility plans to change NHS plans, but these remain the exception.

4.3 Accessibility audits of land use plans were introduced to land use planning policy in 199517 and mostplanning authorities continue to support development in more accessible locations. When we reviewed thepractice on this in 1999 we found that a few enthusiasts had used the opportunity of the new policies to applyaccessibility planning, but this practice was rarely seen as core business by local authorities. Core businesswas viewed in narrower single sector terms. For example, a senior authority staff member summed up theaccountability challenge, by noting that “nobody loses their job because accessibility gets worse, but if thepotholes are not filled then there is trouble”. Therefore when the SEU started to look at the topic a few yearslater we highlighted accountability as a key issue.

4.4 The new approaches since 2004 for accessibility planning have sought to make it easier for employment,health, education, social services, environment, and planning departments to invest more efficiently andeffectively in accessibility for staff and clients. However there is far more failure of these partnership schemesthan success. Where joint cross sector schemes have been established, it has not taken long for each sector toseek to tactically withdraw their funding in the hope that other sectors will pick up more of the costs.

4.5 This race to the bottom continues to be damaging for both accessibility and the environment. Lessaccessible services mean that people travel further and use more resources. This longer distance travelcongregates particularly on networks such as motorways and railways, leading to a growing list of infrastructureinvestment requirements for transport departments to fund. Some longer distance travel choices add value to15 In 1998 the social and economic opportunities of re-opening the Alloa railway were analysed using accessibility analysis, but

the scheme was not viewed as a priority by Government since official appraisal techniques did not recognise the benefits of thewider social and economic consequences of the re-opening. The benefits forecast by the accessibility analysis were realisedwhen the scheme opened demonstrating that these approaches were a better guide to the impacts of the scheme than the officialgovernment appraisal approaches. Refer to Local Transport Today Issue 548 25 June 2010 “Baker kneads local transport intoshape for a world with less dough”.

16 For example like the design, development and promotion of wheels to work schemes to provide discounted loans or assistedpurchase of motorcycles and cars to help people take up types of work which demand greater personal mobility than can beachieved by public transport.

17 Department of the Environment, 1995. Policy and Procedure Guidance: A Guide to Better Practice—Reducing the Need toTravel Through Land Use and Transport Planning, PPG 13, HMSO, London, UK.



accessibility, but catering for these choices within limited budgets at the expense of local investment is afalse economy.

4.6 It is clear that greater support is needed from Government if accessibility is to be improved. There isevidence of public demand for such action, with public protests being common when changes are made to thelocations of public services. As predicted by the SEU in 2003, there is less clamour within government to beaccountable for such a complex issue as accessibility. Although transport authorities were given responsibilityfor leading accessibility planning, they cannot ultimately be accountable if a land use planning, health,education, or other authority makes a decision that causes accessibility problems, since ultimate accountabilitymust follow the more narrowly defined legislation. Transport department objections to decisions in other sectorsbased on accessibility concerns are rarely viewed as commanding sufficient significance to change policy, andare not often made with sufficient force to secure the investment in accessible solutions. This blurring ofaccountability means that accessibility continues to be regarded as a secondary issue by both transport andnon-transport departments who continue to focus on issues where they can be held more directly to account.The accountability problems identified by the SEU in 2003 still apply, and this continues to be a difficult issueto resolve.

4.7 Declining accessibility is viewed as an inevitable problem by some stakeholders, but there is a gapbetween public expectations of accessibility and current delivery which must be tackled. As we noted in 2004,there are few easy answers, given the polycentric power structures of a modern democracy, but if mandatoryannual audits of accessibility are published as discussed above, then a more constructive dialogue with thepublic and between public authorities should deliver such solutions as are practical.

5.0 Q3—Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflectedin local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering theaccessibility agenda?

The scale of culture change in transport has been underestimated, and future success requires strongerleadership and incentives for short term delivery.

5.1 Local transport plans do not in themselves determine what happens but help to manage, structure andco-ordinate diverse investment programmes. Local authorities that view the need for a local transport planpurely as a legacy of a system where they used these documents to bid for national capital funding willprobably not deliver anything useful by following an accessibility planning process.

5.2 In our recommendations to DfT in 2004, we highlighted that one of the main barriers to progress wouldbe the culture and skills in the transport profession. There had been concerns in the Cabinet Office about givingan agenda like accessibility planning to transport professionals, since the profession was known for its stronganalytical skills and modal passions, rather than its interest in people and their needs. Staff with people skillswould be more likely to choose professions other than transport.

5.3 However we argued, as did many others, that transport was not unique in having a better track record ofoperational delivery than people focus. Similar changes were taking place in other professions to deliver morepeople centred services. However managing such culture change in transport was a substantial undertaking.DfT has made a start in nurturing the change, but a step change is needed in the scale and scope of action, ifaccessibility planning is to thrive in all parts of the country. Currently only a few leading authorities aredelivering accessibility planning as envisaged in 2004.

5.4 The best performing transport authorities will succeed largely without help from DfT. Managing culturechange relies on spreading good practice across the country. In 2004 we recommended top levelcommunications about the new policy focus, and a parallel support system to foster change across theprofession. The top level communications about the new accessibility planning requirements were supportedby senior DfT staff visiting every transport authority to explain the changes. This was very helpful in raisingthe profile of the initiative, but the practical support for the profession was restricted to a small trainingprogramme which ran between 2005 and 2007. The sessions were not typically attended by professional leadersand little attempt was made to get the professional institutes on board, who set professional standards in theindustry, or to change the education of transport professionals.

5.5 Confusion about the new top down policies for accessibility planning was compounded as commercialmarketing of software filled the gap in the need for more training. The transport industry has a strong businessand training infrastructure to support modelling and analysis of transport systems, so the new accessibilityplanning market was targeted as a business growth opportunity. As a result most professionals across theindustry were offered sales pitches and training on software. Although accessibility planning is an evidencebased approach, and modelling can be part of that, within a few years many professionals confused accessibilityplanning with modelling. This was also comfortable for the transport profession, re-interpreting the newrequirements in terms of existing analytical skills, rather than the new people and partnership focus which hadbeen intended.

5.6 It is interesting to observe that accessibility planning for the Olympic Games in London has demonstratedbest practice and lessons about how to manage change. The needs of each group of people were systematicallyconsidered, and by working in partnership, ways of meeting each need were planned through a range of



transport and non-transport interventions. Translating this success into wider accessibility planning, requires asimilar time limited focus, with an expectation that failure will not be acceptable.

6.0 Q4—How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and otherconsiderations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would ameasure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be usefulfor policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

If each tier of government measures what it values then the prospects for delivering what is valued are muchimproved.

6.1 There are few right or wrong answers about how to measure accessibility. However it has been shownrepeatedly that attempts to measure such a complex concept with a single measure fail. In defining thesemeasures the following key points may be helpful:

— As relatively simple supply side measures showing opportunities for people, accessibilityindicators are modally agnostic about transport systems, can include the impact oftelecommunications networks as alternatives to travel, and can be adapted to fit a very widerange of situations. They are therefore well suited to help focus on people, and manage themodal tribalism that can make transport a politically unstable sector.

— The flexibility of the measures is their strength, but also a weakness if inappropriate indicatorsare used tactically to misrepresent benefits, eg to secure investment or planning permission.18

— Once a focused aim is clear (eg reducing the costs of travel to further education in xxx for16–19 year olds by 50%) then a suitable accessibility measure can be defined to represent thepolicy. Policies should drive indicators, not vice versa.

— Sustainability requires a balance between social, economic and environmental perspectives.Pursuing any of these goals in isolation is unsustainable. Accessibility indicators have provedto be one of the most practical types of measure to help planners manage the trade-offs toachieve sustainable development including transport systems. However accessibility indicatorshave been widely abused in support of plans for transport schemes. It is important to recognisethat transport investment should serve accessibility goals for people, not vice versa.

— Emotive measures like “fuel poverty” have a place in motivating action, but concepts likepoverty of access are difficult to define if adverse unintended consequences are to be avoided.Relative accessibility for different mobility groups is usually the safest way to define inequality.For example ratios of accessibility for car and non-car available access are helpful. TheInstitution of Highways and Transport has recommended ratios of travel time by car and publictransport to implement the accessibility requirements in planning policy,19 and ratios of costare similarly revealing.

6.2 It is important to avoid unintentionally setting ill-defined policies through accessibility measures. Toensure clear accountability at each level of government we recommended in 2004 that accountability foraccessibility should be resolved internally within each level of political authority. However there was pressurefrom the local authorities on the central and local working group on accessibility planning (CLWGAP), forstronger national leadership to assist with the local promotion of the new national policies. The local authorityrepresentatives felt that they could more easily create momentum for a new programme if there was amandatory national requirement—eg to ensure that everyone living in an urban area lived within 10 minutestravel time of a grocer. The indicators adopted by DfT respected both positions, with thresholds in the nationalindicators to illustrate reasonable benchmarks for urban areas, but with performance monitoring based oncontinuous indicators to avoid setting unintended targets. These principles should still be valid for futureaccessibility measurement.

7.0 Q5—The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transportinfrastructure to access public services

Electronic networks are already included good accessibility planning practice

7.1 Broadband networks and the internet are changing many aspects of transport provision. It is common tofocus on the substitution of transport access with electronic access, but most of the evidence shows that thecomplementary effects will be at least as important as the substitution effects.20 Future planning of transportand electronic networks needs to be as closely integrated as possible to ensure complementary benefits foraccess. As noted above, accessibility analysis lends itself to a common treatment of transport and electronicnetworks to describe the connections between people and places. Accessibility planning therefore supports18 Eg unsubstantiated claims about access to jobs were identified to be more common than robust measures of accessibility in

SACTRA. 1999. Transport and the Economy. The Standing Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions. UK HMSO.

19 Institution of Highways and Transportation 1999. Planning for Public Transport in Developments.20 Eg DHC 2006. Scoping the Impacts on Travel Behaviour of E-Working and other ICT Changes. Final Report for Scottish

Executive. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/123922/0029823.pdf



practical decisions to ensure cost effective opportunities for all, whether or not the improvements are totransport or electronic networks.

29 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by Professor Noel Smith, University Campus Suffolk

1. Summary— Focus groups in Joseph Rowntree Foundation research suggest that, in 2012, families outside

of London which could previously rely on having minimum transport needs met by bus servicescould no longer do so and that a car had become a necessity.

— The reasons for this change are unclear, but it is likely that it at least partly reflects researchparticipants’ perceptions of reduced bus services and increased bus fares.

— The research suggests that reductions in public transport can lead to sharp increases in costsfor families. For example, a change from using buses to running a car increases the minimumgross annual earnings required by a working, couple parent family with two children by £5,300.

— Arguably, these increased costs can be associated with undermining the financial well-being offamilies, increasing risks of social exclusion and eroding access to key services andopportunities.

2. The UK Minimum Income Standard

2.1 This submission relates to Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) research to establish the income requiredby households in order to afford a minimum, socially acceptable standard of living. The first Minimum IncomeStandard (MIS) represents the income required to afford a basket of goods and services necessary for aminimum living standard in the UK today. The basket includes a very detailed list of everything a householdrequires for subsistence and social inclusion.

2.2 Full details of the research findings discussed in this submission are available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/MIS-2012

2.3 The MIS is constructed through research with groups of members of the public, with input from expertson technical issues such as nutrition, heating and transport. MIS budgets are constructed for a range ofhousehold types: single and couple adult households, pensioners, working-age households, and households withchildren, including a range of families in terms of the number and age of children. The main MIS budgets arebased on households living in urban areas.

2.4 The MIS is updated annually. Every other year, the MIS is updated through research with new groupsof members of the public. In intervening years it is uprated in line with inflation.

3. MIS and Transport

3.1 In the original research published in 2008, the groups’ overall decision was that while having a car wasdesirable it was not a necessity. That is, a car was not an essential requirement in order to have the opportunitiesand choices necessary to participate in society. Instead, minimum transport needs could be met through usingbuses, supplemented by occasional taxi journeys (eg for emergency and late night trips).

3.2 Consequently, MIS budgets included the cost of bus passes for children and working age adults.(Pensioners have bus passes). Budgets for all households (including pensioners) included allowances for taxifares.

3.3 This model was agreed in research with new groups of members of the public for the 2010 MIS update.Groups decided that the taxi budgets required for pensioners and working-age groups needed to be increasedbut that the 2008 allowances for families with children just needed to be uprated by inflation. For example, the2010 transport budget for a couple parent family with two children (a preschool aged child and primary schoolaged child) was £39.38 a week. This included the cost of bus passes for the parents and half-fare bus trips forthe primary school aged child based on the actual price of bus services in a town in the Midlands, and £9for taxis.

3.4 When new groups were consulted for the 2012 uprates, pensioners and working age adults confirmedthe 2010 transport model. Pensioners increased the taxi budgets; working age adults made no changes.However, for the first time, groups representing households with children decided that families needed to beable to afford a car in order to achieve and maintain a minimum, socially acceptable standard of living.

3.5 A car was said to be essential in order to meet the needs of both parents and children, particularly inrelation to employment and extra-curricular opportunities.

I’m a strong believer that every household should have a car because if the father needs it for workit broadens the aspects, it doesn’t limit them to where they can go or what jobs he can take.

—Parent, Loughborough



If you think about a primary-school child, obviously we want him to walk to school if possible, butif he takes part in a couple of activities is it a luxury to be able to drive Tom to swimming lessons?I couldn’t take my children, I couldn’t walk with them. If I didn’t have a car, they wouldn’t be ableto swim.

—Parent, Derby

Public transport was seen as being inflexible, particularly in terms of juggling school, childcare andemployment commitments. Bus fares were considered expensive. Discussions suggested that, although therewere costs involved in owning a car, it could offer better value for money than public transport.

3.6 While groups since 2008 had often hotly debated the need for a car, the 2012 research marked aqualitative shift in perspective, a tip in the balance of opinion. It was beyond the scope of the research to fullyexplain this change. It may partly reflect long-term trends in car ownership. The DfT’s National Travel Surveyshows that, in the past 15 years the proportion of households with no car has fallen from about a third to abouta quarter, and the opposite has happened to the number with two or more cars. These trends stabilised in themiddle of the last decade, but such changing norms can take time to feed into social expectations. Otherpotential causes include the increasing cost of bus fares and possibly decreasing availability of services.

3.7 Buses have become much more expensive relative to the cost of running a car. In the past 15 years, forexample, the cost of motoring has risen 50% but the cost of bus travel has increased by 100%, according tothe Retail Price Index (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1

THE RELATIVE PRICE OF BUS AND CAR TRAVEL, 1997 TO 2011

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

RPI index value: 1987=100

Bus faresMotoring

Retail Prices Index, annual averages

3.8 In terms of the availability of bus services, evidence suggests that services in many areas of the countryhave been in long-term decline, and this appears to be speeding up as a result of current public sector cuts.For example, between 2010–11 and 2011–12, non-metropolitan councils reported the loss of about one in fivesupported bus services as a result of the cutting of the Bus Services Operating Grant. Moreover, 74% ofcouncils plan to make further cuts between 2011 and 2013 (Campaign for Better Transport, 2011 and Houseof Commons Transport Committee, 2011).

3.9 The 2012 groups decided that families with children required one car. Two-parent households alsoincluded one bus pass, as the car would be shared and one person would still need to use public transport.With a car, allowances for taxis would be unnecessary. The vehicles described as meeting the minimumacceptable standard would be modest vehicles purchased second hand: a Ford Focus for families with one ortwo children and a Vauxhall Zafira for families with three or more children. Transport costs for the MIS werecalculated by taking into account the purchase and replacement of the car, motor insurance and tax, maintenanceand MOT, breakdown cover, car seats for children, and fuel. As well as these fixed costs, variable runningcosts for different types of household were calculated by a) identifying the type and number of trips requiredfor a minimum living standard, as agreed by the research groups, and b) average distances to services estimatedfrom National Travel Survey data.



4. The Impact of Transport Costs on Household Budgets

4.1 Adding costs for a car increases the budgets families need in order to achieve a minimum, sociallyacceptable standard of living. For a couple with two children, car costs increase the requisite household budgetby £29 a week. That is, £29 more than would be required if the family could have its transport needs met bybuses and occasional taxis.

4.2 Annually, this increases the net income required by this family by £1,508 to a total of £35,622 (assumingfull time childcare and social housing rent).

4.3 However, increases in this family’s budget requirement (what they need to be able to spend) feed throughinto a proportionately much larger increase in the amount that the family needs to earn in order to be able toafford the budget. This multiplier effect is due to the sharp withdrawal of a family’s additional income throughtaxation and reduced tax credits. For example, even though a couple with two children with enough to affordthe MIS has income much too high to be eligible for Housing Benefit, the combined effect of being on taxcredits and paying income tax and National Insurance creates a withdrawal rate of 73%, meaning that it takes£3.70 of additional earnings to produce each £1 of extra take-home pay. This means that in order to haveenough to be able to spend an additional £1,508 on transport, this family (with both parents earning) wouldneed to earn an additional £5,300.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Over the four years of the MIS research programme it would appear that, from the perspective of thegroups of members of the public which participated in the research, bus services are increasingly unlikely toprovide a minimum acceptable level of service. It is important to be clear, however, that it was beyond thescope of the research to examine whether to what extent groups’ perceptions reflect actual changes in services.

5.2 What the research does highlight is that, when considering questions of affordability, it is vital to considernot only the cost of transport but also the income requirement to meet those costs. This is necessary for asubstantive understand of affordability and the impact of transport costs on living standards.

5.3 For example, our research demonstrates that a family changing from reliance on public transport torunning a cheap, second hand car (used carefully to minimise mileage) would need a substantial increase ingross income. Obviously, in practice, many families would be unable to simply increase their income to meetthese costs, and so they would have to be met through one or a combination of accruing household debt;reducing spending on other household needs; or reducing access to services and employment and educationalopportunities.

6. References

Campaign for Better Transport (2011) “New figures reveal cuts to 1 in 5 council bus services”, press release,13 October 2011. Available at: http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/13-oct-1-in-5- buses-cut [Accessed 28May 2012]

Department for Transport (2011) National Travel Survey 2009/10. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/nts9902

House of Commons Transport Committee (2011) Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth report ofsession 2010–12. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf

3 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford

Access to a Car

1. Based on our analysis of the National Travel Survey21 figures roughly a quarter of UK households donot have regular access to a car or other private motor vehicle. This represents roughly 5.5 million householdsand as many as 12.5 million people.

2. Non car ownership is overwhelming concentrated in low income households: half of the lowest and 28%of the second lowest income quintile households do not have access to a car.

3. The amount of car driving and use of a car as a passenger is also more affected by income than otheraspects of travel behaviour eg rail or bus travel. Nevertheless, people in the lowest income quintile havesignificantly increased their ownership and use of motor vehicles over the last 10 years (from 20% in to 50%in 2008), whilst this has remained relatively stable for the average population.21 Stokes, G and Lucas, K (2011) Travel behaviour of low income households: and analysis of the 2002–2008 National Travel

Survey Transport Studies Unit Working Paper No 1053 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/pubs/1053-stokes-lucas.pdf



4. Although people with cars can and do still experience transport poverty, it is those without a car that aremost likely to be affected by poor accessibility to public (and commercially-run) goods and services on aregular basis.

5. People in the lowest income quintile travel make 17% fewer trips than the average population andtravel roughly a third of the distance in a year (4,300 miles per person per year compared with 11,200 mileson average).

6. Whilst much of the difference in distance travelled is related to the availability of a car within thehousehold, there is also a clear income effect: on average the low income households with a car travelapproximately 5,800 miles per person per year compared to 11,200 miles on average).

7. The majority of the people in this lowest income category are either retired or registered as permanentlysick (33%) and so may not need or wish to travel as much as other sectors of the population. However, halfare economically inactive adults who may need to travel more in order to access work but are prevented fromdoing so for a variety of reasons.

8. In fact, people on lower incomes have very similar trip patterns in terms of journey purposes to the restof the population, although they make slightly more education trips and slightly more shopping trips, but fewerescort and leisure trips. But in all cases except education the lower use of car driving is notable, and for mostpurposes a higher use of walking can be noted.

9. This means that a significant proportion of people living on low incomes in the UK are finding itincreasingly necessary to own and drive cars just to maintain a basic lifestyle. Those who do not have accessto cars and must therefore rely on public transport might often be excluded from participating fully in theeveryday activities that the majority take for granted because of the absence and/or inadequacy of such servicesin many deprived areas. It is likely that this situation has worsened in recent years due to further cutback inlocal government funding and its reduced support of subsidised and specialist transport services.

Effectiveness of Public Transport as an Alternative

10. Many of the people who do not have cars live in urban areas and so will (theoretically) have relativelygood access to both public transport services, as well good walking access to as to goods and public facilitiesand other amenities.

11. In fact, numerous studies22 have identified that outside of Greater London and the centre of major citiesin the UK, public transport is rarely a viable alternative to the car. This is most notable, in urban peripheralareas where many large social housing estates are located. The main problems in terms of providing access toservices are the scheduling and routing of services, lack of services in the evenings and at weekends, the needfor multiple interchanges, the cost of fares (especially when more than one person from a household istravelling), fear of crime while travelling and waiting at bus stops, lack of timetable and other information.

12. A 2008 study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation23 found that cutbacks in public transport serviceshave been compounded by many entry-level jobs and key developments, such as hospitals, colleges andshopping and leisure centres being relocated to areas that are often not well served by public transport. Inaddition, many low-paid jobs involve working hours that make access difficult by any means other than the car.

13. The study involved evaluations of four new transport projects that had been specifically targeted toprovide improved access to work, education and training, healthcare and facilities in deprived parts of the UK:Braustone Bus in Leicester, Wythenshaw Link in Manchester, Trevithick Link in Cornwall and WalsallWorkwise.

14. Using the standard DfT WebTag evaluation methodology, the study found that the aggregate user benefitaccruing from these four services was in excess of £850,000 (compared against the £3,204,974 grant fundingthey received). This is without considering the additional social benefits arising from the new employmentuptake that result from use of the services and new education and health trips that the services generated.

15. However, the majority of similarly targeted transport schemes that were directly addressing the problemof social exclusion were funded via the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Single Regeneration Budget, Rural andUrban Bus Challenges, Kickstart and the EU Social Fund. In the majority of cases, the lifetime of the fundingwas short term and many were withdrawn because they were not seen as sufficiently commercially viable.

16. Many of these funding sources are also now no longer available, which adds to the general instabilityof such projects locally. The majority of the new initiatives that were funded under these programmes followingthe 2003 SEU report are no longer in existence and have not been replaced by other projects or taken up bypublic transport operators as part of their regular services.22 See for example Lucas, K and Jones, P The Car in British Society London: RAC Foundation23 Lucas, K Tyler, S and Christodolou, G (2008) The value of new transport services in deprived areas http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/

files/jrf/2228-transport-regeneration-deprivation.pdf



Access to Public Services

17. A scanning study on transport and social equity24 undertaken as part of the UKTRC programme involveda series of workshops with academics, policy makers and service providers drawn from across a number ofdifferent policy sectors. The four workshops specifically considered i) employment and training, ii) health andwellbeing, iii) housing and sustainable communities, iv) rural connectivity.

18. The key issues identified in the Employment and Training Workshop25 in terms of access to serviceswere:

— Trends in “changing places of work” suggest that rather than focusing solely on the “workplace”as a “site” for work, it is important to think more broadly about an “activity space for work”,binding together paid work and non-paid work activities. Transport has to link these paid workand non-paid work activities.

— Moving people off benefits into paid work continues to be a major policy objective and is akey strategy in poverty reduction.

— Spatial mobility is an important component in the “employability mix”—alongside skills,health, self-efficacy and a range of other factors.

— Having a car enhances individuals’ abilities to access work through greater mobility, since carsprovide greater flexibility in time and space compared with public transport.

— There is increasing interest in the extent to which “mobility” and “immobility” are learnedbehaviours—with important implications for access to and participation in employment andtraining.

19. The key issues identified in the Health and Wellbeing Workshop26 in terms of access to services were:

— There are inequalities in transport and health, some of which are likely to be exacerbated in thecurrent economic climate.

— Measuring health impacts in terms of mortality or much of morbidity measures is too crude tobe meaningful to inform policy; there is a need to find appropriate measures of health to betteracknowledge the health costs/benefit of transport policy.

— We need to think more about context; travel is not just about getting from A to B, unpackingthis context is still at an early stage. Health and wellbeing benefits associated with travel aredifficult to articulate, for example some walking to school is likely to be healthful others not.

— Transport needs to be “inclusive” whatever the mode; there are compelling economic argumentsfor pursuing this agenda, especially if health benefits are appropriately measured.

— Transport and health fall into different silos within academia and government, but people’s livesare not separated in this way. Methods to enable these different communities to work togetherin a more holistic way need to be developed.

— Encouraging/facilitating behaviour change is a challenge that spans the transport andsustainability agendas, and will involve multi-partnership working.

— Active transport is healthy, sustainable, and desirable, but is not a panacea, and can exacerbatethe exclusion of some groups. Active transport enforced due to lack of alternatives may notbe healthful.

— For many the urban landscape has become a disjointed and unsocial place; we need to rethinkour approach to planning urban space to better balance the populations needs.

20. The key issues identified in the Housing and Sustainable Communities Workshop 27in terms of accessto services were:

— There are tensions between accessibility, strategy and environment within urbanneighbourhoods and these tensions are more acute in deprived communities than in moreaffluent neighbourhoods. Land use and density is a starting point—housing developments arebuilt around the car so to what extent is it a housing issue rather than a transport one?

— Accessibility is a complex issue that goes beyond existence of provision. Accessibility is aboutmore than cost and availability. Transport accessibility is about urban form. Income inequalityis mirrored in inequality in access to transport. Distance is not the only issue. There are othercomplexities around riding a bike and cycling is virtually unknown to lots of deprivedcommunities because of issues of safety and space to store bike.

24 See http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note1.pdf for more information and policy briefing notes25 Run by TSU in collaboration with Professor Anne Green and her colleagues at Institute of Employment Research, University

of Warwick http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note2.pdf26 Run by TSU in collaboration with Professor Tanja Pleass-Mulloli and her colleagues at the Centre for Health and Society at

Newcastle University http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note3.pdf27 Run by TSU in collaboration with Professor Anne Power and her colleagues Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)

at the London School of Economics http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note4.pdf



— There are functional and cultural meanings of different forms of transport, for example, carmobility culture goes against limiting cars. Transport is an aspirational good. Breaking the carculture is difficult as cars have acquired cultural symbolism. What does it mean to own a car?There is both a physical and psychological attachment to the car

— Linking people to jobs is vital. Access to work is key and while transport connectivity andaccess are necessary—they are not sufficient. Low income communities rely more on localgoods and services and also rely on walking and buses. We need to convince people that qualityof life and standards of living don’t have to be far away.

— The system should encourage those with mobility and good access to travel less eg fewer flightsfor holidays, shift from private car to public transport where possible while simultaneouslyincreasing mobility for those who lack mobility and access to opportunities such as workand education.

— What are the cumulative effects of lots of small neighbourhood projects? We need to monitortheir value and secure funding and we also need to analyse the role of soft measures versusinfrastructure, for example: bike loan schemes, cycle training.

21. The key issues identified in the Rural Connectivity Workshop28 in terms of access to services were:

— In the UK there is a diversity of rurality, with varying degrees of remoteness and connectivity.This can create difficulties in terms of understanding problems of connectivity and developingtransferable solutions, particularly in a political context of increasingly devolved decisionmaking.

— When seeking to address issues of rural connectivity a “trilemma” involving the factors of cost,coverage and quality is faced. It is possible to achieve any two of these factors, but at theexpense of the third eg you can provide a low cost, high quality solution, but the range ofcoverage would then be poor.

— Providing connectivity to rural communities presents significant challenges because they oftenface problems of transport poverty and digital exclusion.

— Alongside social and economic aspects, these problems include a strong technological/technicalcomponent common to both the transport and digital spheres in terms of the quality andavailability of infrastructure and services.

— Prevailing methods of appraisal such as conventional cost-benefit analysis do not effectivelycapture and value the social benefits of interventions designed to promote rural connectivity.

— There is considerable potential for land use planning to better support the connectivity andsustainability of rural communities through better location of facilities and services

Access to services in rural areas

22. Successive “State of the Countryside” reports by the now disbanded Countryside Agency andCommission for Rural Communities reported changes in percentages of the population living within setdistances of service outlets by road. Some show increases while others show reductions. Between 2000 and2010 the following changes were recorded for people living in rural areas.

— GP surgeries saw a rise from 68.3% to 79.5% within 4kms.

— Job centres saw a fall from 46.9% to 39.0% within 8kms.

— Post Offices saw a fall from 79.9% to 75.4% within 2kms.

— Primary schools saw a very slight fall from 82.5% to 82.1% within 2kms.

— Secondary schools also saw a small fall from 50.0% to 48.4% within 4kms.

23. For all these services around 99% of urban residents were within the chosen distances. For privatelyprovided services there was also variation with falls for bank branches and petrol stations, but rises forcashpoints and for supermarkets. These figures imply that public policy is capable of maintaining access toservices in rural areas. There was generally stability in access to services between 2000 and 2006, but policieson post office and primary school provision from about 2007 led to falls.

24. Issues of access to services for rural residents tend to be more strongly driven by distance to services,but specifically where a lack of access to a car, or an income which makes car use expensive, combined witha lack of public transport makes those more distant facilities difficult to reach.

Transport and young people in rural areas

25. In a study for the RAC Foundation,29 a focus group with young drivers living and around in Banburyin Oxfordshire who had just acquired a licence found that roughly half of the group’s twelve participants28 Run by TSU in collaboration with Dr Mark Beecroft and his colleagues at the Centre for Transport Studies, Aberdeen University

http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_briefing_note5.pdf29 Part of a study for the RAC Foundation—Lucas, K, Jones, P, Polak, J and Gilliard, G (2009) The Car in British Society

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/car_in_british_society-lucas_et_al-170409.pdf



described themselves a “reluctant drivers”. They said they only used their cars because the public transportwas not available in their area when they needed to use it.

26. Participants were particularly concerned about getting back from the town centre to rural villages in theearly evening and at night. There was considerable resentment from a number of the participants in the groupabout being thought of as a taxi service as soon as they became drivers because they represented the onlyavailable transport option for their friends to get around and socialise at night.

27. The TRANTEL project30 examined the extent to which transport, skills and rural isolation influence theability of the young unemployed (16–24 years) to access job and learning opportunities. A comprehensivestatistical analysis in four rural case study areas was undertaken in the denser rural areas in England and themore sparse rural areas of Wales, and this was supplemented by empirical evidence from a study that usedinterviews with professionals and the unemployed in one of the areas (the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire).

28. The young rural unemployed are excluded from labour market participation because of a combinationof poor transport provision in rural areas, the lack of suitable qualifications and skills, and the poor jobopportunities in the local labour markets. In summary, this seems to be occurring because of:

(a) The narrow industrial base and the predominance of the SMEs mean that there tends to belimited job opportunities, leading to low skilled and temporary jobs in the rural areas;

(b) Problems with transport provision not only prevent the young rural unemployed from accessingjobs and learning directly, but it also reinforces the position of the young rural unemployed inthe low skilled and temporary jobs within a small spatial area. This in turn may result in theyoung rural unemployed having low expectations and being excluded from participation in thewider labour market due to bad working conditions, low pay and unaffordable costs of travels.

(c) The young rural unemployed are more likely to be trapped into low skilled and temporary jobsbecause of lack of acquired skills and working experience, and the perception that they areunreliable workers.

29. Accessibility is a key constraint for the young rural unemployed (YRU), and it is important to extendconventional accessibility models so that they more realistically represent the choices available in the rurallabour markets. It is normally assumed that all jobs are available to all individuals and so accessibility analysisrather crudely matches up supply and demand according to the availability of suitable transport. Such ananalysis is really only a starting point in that process and a more sensitive supplementary investigation isrequired that takes account of the skills profile of the YRU and the characteristics (and constraints) of thejob itself.

30. In addition, it would help if a wider range of transport options can be included in the assessment. Furtherresearch needs to be directed at subdividing the demand from the YRU by skills levels, principally throughlevel of qualification. The job market is defined as where the job is located and the occupational group, whichin turn relates to the skills levels. The transport options include private transport, which would be able toaccess all jobs, existing public transport, which would be able to access jobs in the main towns, and new formsof transport that would supplement existing services and perhaps access new destinations. The use of ICT isimportant in two respects. One is to obtain better information about where job opportunities are located, andthe other would be to gain new skills so that more jobs would be suitable.

31. The underlying rationale here is that not all jobs are available to all individuals, and that this fact needsto be recognised in the analysis. Secondly, that as skills levels, particularly in ICT are raised, then more jobsand better jobs become available. The concern here is not just to reduce levels of YRU, but also to ensure thatthese individuals are fully engaged in the labour force. This means that there should be the opportunity tomake the best use of their skills levels in a permanent and reasonably paid job.

The Internet as an alternative to physical access in rural areas

32. Successive State of the Countryside reports have found that access to the Internet in rural areas laggedbehind urban areas. Over the 10 or more years that report was produced the technology changes but in eachcase broadband, and then higher speed access came to urban before rural areas, and new technology wasgenerally being put in place in urban areas before the last improvement had worked through to rural areas.Levels of household access also varied.

33. In 2010 it was reported that while 70% of urban households had access to the internet, fewer that 50%in rural areas did. And in rural areas 5% were using dial-up to access (which equated to over 10% of thoseaccessing the internet). For urban areas the corresponding figure was 2% (or about 3% of users). There werealso local variations in access levels with much lower levels recorded in (generally) less affluent areas, suchas the North Pennines.30 The aim of the TRANTEL project was to evaluate to what extent the transport and ICT solutions can contribute to reducing

youth unemployment in rural areas. An important element in the project was to learn from best practice on rural transport andICT projects and to see whether schemes being tried elsewhere in England are suitable for implementation in the Forest ofDean. The research is funded by the EPSRC under their FIT programme.



Governance issues

37. Key issues identified at the UKTRC Workshop 131 were as follows:

— The methodologies employed (primarily cost-benefit analysis) are limited in identifying whatpriorities are/should be. Costs are easy to quantify. Benefits are more qualitative. It is not easyto measure benefits such as quality of life—economic simplification is not effective as ameasure of accessibility because everything is netted out and therefore misleading. This linksto point 40 regarding frameworks employed in different government departments.

— The links between transport and social cohesion: need to be considered in decision making.These are currently not quantified in policy making terms or are completely missing.

— Mixed policy priorities across departments often conflict which can lead to fragmented orcontradictory policy.

38. Framing decisions around a single agenda is unhelpful. Identifying policies which aim to deliver againstmultiple policy objectives (as in the case of smarter choice measures whereby health, accessibility andenvironmental objectives can be achieved) are more likely to succeed in delivering outcomes.

39. Research shows that communication between divisions within transport departments responsible forinfrastructure provision and those for so-called “soft” measures—sustainable transport, accessibility, walkingand cycling, social impacts—is missing, which leads to contradictory policymaking. Moreover the researchdemonstrates that often in transport-related decision making there is a disconnect between the overarchinggovernment strategy and the policies which are subsequently adopted to deliver against these policies.Consideration of matching outcomes against objectives would minimise this “strategy-action deficit”. 32

Fragmentation across Departmental siloes

40. The UKTRC Workshop 133 highlighted that whilst DfT requirements to quantify and value the outcomesof a policy or project in economic/cost effective terms, this is less an emphasis for other departments (health/education) which may lead to areas, such as accessibility, where the “economic” value of projects is hard toquantify are marginalised in favour of areas where the cost/economic benefit relationship is easier to determine.

41. Accessibility policy is compounded by institutional and organisational factors, as responsibilities for landuse (planning) and transport are frequently split across levels of government. Either land use is the purview oflocal authorities, or there are multiple agencies at the same level of government often involved, with nodepartment taking overall control.

42. Departments concerned with the environment (eg Defra, DECC) have also become increasingly involvedwith certain issues linked to transport and land-use planning. This means that relationships, roles andresponsibilities are dispersing further.

43. These relationships often work according to different rules and put more emphasis on collaborative andopen approaches to planning, which contrasts with the more much more institutionalized and rigid systems ofcontrol traditionally associated with transport planning. They often don’t take accessibility into considerationat all, with environmental considerations dominating.34

1 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by Dr Karen Lucas

In 2002, I was seconded to the UK Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) to act as policy advisor ontheir study of transport and social exclusion. Subsequently, I worked with Derek Halden Consultants on theDepartment of Transport piloting and testing approaches to develop guidance for the implementation ofaccessibility planning as an integral part of local transport planning in England, which was the keyrecommendation of the 2003 SEU Making the Connections report. Since this time I have conducted a numberof studies in the broad area of transport and social exclusion both in the UK and internationally and havepublished widely on this topic.

1. How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (iewhether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

1.1 Several important funding programmes that could have helped to support the accessibility of transportpoor individuals to key services have been withdrawn by central government in various Spending Reviews (eg31 Social Impacts and Equity Issues in Transport Policy Briefing Note 1 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_

briefing_note1.pdf32 Anderton, K (2012), Sub-national government responses to reducing the climate impact of cars, (D.Phil thesis; Oxford Research

Archive)33 Social Impacts and Equity Issues in Transport Policy Briefing Note 1 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-policy_

briefing_note1.pdf34 Banister, David, Karen Anderton, David Bonilla, Moshe Givoni and Tim Schwanen, (2011), “Transportation and the

Environment” An. Rev. Environ & Res, Vol. 36, 247–270



Discretionary Allowance for jobseekers, Educational Maintenance Allowance for post 16 students). Theseshould be reinstated alongside other targeted allowances (eg for parents with children on free school meals).

1.2 The National Concessionary Fares Scheme (outside of London) has disinclined bus operators tovoluntarily offer reduced fares to more disadvantaged travellers who fall outside of the eligibility criteria ofthe current scheme.

1.3 More recently the impacts of the cutbacks in the Bus Service Operators Grant for subsidised bus servicesand local authority funding support for community and school as a result of local authority “austerity measures”have combined to worsen an already unhelpful situation.

1.4 Changes to the systems of non-emergency patient transport and the arrangements for social servicetransport have also contributed to this worsening effect. In practice, however, the policies in this area werealready extremely fragmented across the various departments and sectors responsible for their delivery, poorlycoordinated between them and unresponsive to the needs of the people they were designed to serve.

2. Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc.) adversely affecting theaccessibility of public services and the environment?

2.1 The closure and consolidation of local service centres under the centralisation of public services agendahas definitely served to worsen the accessibility of these services for people without cars. However, this is ahighly individualised and socially, temporally and geographically context-specific problem.

2.2 Some people will inevitably need to travel further to access key activities than others depending onwhere they live in relation to the location and nature of their activity needs. The ease with which they canachieve this accessibility will depend on their personal circumstances, as well as the level, quality, cost andsuitability of the transport services they can appropriate.

2.3 In my view, the key focus for concern should be on the small subsection of people who cannot securethe necessary transport resources to access the specific public services they require for their social wellbeing.

2.4 In urban areas, this most often means children, young people, single parent families, people aged over70 and disabled people living on peripheral urban estates that are poorly served by public transport and lacklocal services and amenities, and/or by the cost of fares.

2.5 In more central urban areas, young people who are no longer eligible for concessionary fares are likelyto be particularly affected by transport poverty, as are jobseekers, shift workers and people with mental orphysical disabilities.

2.6 Whilst rural households have much higher levels of car ownership even amongst the lowest incomehouseholds, they must also spend more on motoring to maintain a reasonable level of access to activities, goodand services. Rural residents are, therefore, more likely to experience transport poverty than their urbancounterparts.

2.7 Low-income rural households with families are therefore at greater risk of transport poverty than allother population groups. Young people below driving age are also a particularly at risk group, as are olderpeople who don’t drive or are without a car.

3. Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructureand the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverseimpacts for accessibility and the environment?

3.1 They are much better than they were at recognising these effects at the planning stages of a planned newpublic service development (although this may be eroded under the new Local Planning Act and relaxedplanning laws).

3.2 However, there is still no systematic way to assess the accessibility of existing public services or (morefundamentally) a requirement for this to be assessed when services are closed or consolidated. There are alsono statutory minimum standards placed on the providers of public sector services to ensure access to theirservices or targets to improve this (eg % of population within x time by public transport).

3.3 The adverse impact for accessibility and the environment can be considerable, if people have noalternative but to use cars to access these services. It runs in direct contravention of DECC policies to reduceclimate change but remains unrecognised with any of the sector strategies for climate change reduction. Thiscannot be seen as a transport sector problem because it is not a transport sector driven phenomenon. To beeffective, the responsibility for assessing and improving both the accessibility and environmental impactof public services must rest with the provider of these services.

4. Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected inlocal transport plans working?

4.1 In my view, accessibility planning has gone off the agenda for most LTAs and has been largelyunsuccessful due to a number of key factors identified in the bullets below (refer to the DfT’s recent evaluation



report of accessibility planning by Atkins and CRSP for more evidence on this). The most fundamental flawis that it places the responsibility for accessibility on the DfT which has no control over the planning anddelivery of public service provision (not even over public transport services outside of London).

4.2 In its 2003 report, the Social Exclusion Unit chose to approach the problem of transport-related socialexclusion through accessibility planning. This placed the main emphasis on local transport authorities (LTAs)to work with other local stakeholders to ensure that employment, education and training, public health andother local facilities were being adequately served by public transport.

4.3 The guidance that was issued to local delivery agencies outside the transport sector by supposedlysigned-up, other government departments (eg DWP, DH, DfES) lacked teeth. Many key stakeholders, therefore,didn’t know they should be actively participating in the accessibility planning process and their fullparticipation was never effectively secured or monitored. Virtually none of the SEUs recommendations toimprove fragmented transport delivery across these other sectors were enacted.

4.4 The Sending Review that followed the SEU report did not offer any additional dedicated resource fornew transport services, so LTAs could not deliver the programme of improved transport services andconcessionary fares that were promised by the SEU. Consequently, the Urban and Rural Bus Challenge andKickstart programmes that were run by the DfT to fund new transport services were axed.

4.5 Accessibility planning is a useful systems-level approach, but it doesn’t directly address the immediatetransport and accessibility needs of disadvantaged individuals. A targeted rapid response approach is neededto assist transport poor individuals to meet their immediate accessibility needs (eg when it is clear that aperson cannot afford their transport costs to work and so might lose their job or cannot afford to get their childto school due to a financial crisis). This should be designed to run alongside and compliment the systems levelaccessibility planning policies, which are much slower to enact.

4.6 In the medium term, the policy system needs to a) improve the supply of bespoke transport services forthese groups (eg travel advice, wheels to work schemes, community transport provision), and b) the accessibilityof local public services through service delivery planning measures (eg providing information advice on accessto services, preventing the closure of rural post offices, job centres, planning new services in easy to reachplaces, etc.). Accessibility planning could be used to achieve this but it needs a dedicated financial streamand effective cross-sector policy initiatives to support it.

5. How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

5.1 Initially, the DfT was supportive of the accessibility agenda but this commitment has deteriorated overtime, in part due to the demise of the Accessibility and Mobility Unit, the significant loss of staff from theSocial Research Unit and the relatively low standing of the DfT policies with politicians when compared withother essential policy sectors such as Work and Pensions, Health, and Education.

5.2 The lack of a specific mention of the continuation of accessibility planning policies in the LTP3 guidancedid not help this position. As well as the other factors mentioned above.

5.3 There is some willingness within DfT to reinvigorate the programme under the new localism agenda,but in my view the guidance and delivery process for this to happen would need to be significantly revised ifit is to succeed.

6. How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured?

6.1 It must be the responsibility of service providers to ensure that their clients can access their services. Atpresent this is seen as either the responsibility of the individual or of public transport providers, with little orno onus for public service providers to demonstrate that they chose locations and service delivery protocolsthat facilitate access to their services.

7. How can decision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongsideenvironmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmentalconsiderations?

7.1 It has been extremely difficult to communicate the impact of the withdrawal of transport services withoutan HM Treasury established social value for public transport which can sit alongside the current “willingnessto pay” values used by central and local government its in transport policy appraisal.

7.2 Environmental polices (eg to control C02) do not necessarily conflict with social and accessibilityconcerns but their equity impacts should be critically assessed to establish whether or not they are likely tofurther marginalise already transport poor groups. Where this is the case, counter-measures should be put inplace to ameliorate these effects.



8. Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuelpoverty”, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

8.1 Unlike the concept of fuel poverty, which has its own relatively well-established set of definitions andevaluation metrics (although these are sometimes contested) what precisely constitutes transport poverty hasnever been fully articulated within either the academic or policy literatures.

8.2 It would be extremely difficult to construct a similarly concise definition to the one for fuel povertybased on unmet accessibility needs. This is in part due to the more nebulous nature of accessibility as a “meritgood”, as well to a less obvious causal chain between lack of access to public services and its negativesocial consequences.

8.3 It is also because transport poverty resides with the individual rather than the whole household, so thatone member of a household may experience it whilst another member of the same household does not. Theease with which they can achieve this accessibility will depend on their personal circumstances, as well as thelevel, quality, cost and suitability of the transport services they can appropriate.

8.4 Furthermore, it is not clear whether transport poverty relates to a deficiency in transport supply and/orto some minimum level of mobility and/or to a level of accessibility to goods, services and daily activities.

8.5 This makes setting a defining measure of transport poverty even more problematic to administer andmonitor at the individual level. It is also unclear which Government Department should take responsibility fordoing so, as it is clearly not solely a transport sector-driven problem.

9 What is the impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transportinfrastructure to access public services?

9.1 In some case, Internet access to public services can help to mitigate the need to physically travel topublic services and can be useful in certain circumstances (eg on-line benefit registration for people withmobility problems). However, a significant proportion of the users of public services (particularly health,education, and welfare support) require the kind of extra assistance and reassurance that only face-to-facecontact can provide. Having a shadow service available on the Internet should only ever be seen as anadditional rather than substitute form of access.

9.2 It should also be remembered that many of the people who require public service assistance do not haveaccess to the Internet in their homes. Studies have shown that and even those that do have Internet access willnot tend to use it for this purpose and would have significant difficulties if required to do so.

7 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by Lincolnshire County Council

1. Summary

— Lincolnshire is a large rural county with numerous sparse communities that have very little orno public services such as doctor’s surgeries, schools, shops etc.

— This has led to a higher than average car ownership per head of population.

— In 2010–11 Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) provided a budget of £5 million to supportlocal bus services where there are no commercial services. Following the ComprehensiveSpending Review and the reduction in spending to Local Government that budget was cut by£1 million to £4 million. This led to services being cut (particularly in the evenings andweekends) or severely reduced.

— LCC have endeavoured to overcome the lack of public transport with its award winning CallConnect, demand responsive transport.

— Lincolnshire also suffers from a generally limited rail service. The main city of Lincoln onlyhas two direct services to London one run by East Coast Trains via the East Coast Main Lineleaving Lincoln at 07:20 and returning at 19:06, arriving in Lincoln at 21:03 and the other byEast Midlands Trains which uses the Midland Mainline. This service leaves Lincoln at 07:04arriving at St Pancras at 10:00 and returns from St Pancras at 18:30 and arrives in Lincolnat 21:22.

2. How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (iewhether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

2.1 The majority of Transport Policy is more applicable to urban areas; this was reflected recently with theBetter Bus Area Funding which was targeted at large conurbations and urban areas.

2.2 The Local Sustainable Transport Fund has given some opportunities to develop one or two new busroutes.



2.3 The reduction of Bus Service Operator Grants (BSOG) has had an effect on some rural services reducingtheir commercial viability.

2.4 The devolution of BSOG on tendered services may also have a detrimental effect on the network andwill definitely make it more difficult to grow the network.

3. Are other polices (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting theaccessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public servicesadequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transportneeded to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

3.1 The centralisation of some services (such as health) continues to impact on the accessibility of theseservices for many, particularly those living in remote rural areas. In addition, accessibility still seems to bevery much an “after thought” for other public bodies when choosing locations for new services within thecounty, the County Council as Local Authority then coming under pressure to provide funding support forimproved public transport at a time when budgets for such support are reducing across the country.

3.2 Lincolnshire County Council recognised the devastating impact the loss of some essential local serviceswas having on those people living in rural locations and launched the Rural Gain Grant to support ruralcommunities to revitalise what might be the last shop or Post Office in the village or to introduce vital newservices. To date the grant has supported over twenty five businesses in Lincolnshire with in excess of £122,000of funding. It has secured and improved the long term future of businesses such as Torksey Post Office whichprovide essential local services.

3.3 The good value for money and success of completed projects has enabled the County Council to committo provide Rural Gain Grants to Lincolnshire businesses until 2016. Future successful Rural Gain Grant projectswill not only demonstrate that essential services have been provided to the local community, but also enable atouch point for information on transport options in the area and actively promote the use of sustainable transportto their businesses.

4. Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected inlocal transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibilityagenda?

4.1 Although the greater focus given to accessibility within local transport plans by DfT has been helpful,there remains work to be done among other government departments and bodies to ensure that accessibilityissues are more fully understood and considered when developing and implementing policies.

5. How should the transport—related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-makingin government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and otherconsiderations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would ameasure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be usefulfor policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

5.1 LCC would identify that this is an area which needs further development as current DfT methods ofassessing accessibility to key services do not appear to truly reflect the value of demand response bus servicesin rural areas, which are becoming more common across the country.

5.2 In recent years there has been a noticeable change in the emphasis given to environmental and economicoutcomes from work, for example, the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. However, grants such as theCommunity Transport Fund, address social and accessibility issues directly and give the flexibility to provideinnovative transport services for those who are not able to access public transport. As long as the Governmentcontinue to acknowledge that “not one size fits all” then social and accessibility needs are being addressed indecision making by providing a range of funding for transport solutions.

5.3 A measure of the transport accessibility of key public services becomes increasingly difficult with theemerging range of transport options. Demand Responsive Transport and Community Transport both offerflexible transport solutions, which are difficult to measure and represent in a “measure”. They often cover largegeographical areas, and therefore can give an unrepresentative view of the regular services available. LocalAuthorities also have the challenge of marketing/promoting these services as for everyone, as they are typicallyperceived as services for older people. Using a measurement tool, such as accession, can show areas as fullycovered by public transport, whereas local communities, such as young people or families may not viewdemand responsive transport as an accessible service for them. Measurement tools often do not take accountof community transport, which often offers a solution where public transport is not available.



6. The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure toaccess public services.

6.1 As technology progresses, accessing online services will play more of a role however it is important torealise that for some, affording a computer is too expensive, for other groups technology itself can be a barrier;and internet connections can vary across the county.

7 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by Campaign for Better Transport

Summary

— Job seekers, young people, low income groups and older people are particularly likely toexperience access difficulties and also more likely to be dependent on buses.

— But many bus services have been cut, fares have risen and concessionary travel has beenreduced.

— Revenue funding for transport services has been cut and should be protected to maintain andrestore access.

— Other government departments (than transport), service providers and some local governmentoften do not accept responsibility for access to services and amenities.

— Planning policies that would reduce the need to travel and improve access are often not takeninto account and, in practice, the focus is still on travel by car.

— Accessibility planning can be helpful and accessibility guidance should be updated and re-issued.

— Improving accessibility and safeguarding the environment should not be in conflict—bothrequire services and amenities accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

— Policies to improve accessibility are in line with localism and would bring economic benefits.

Introduction

1. Campaign for Better Transport welcomes this Inquiry into transport and the accessibility of public services.

2. We have recently published three pieces of research of relevance to the Inquiry.

— A literature review on transport and poverty.35

— Evidence on the transport barriers to getting a job.36

— Case studies of the social inclusion value of buses.37

We also published a paper Transport, Accessibility and Social Exclusion,38 summarising this research andsetting out some headline recommendations. This material has been made available to the Committee.

3. Before responding to the questions posed by the Committee we would make two points.

4. First, it could be helpful to take a broad view of the scope of the Inquiry. Access to public services suchas education, health and welfare facilities is important but so also is access to employment and a range ofretail, leisure and social amenities which might not be described as public services.

5. Second, the term accessibility is used in various ways. It sometimes refers to physical accessibility mainlyin relation to people with disabilities or it refers to the accessibility of transport (for instance where and whenit is available and how much it costs). It can refer to the accessibility of specific or all services and amenitiesto certain groups or it can refer in general to access to all services and amenities for everyone. The matter ofaccess to all services and amenities for everyone is important and we use it in this context in this evidence.

6. A helpful distinction has long been drawn between access and mobility. It has often been pointed out thatthe purpose of transport and planning policy should be to enable access not just mobility per se. The 2003Social Exclusion Unit report “Making the Connections” recognised the distinction: “Solving accessibilityproblems may be about transport but also about locating and delivering key activities in ways that help peoplereach them.”35 Transport and Poverty: A Literature Review, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/

transport-and-poverty-literature-review.pdf36 Transport barriers to getting a job—Evidence from Citizens Advice clients, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012,

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-barriers-to-getting-a-job.pdf37 Social Inclusion Value of Buses—Marchwood, Social Inclusion Value of Buses—Burbank, Campaign for Better Transport, July

2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/social-inclusion-value-of-buses-marchwood-report.pdf andhttp://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/social-inclusion-value-of-buses-burbank-report.pdf

38 Transport, accessibility and social exclusion, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-and-social-exclusion-summary.pdf



Question 1: How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services(ie whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

7. Campaign for Better Transport’s main concern is that cuts in revenue funding for local authorities islimiting the ability of groups at risk of disadvantage to access services. The background is as follows.

8. In “Making the Connections”, the Social Exclusion Unit found that

— Two out of five jobseekers say lack of transport is a barrier to getting a job.

— Nearly half of 16–18 year olds experience difficulty with the cost of transport to education.

— Around 20% of people (31% of those without a car) have difficulty reaching their local hospital.

— 16% of people without cars find getting to a supermarket difficult and 18% experiencedifficulties in seeing friends and family.

9. These access difficulties may partly be explained by an increase in the need to travel in the last fewdecades, as local amenities have been replaced by more centralised units or by more remote development. Thisis obviously linked to a rise in car ownership. But a quarter of households in Great Britain, for a variety ofreasons, do not have a car.

10. The Social Exclusion Unit also showed how low income households rely more heavily on buses, walking,taxis and lifts from family or friends. More recently the “Buses Matter” report, published by Campaign forBetter Transport in 2011, demonstrated the importance of buses to young people, older people, people on lowincomes, people with disabilities and people seeking work. For instance it showed that:

— People in the lowest income quintile make three times more journeys by bus than people in thehighest income quintile.

— 60% of disabled people have no car in the household and use buses around 20% more frequentlythan non-disabled people.

11. Bus services are being reduced. Campaign for Better Transport’s Save Our Buses campaign has beentracking cuts to bus services across the country and, again, young people in rural areas are likely to have beenparticularly badly hit. Our research, using freedom of information requests, suggests that council spendingreductions have led to one in five supported bus services being scrapped with more likely to follow. More thana thousand bus services totalling £36 million have been cut.

12. The costs of public transport are continuing to rise faster than overall motoring costs. Campaign forBetter Transport has been working on the issue of affordability of public transport fares for some time, mainlyin relation to rail but also in relation to buses. The cost of public transport has risen steeply in recent yearscompared to the overall costs of motoring (which include running costs and the cost of buying vehicles).

13. The graph below39 shows how increases in bus and rail fares over the period 1997 to 2010 haveoutstripped both overall motoring costs and the retail price index.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

250

200

150

100

50

0

Inde

x: 1

997

= 10

0

All items RPI

Purchase of vehicleAll motoring

Rail fares

All motoring running costs

Bus and coach fares

14. The Educational Maintenance Allowance has been abolished in England. Concessionary fares for youngpeople are provided by local authorities on a discretionary basis. These non-statutory concessions have beenvulnerable to local authority cuts. Campaign for Better Transport has been running a crowd sourcing project39 From Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011, Tables TSBG0122 and TSGB0123



to identify cuts to bus services and other associated services such as concessionary fares schemes for youngpeople. Many local authorities have made savings in this area. Schemes in Suffolk and the Isle of White havebeen cut while others in Kent, South Yorkshire and Manchester have become more expensive.

15. Reductions in bus services and support for concessionary travel often result from cuts in central andlocal government support. Three main areas have been cut back:

— Funding to local authorities to provide services which the commercial operators would nototherwise provide.

— Cuts to the bus service operators grant (BSOG), which goes directly to operators of localbus services.

— Underfunding of the statutory concessionary fares scheme, which means that local authoritieshave made cuts elsewhere in order to fund it. Operators also argue that they do not receivesufficient reimbursement for the costs to them from passengers using the concessionary faresscheme.

16. Cuts to local authority funding happened first and the main impact of that cut has been a reduction inthe number of services. However, cuts to BSOG and the ongoing pressure on concessionary fares funding arelikely to lead to fare rises. Modelling carried out for the Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg), whichrepresents the larger metropolitan transport authorities outside London, suggests that fares will rise by 24% by2014, compared to a rise of 18% based on current trends without the funding cuts.40

17. Fares on rail are also forecast to rise sharply. The Government uses an RPI+X% formula to set theannual rise in regulated fares. Since 2004, this has been set at RPI+1% but the Government decided in the2010 Spending Review to change the formula to RPI+3% for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 rises. The Governmentbacked down on the rise for 2012 (reverting to RPI+1%) but has announced an increase of RPI +3% for 2013and the higher rate is still planned for 2014. This could mean fares will be over a quarter higher by 2015 basedon forecast rates of inflation.

18. The complexity of the fares system means that it is often difficult for people to take advantage of cheaperadvance fares. Campaign for Better Transport has been running the Fair Fares Now campaign to call forcheaper, simpler and fairer fares. A full set of proposals to make our fares and ticketing system fairer, simplerand cheaper is set out in our Fair Fares Charter.41

19. In sum, reductions in revenue support mean that public transport services have become more expensiveas they have been reduced in number with a corresponding deterioration in the accessibility of services andamenities particularly for potentially excluded groups. That points to the importance of protecting localauthority revenue funding for transport services and concessions if accessibility is to be restored.

Question 2: Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affectingthe accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public servicesadequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transportneeded to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

20. Accessibility problems may partly be explained by a continuing increase in the need to travel. This isindicated by a growth of 42% in average journey lengths since the 1970s as local services and amenities havebeen replaced by more remote facilities and development.

22. Department for Transport accessibility statistics show, by a number of different measurements, acontinuing decline even since 2010 but also for longer, in accessibility of key services and for work. Thedeterioration in access appears most marked for hospitals and least marked for primary schools and towncentres. Secondary and tertiary educational services lie somewhere in between. The increase in minimumjourney times to access key services appears most marked for public transport and least for travel by car.

23. There are several explanations for this decline. In our view the following three factors are critical.

24. First, the implications of policies and decisions about accessibility or the location of services andamenities are still not taken seriously in some parts of national government, and often also by local government,service providers and the development industry.

25. Planning policies to reduce the need to travel and locate services and development where it can bereached on foot, by bicycle or by public transport have been in force since at least the publication of PlanningPolicy Guidance Note 13 Transport in 1994. These have been carried over, in abbreviated form, into theNational Planning Policy Framework published earlier this year (see, for example, paragraphs 34 and 37). Butthe last 20 years have seen a concentration of facilities such as hospitals in fewer and often less accessiblelocations and a reduction in other sorts of local facilities such as shops, banks and post offices. At the sametime the number of developments such as retail and business parks located on the trunk road network and not40 Underpinning Policy: Modelling Bus Subsidy in English Metropolitan Areas, Passenger Transport Executive Group, August

2011 http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/821B74A5–9CB4–46CC-8E55-B669CAFAA947/0/20110808ModellingBusSubsidyinEnglishMetropolitanAreasFinalReportAbridgedv50.pdf

41 See www.bettertransportorg.uk/fairfaresnow



readily accessible by public transport, much less on foot or by bicycle, has grown substantially. Thedevelopment of Local Enterprise Zones threatens to follow a similar pattern.

26. Planning policy is the responsibility of DCLG not DfT. But communication between the two departmentson land use planning and the integration of transport and land use (a matter which other western countries takefor granted) could be improved significantly.42 Our understanding is that the Departments of Health, Educationand Work and Pensions are interested in this agenda in the last few years but that, surprisingly, the Departmentfor Communities and Local Government has not worked as closely with the Department for Transport as wouldbe expected.

27. This relative neglect of the location of services is reflected even in an otherwise helpful draft report forthe DfT evaluating accessibility planning.43 The report “identified those initiatives of relevance to accessibilityplanning”. Four of the five types of initiative reviewed relate to travel and transport and the fifth to mobileservices. None concern the location of services to make travel less necessary.

28. This is despite the fact that accessibility planning was initiated as the main recommendation of the SocialExclusion report which, as we have already pointed out, said: “Solving accessibility problems may be abouttransport but also about locating and delivering key activities in ways that help people reach them.” It is alsoat odds with the emphasis placed by Accessibility Planning Guidance on reducing the need to travel throughlocating services so that they are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

29. Second, service providers are not taking the travel and transport implications of their policies anddecisions into account. For example, the DfT Accessibility Statistics show that the “greatest increase in averageminimum travel time using public transport/walking was to hospitals.” Hospitals are closing and facilitiesbecoming more concentrated in fewer sites less accessible by public transport. As the DfT says: “the numberand location of hospital sites probably has a greater affect on travel times than any changes to the publictransport timetables”.44 The same is true of other services.

30. Job centres are another example. Campaign for Better Transport analysed evidence from Citizens Advicebureaux 45 and identified some of the access difficulties faced by job seekers. These included:

— Cuts to Job Centres in less built up areas can mean some spending a significant share of theirbenefits travelling long distances to sign on (particularly where Job Centres insist on weekly oreven daily signing on).

— Many Job Centres do not recognise the difficulties faced by those reliant on public transportand are imposing unreasonable sanctions on job seekers whose lack of transport options makeit difficult for them to find work.

31. The report Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions came to a similar conclusionabout service providers:

“inter-agency working has proved to be one of the most problematic points in the accessibilityplanning process.

The research suggests that difficulties experienced from the perspective of local authorities relatedmore to the lack of understanding about, and accountability for accessibility issues with otherstatutory agencies, rather than necessarily any resistance to engagement.”

32. The report quotes a local authority representative as saying:

“we’re having too many examples of key public sector agencies providing new facilities that aretotally inaccessible, with transport then being expected to pick up the pieces and provideinfrastructure afterwards.”

33. Third, the DfT accessibility statistics and the examples we have just given show a continuing focus ontravel by car and a failure to consider and plan for travel by public transport, walking and cycling.

34. There is a danger that the issue of accessibility of public services is just left to the Department forTransport. Campaign for Better Transport therefore recommends that the Environmental Audit Committeeconsider asking representatives of relevant Government departments, service providers and a sample of localauthorities to give oral evidence to the Committee on the steps they take to provide and improve access toservices and amenities.42 See for instance the annual progress reports to Parliament from the Committee on Climate Change.43 Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, Department for Transport, draft of June 201244 See Accessibility Statistics 2011, Department for Transport, July 2012 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-

2011/accessibility-statistics-2011.pdf. While there may be medical justifications for fewer hospitals providing high skilledoperations because medical staff need to maintain their skills through higher frequency of procedures, we are concerned aboutcentralisation of more routine procedures and the extent to which the NHS considers accessibility in the location, design andfacilities for hospital and other sites.

45 Transport, Accessibility and Social Exclusion, 2012, Campaign for Better Transport, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-and-social-exclusion-summary.pdf



Question 3: Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to bereflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering theaccessibility agenda?

35. Campaign for Better Transport supported the introduction of accessibility planning and still believes itcan help address a range of concerns, for instance:

— Ensuring that services are available to groups at risk of social exclusion

— Improving the well-being both of individuals and communities by helping to establish abalanced range of local services and amenities which can be accessed by a choice of means oftransport and without having to have a car

— Reducing the need to travel and the environmental impact of transport.

36. The DfT has gone to some lengths to make accessibility planning a success including issuingAccessibility Planning Guidance and developing the “Accession” software. Accessibility planning remains partof the process of producing a Local Transport Plan. DFT Guidance on Local Transport Plans, published in July2009 and still in force, says that “…accessibility planning will continue to be a key element of local transportplanning and delivery.”

37. However, accessibility planning may not at the moment have quite the priority it once enjoyed. Localauthorities are no longer required to submit local transport plans to the DfT. We understand that the DfT isstruggling to develop its links with local authorities since the abolition of Government Offices: it no longerknows who to talk to about transport in the local authorities; it does not know if local authorities are doinggood things or even what they are doing; and although the DfT sometimes sees examples of good practice ithas no means of sharing these.

38. A report by the Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg),46 representing the Passenger TransportExecutives of the six largest urban areas outside London, found that there had been a loss of momentum in theimplementation of accessibility planning. A renewed sense of direction and leadership was needed from theDfT and in particular the DfT needed to say whether it considered accessibility planning valuable or not andif it is, to provide guidance on accessibility planning across the relevant government departments.

39. We are worried that local authorities may consider accessibility planning to be an over-bureaucratic,“tick box” process. In any case accessibility planning has become a semi voluntary activity since LocalTransport Plans no longer have to be submitted to the DfT.

40. Furthermore, many local authorities do not appear to be implementing policies to improve accessibilityand reduce the need to travel by influencing the location of services and amenities. Developments are beingpermitted which are difficult to access by a choice of transport modes and by those without cars and althoughthe principle of reducing the need to travel may nominally be part of the of the core strategy of most, if notall, local development plans it is often there without the policies and the decisions to make it a reality.47

41. Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, commissioned by the DfT in 2009 andnow in draft, expresses many of the same views as this evidence. It has found that accessibility remains an“important policy focus for the Government”, vital for economic growth, sustainability and equal access toservices and opportunities. It suggested that accessibility planning should be recognised as a key to localism andthat the DfT could benefit from the localism agenda by developing with others a new agenda for accessibility. Itconcluded that accessibility planning is not yet recognised as a cross Government concern but tends to beviewed, nationally and locally, as a responsibility of transport authorities. More information is needed, thereport states, on the impact of budget restraints, the cross sector significance of accessibility planning and onwhat initiatives work and how much they cost. Accessibility Planning Guidance is important and should be anelement of all strategic and service planning. Both Guidance and the software should be up-dated and re-issued.

Question 4: How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How candecision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental andother considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations?Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”,be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

42. A large number of means of measuring accessibility already exist. DfT Accessibility Statistics, forexample, record access to key services and town centres by travel time, travel mode, destination and origin.For some time Transport for London has compiled PTALs (Public Transport Accessibility Levels) and nowsupplements these with ATOS (Access to Opportunities and services). Some agencies use their ownmeasurements of accessibility. The Post Office has minimum access criteria, for example that 99% of thepopulation should have a post office outlet within three miles.46 Transport and Social Inclusion: Have we made the connections in our cities?, pteg, 201047 Our understanding on this is from examining a sample of local authority local development frameworks as part of the

development of our guide to reducing the need to travel. See http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/reducing-the-need-to-travel-guide.pdf



43. Campaign for Better Transport has proposed a “walkability test” for post offices, schools and NHSfacilities and this could also apply to local shops.48 Creating “walkable”, and therefore “cyclable” communitiesis another way of expressing the degree of accessibility that is needed for both social and environment reasons.Rural areas may require means of delivering services. We see no need to invent new means of measuringaccessibility. However, it would be worth the Committee considering the different means already used. It wouldalso be helpful to invite appropriate Government departments to explain what if any access criteria they use.

44. There is no officially accepted measure of transport poverty. It makes no sense to define those who spendmore than a certain proportion of their income of transport as being in transport poverty because higher incomehouseholds generally spend a higher proportion of their income on travel and transport than lower incomehouseholds. Some lower income households, particularly in rural areas, are dependent on car travel. There ispotentially a conflict between raising fuel taxes (to protect the environment or for some other reason) andimproving accessibility.

45. Nevertheless it is reasonable to increase fuel duty at least in line with inflation, provided the proceedsof fuel duty are used to improve public transport, keep public transport fares down and provide support tolower income households, for instance by

— supporting the travel costs of those 16–18 year olds in full-time education;

— reversing cuts in direct support for bus services; and

— helping those looking to get back into work with the costs of travel.

46. In general there should not be a conflict between social and accessibility concerns and environmentalconsiderations, rather they are complementary. This has already been acknowledged by the CoalitionGovernment and the National Planning Policy Statement talks about pursuing economic, social andenvironmental goals jointly because they are mutually dependent.

47. Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen, the transport whitepaper published by the DfT in 2011, enumerated the environmental benefits of sustainable transport including:cutting carbon emissions, noise, and air pollution and the health benefits including helping to reduce obesityand improving road safety. The White Paper also made clear the connections between sustainable transportand accessibility:

“sustainable transport modes can enable growth, for instance by improving access to work, to shopsand other services, at the same time as cutting carbon emissions and tackling climate change.”

and

“Improving the walking and cycling environment can dramatically improve local accessibility withpositive benefits for growth and the local economy.”

49. Given these and other advantages it is not surprising that, in the same White Paper, the DfT said:

“We will continue to provide data for local authorities to undertake accessibility planning as part ofthe production of their Local Transport Plans.”

Question 5: The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transportinfrastructure to access public services.

50. Broadband and the internet have a role in enabling access to services and amenities and that role couldbe enhanced. It may be possible for example to replace some journeys to job centres with contact via theinternet and email. There is scope to develop remote work hubs that could make it unnecessary to travel longerdistances. It is also likely that further development of internet shopping could reduce travel needs

51. However, in our view the potential for the internet to improve access, replace and reduce the need totravel has often been overstated. Access to the internet is limited for many people in the same groups whichoften have other access difficulties—older people, low income groups, some job-seekers. The carbon reductionbenefits of working from home (which requires the home to be heated) and using the internet have beenquestioned. And local authorities often cite use of broadband and communications technology as means ofreducing the need to travel while failing to do other, perhaps more obvious but more demanding and moreeffective, things that would improve access to services and amenities.

7 September 2012

48 See Improving Everyday Transport, Campaign for Better Transport, 2010. http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/Manifesto-Improving-everyday-transport-Jan10.pdf



Written evidence submitted by Professor Peter Jones, Centre for Transport Studies, University CollegeLondon

Executive Summary— There is some confusion over the use of the term “accessibility”; it can refer to disability access

to vehicles (micro), the physical and psychological ease of moving around the local streetnetwork (meso) and access to employment, healthcare, etc. at a more strategic level (macro).

— Some people—generally the less articulate groups—suffer quite severe forms of accessibilityproblems, often linked to poor public transport provision, which can lead to transport and non-transport hardship (lack of employment, loss of benefits).

— Gaining access to a service usually involves interacting with multiple agencies, which generallydo not co-ordinate their actions to provide seamless services—people get “caught in the cracks”.

— We need a more comprehensive understanding of these problems and ways of incentivising andfacilitating inter-agency co-ordination.

Personal Experience

My current position is Professor of Transport and Sustainable Development at University College London;I was previously Director of the Transport Studies Group at the University of Westminster. I have carried outseveral research studies into people’s accessibility to goods and public services, particularly by public transportand on foot, and issues of hardship, funded by research councils (EPSRC), the EU and the Department forTransport. This has involved working with local councils, public transport operators, various public and privatesector service providers, and members of the public. I was involved in the research programme that led to theDfT requiring local authorities to carry out Accessibility Planning exercises.

Evidence

The meanings of the term “accessibility”

1. In general terms, accessibility refers to the degree to which people can reach the goods and services thatthey and society considers are necessary for them to live their daily lives, mainly by travelling to particularlocations (eg hospitals), but increasingly using the internet or by telephone.

2. However, groups of professionals use the term “accessibility” in different ways, to mean different things,and this can be a source of confusion. These definitions can be broadly grouped into three scales ofaccessibility: micro (eg access onto and within vehicles), meso (eg neighbourhood street network connectivityand problems of severance), and the strategic level “Accessibility Planning” (eg access to employment in asub-region).

3. In practice, in order for most people to experience high levels of accessibility, there needs to be a goodlevel of performance at all three scales. The study of disadvantaged population groups in South Yorkshirereferred to below, found that accessibility could be sharply restricted by a single failure on any scale, rangingfrom poor physical access to a bus when travelling with a children’s buggy, to safety concerns about walkingto the bus stop, through to the non-availability or unaffordability of public transport services: the weakest linkbreaks the whole chain of events.

4. At a micro level, there is a large body of literature (and in many countries, associated national legislation)concerned with ensuring that groups with a range of physical disabilities are able to use transport facilities.This starts with vehicle design (eg specially adapted vehicles, or the ability to board a bus, taxi or train in awheelchair), but also includes movement in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle (eg lifts to railway platforms,raised kerbs at bus stops, larger parking bays for disabled drivers), and links up with meso scale access issues.

5. The meso level focuses on the potential for movement at the neighbourhood level. This encompasses arange of issues, in particular the connectivity and permeability of the local street network using different modesof transport. It includes ease of access for various disability groups, through such things as the provision ofdropped kerbs at junctions (for people in wheelchairs) and the use of changes in surface texture to assist thenavigation of blind and partially sighted people. Several studies have looked at how people’s lives can beblighted through their inability to travel far from home due to such physical access restrictions.

6. Access problems experienced at this level include severance, which might result from the construction ofa railway line or high performance road, which forces people to make a long detour and so substantiallyincrease their journey distance and time. However, the barrier that causes severance may be more fluid (eg aroad with high volumes of fast moving traffic at certain times of day that people feel is too unsafe to cross),or more psychological in nature (eg avoiding routes through areas populated by a different religious or ethnicgroup or by street gangs). Equally, some of the conventional solutions to addressing the problem maythemselves be a cause of severance, such as pedestrian underpasses that can be sites for personal attack, or aredifficult to access in a wheelchair.

7. Strategic accessibility is concerned with the degree to which a given land use pattern and associatedmodal transport networks in an area (ranging in size from a town to a region) facilitate travel from one local



area to another, in order to participate in a particular kind of desired activity (eg health care, education,employment). It is the best documented and addressed of the three scales of accessibility, both in the policyliterature (eg Social Exclusion Unit, 2003) and by the academic community.

8. The literature recognises a number of dimensions of strategic accessibility, the main ones including spatial,temporal and financial.

9. Accessibility measurements range from simple performance type measures, such as the percentage of apopulation group (eg pensioners) which can reach a given destination (eg the nearest hospital) by publictransport with a given time period (eg 60 minutes), to “Hanson” measures which calculate the accessibility ofa zone or area by adding together the opportunities available in each other zone, weighted by a function of thedifficulty of reaching that zone.

Problems caused by limited accessibility

10. This section summarises key findings from a detailed programme of research that was carried out inthree villages in the Barnsley Dearne area of South Yorkshire, in an ex–coalmining area with high levels ofsocial deprivation, in order to identify the accessibility problems and requirements of residents (particularlythose without access to a car). It involved work both with local communities and with public and private sectorservice providers.

11. Eleven extended focus group sessions were held with residents drawn from the three villages.Respondents included younger adults, particularly those with children (including single parents), and olderpeople. Recruitment also took into account the length of residence in the area, to ensure that newcomers wererepresented. There was a mix of male and female respondents, and a range of occupational types, but with aparticular focus on people with no or limited car access.

12. These focus groups were followed by two sessions where some of the participants were brought togetherto review and validate the report’s draft findings and to give further consideration to possible solutions.

13. Two workshops were then held with senior representatives from agencies which provided services tolocal residents, ranging from bus operators to the police and health and education authorities. The first involveda general briefing about Accessibility Planning, and a consideration of the full range of problems raised byresidents, but illustrated in a hypothetical context. The second workshop looked specifically at service provisionin the Dearne, and included a session with two of the members from the resident focus groups, where theirviews were presented and debated with the professionals.

14. The focus groups identified a wide variety of problems, in particular:

— Reductions over time in local services available within the village/town:

“It’s gone from here; we’ve lost the cinema, 3 or 4 butchers, 3 co-operatives for groceries, arunning track…”

— Physical restrictions affecting respondents (eg walking and accessing public transport withbuggies, or for older people with restricted mobility):

“I’ve been on the bus, when he’s let me on with a double pushchair, and then actually beenasked to get off at Tesco because a lady was getting on with a single pushchair.”

— Psychological restrictions (particularly relating to fear of traffic accidents and personal injuryfrom groups of young people). One young mother reported turning back from a rail station andabandoning a trip, during the day:

“I went there once with the pram and I got about half way up the ramp, and turned round andcame back…there were about ten 18-year …and there was no way I was standing there”.

— Lack of information about public transport and public agency services: timetables, fares, supporton offer.

— Restricted availability of public transport (at certain times and places):

“I went for an interview at XXXX in Doncaster, but they won’t accept me for the simple fact ismy first bus is at 6.20 in the morning and they start at 7 o’clock. And I can’t do it. I’m findingit hard to get a job, because with my line of work it’s earlies, lates and nights.”

“It’s a pain because, the 226 it’s every hour. So my shift weren’t starting till say, four in theafternoon, I was getting there at ten past three. And I couldn’t get the next hour bus or I’d havebeen late. So I was getting there 45 minutes, 50 minutes before the start of my shift, just sittingthere waiting”.

— Unreliability of buses:

“Sometimes you want to get to the doctors, and they just don’t turn up.”

— Scheduling problems arising from a general lack of coordination between agencies in thedelivery of services, coupled with personal and childcare constraints:

“I got on a chair to stand on top of the fridge and I was cleaning the freezer and it [heavysaucepan] whacked me on top of the head. Of course, I’ve got two kids and I couldn’t get to



the hospital and I was feeling sick and that. I walked down to the doctors and they wouldn’tsee me. They said you’ve got to go to the hospital…And I think, how can I go to the hospitalwith two kids?”

— In some cases, the cost of bus and taxi fares was also a problem:

“Last year I got a job in Mexborough…I got a bus pass for a week—which, I don’t know, was£14, whatever. And anyway, after 7pm it changed. The buses changed. They wouldn’t acceptthat card, your ticket. So it was a case of having to pay twice in one day.”

15. These discussions revealed a surprising lack of knowledge among respondents of some of the servicesthat were available. For example, in one group of eleven retired people, most of whom were highly articulateand involved in some way with local community activities, only two were aware of the NHS Directtelephone service.

16. It was reported that some employers would not employ staff without access to a car, because of theunreliability of public transport. More generally, people reported being seriously limited in their choices ofemployment site and further education colleges, as well as services such as maternity care, due to the restrictedcoverage of public transport services from the Dearne. People also reported difficulties accessing health care(eg specialist after-care services).

17. A general lack of co-ordination and gaps in coverage between service delivery agencies was a recurringproblem, particularly when things did not go according to plan, and usually involved problematic links betweena transport and non-transport service provider. For example, if a patient had to wait several hours in the hospitalbeyond their appointment time, because of staff shortages, then the hospital car they had booked may not beable to take them home at that time. On some occasions, vandalism or flooding had caused the bus companyto cut or divert services at short notice, without any arrangements in place to ensure that passengers were ableto complete their journeys home safely.

18. One example of the latter involved a couple with two young children returning home from a holiday ona late flight into Doncaster and catching the last evening bus service to their village. On the way they wereinformed that the bus would not be serving their village that evening, due to vandalism, and the family—withsuitcases—were dropped on a poorly lit road over a mile away.

19. Unreliable public transport services were reported to have put people’s employment and benefits at risk—leading in some cases to dismissal after arriving late at work on several occasions. Three parents reported thattheir children had lost their Educational Maintenance Allowance payments when arriving late at a FurtherEducation College in Sheffield, due to delayed or cancelled bus services. This type of consequence was seenas being very unfair, as it was beyond the control of the individual, but they were being penalised for failuresin “the system”.

20. A wide range of solutions were proposed by respondents, including: the relocation and retiming ofpatterns of service delivery; measures to make neighbourhoods safer (both in terms of traffic accidents andpersonal security); improved childcare facilities at key activity sites; improved information provision; betterwaiting facilities; improvements to bus/rail services; and, driver training concerning customer care when thingsgo wrong.

21. The table below shows one of the scenarios that were presented to the professional group, and the kindsof solutions that they developed.

Problem

A college student from Village 2 relies on the bus service to get to an FE College in the metropolitan area;there is an hourly direct service, which should deliver the student just in time for his first class. However, thebus is often delayed by congestion and sometimes cancelled, as a result of which he can arrive up to an hourlate. He then loses his weekly EMA allowance, since tutors will not sign in students that arrive late. Theprevious bus gets him to college 50 minutes early, but it is not open at this time, and it means hanging aroundon the street.

Possible solutions

— Give student permission to arrive late or make provision for early arrival.

— Check the regularity of the problem; discuss retiming scheduled service with bus company.

— College provides a shuttle service to the local villages.

— Car sharing scheme promoted.

— “Wheels to college” scheme to enable students to purchase motor scooters.

— Bus drivers issue a “late ticket”—giving proof that vehicle was delayed or cancelled.

— Relocate tertiary education facilities to more local secondary schools.

— Offer distance learning, through a local advanced learning centre.

Example scenario used in the first professional workshop



22. Probably the most fundamental problem identified during the resident focus groups and the professionalagency workshops was the lack of co-ordinated working between agencies. As illustrated above, this couldresult in serious problems for some groups of the population, either through agencies making incompatibledemands on users (eg through the timing constraints of appointments and public transport timetables), or whereproblems “fell through the cracks” between the responsibilities accepted by different agencies (eg late arrivalat work or education).

23. There was also considerable scope for service delivery decisions taken by one agency to have negativeimpacts on the activities of other agencies. In particular, public transport operators were often only consultedabout providing services to a new development (eg a new hospital site) once both the major locational and sitelayout decisions had been taken—often making it very difficult at that late stage to provide attractive andcommercially viable access for potential passengers.

24. It was recognised by the professional group that a major opportunity to address these problems arose attimes when an agency was planning to revise its patterns of service delivery. Were all relevant agencies to beinvolved at the earliest stages of project planning, then it was felt that there might be opportunities to modifyproposals, at minimum cost—at worst to minimise external costs and, at best, to identify synergies that couldresult in “win-win” outcomes for most or all of the affected agencies. It was felt that a simple tool would helpthose involved to think through potential impacts and possible amelioration measures. In response to thisrequirement a simple spreadsheet tool was developed, with one application illustrated below.

KEY:

SECTORS

School Closure/Consolidation• Better educationalprovision• Efficiency savings

Benefit toSector

Disbenefitto Sector

Consequences

Education

Policing

Health

Transport

Close School:

Consolidate Sites

• Larger numbers ofpupils at one site

• Further traveldistances for some

• Loss of after-schoolactivities at closed site

• Greater risk ofbullying• Intimidation insurrounding streets

• Fewer social/leisure activities• Greater anti-social behaviour

• Fewer walk or cycle• More go by car•More go by bus/train

• Reducedphysicalexercise

• More trafficaround school:- congestion- accidents

• More pupilson buses:- crowding-Intimidation

Figure: Tool for exploring the wider consequences of a service change

25. At the professional workshop, views were expressed that this was a logical and beneficial way to proceed,BUT as it did not accord with priorities in current incentive structures within sectors (eg educational targets),then it would not happen.

Transport Hardship

26. One attempt to measure transport financial hardship is described in Cain and Jones (2008), which reportson a study looking at the implications for poorer households of introducing a congestion charging schemein Edinburgh.

27. The study concluded that hardship would be caused if the only practical option for accessing a servicerequired the use of a car, and the cost of using the car including the congestion charge exceeded an affordabilitythreshold. Drawing on experience from other sectors, the affordability threshold was set at 32.5% of disposableincome (ie the proportion of disposable income currently spent on motoring costs by car owning householdsin the lowest three income deciles).

28. In principle, the same method could be used to identify transport financial hardship among poorerhouseholds needing to use public transport to access basic services; this would need to be linked to wideranalysis of loss of income or higher purchase costs arising from limited accessibility.



Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

29. Accessibility is about linking people with goods and services, in ways that can be scheduled within theircomplex patterns of daily life, and this requires people to interact with several agencies in the course of a day.

30. Many of the accessibility problems that people experience are due to conflicting requirements of differentagencies and lack of inter-agency dialogue and co-operation; these problems are not well understood ordocumented.

31. There need to be requirements or incentives (both within and between sectors) to encourage agencies toco-operate when developing their patterns of service provision.

32. The approaches to assessing hardship, as used in the energy industries, should be adapted for use inassessing accessibility to basic goods and services.

33. National government is effective at setting up cross-departmental initiatives to investigate problems (egthe Social Exclusion Unit’s investigation of transport problems), but much less good at ensuring cross sectordelivery—as primary responsibility is often assigned to one department of government.

References

Cain, A, and Jones, PM (2008). “Does urban road pricing cause hardship to low-income car drivers? Anaffordability based approach.” Transportation Research Record. 2067, pp. 47–55.

Jones, P (2011). “Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement inaccessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups”. Research in Transportation Business andManagement Vol. 2, pp. 29–41.

Jones, P (2012). “Developing sustainable transport for the next generation: the need for a multi-sectorapproach”. IATSS Special Issue on “Developing sustainable transport for the next generation”. Vol. 35, pp.41–47.

Social Exclusion Unit (2003). Making the Connections: Final report on Transport and Social ExclusionLondon: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

10 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Government

Introduction

1. The Government welcomes the Committee’s timely inquiry into transport and accessibility to publicservices.

2. The Government acknowledges the findings in the 2003 report by the then Social Exclusion Unit, thatproblems with transport provision and the location of services can prevent people from accessing not just keypublic services such as learning and health care, but also activities such as employment, food shopping orleisure, and visiting family and friends.

3. The Government recognises that accessibility has many different guises. Whether people are able to getto key services will depend on being able to overcome barriers such as the availability and physical accessibilityof transport, the cost of transport, safety and security, travel horizons and staff attitudes.

A research study carried out by the Commission for Rural Communities—Rural Insights 2009,49

found the following:

... “Transport was mentioned .......as having a significant impact on people’s lives. Ten out of 12groups felt the public transport available in their local area was inadequate. Major barriers to usewere infrequency and lack of flexibility, and the cost, which was seen as high. People’s ability toaccess and participate in many other aspects of life, such as employment, education, health servicesand shopping, was largely contingent upon their access to transport. In most conversations on theseissues, the lack of access to adequate transport was raised as a contributing factor to experiencingother types of disadvantage. For example, lack of access to a car meant some participants wereunable to access suitable employment opportunities.”

4. Accessibility also depends on where those services and activities are located. There are relatively fewareas of the country with totally inadequate transport links, but some areas are clearly better served than others.Those in rural and small urban areas are 2–3 times more likely to report that their local bus service is fairly orvery infrequent than those living in other urban areas.50 Rural areas with low population densities may notsupport a public transport network. Only 50% of households in villages and hamlets have an hourly or better49 Qualitative Research into Rural Deprivation, OPM, for Commission for Rural Communities 20091050 Ad hoc analyse of 2010 National Travel Survey (GB) Table NTS0802 by type of area: 31% of adults living in rural areas, 20%

of adults living in small urban areas (population of 3,000–10,000) and 8% of adults living in other urban areas reported localbus services as “fairly infrequent” or “very infrequent”.



bus service within 13 minutes’ walk (compared with 96% of households in urban areas).51 In other areas, itmay be the distance (and hence cost) to services and facilities, rather than a lack of transport, that defines thelevel of accessibility. The cost of running a car for people located in villages and hamlets is approximately20% higher than urban areas and rural towns52 and residents in villages and hamlets spend 20–30% more ontransport than those in urban areas.53

5. The Government recognises that accessibility can also have a disproportionate impact on particular groups.For example, those on low incomes, whether in rural or urban communities, may be poorly served by publictransport. Around a fifth (22%) of disabled people across the country report having difficulties related to theirimpairment or disability in accessing transport.54 The Department for Transport (DfT) will be publishing adisability action plan at the end of September 2012.

6. Many older people also rely heavily on public or community transport to access facilities or services suchas healthcare. Approximately 350,000 (35%) of pensioner households in rural areas have no access to a car orvan.55 Driving licence holding is lower for older people, and fewer older women hold driving licences thanolder men, meaning that older people (particularly older women) are disproportionately dependent upon publicor community transport. In 2010, 78% of men aged 70+ held a full car driving licence compared to 90% ofthose aged 50–59, and 41% of women aged 70+ held a full car driving licence compared to 77% of those aged50–59.56 The majority (78%) of eligible pensioners hold a concessionary travel pass and, on average, thoseaged 60 and over make more trips by local bus than those aged 30–59.57 An increasing older populationmeans that reliance upon public or community transport will also increase. This has implications for publicservice provision. This is exacerbated by the higher proportion of older people living in rural areas.58

7. These problems are particularly acute in rural areas (see definition at Annex 1)—19.1%, or nearly a fifthof the population, live in rural areas and transport is therefore critical to the social and economic viability ofrural areas. Evidence suggests that the decline in rural services disproportionately affects women living inrural areas.

The Office of Fair Trading recently published a report59 Prices and Choice in Remote Communities (March2012) which stated:

“It can be costly to access options that are further afield and some consumers may be uncomfortableusing, or do not have access to, the internet. People without cars, driving licences or with limitedaccess to public transport will also find their range of options constrained. Even for those who owna car, high fuel prices are a very pressing concern.....”

“.....publicly subsidised buses play an important part in giving consumers more choice about whereand from whom to buy goods and services from the private sector or even which public services touse, which in turn drives competition in private markets and choice in public markets.”

8. The Government recognises that transport has a key role to play in improving accessibility and, as such,has a key role to play in helping deliver the Government’s wider agenda—economic growth, social inclusion,environmental protection and carbon reduction. This is reflected in the fact that the Department for Transportis providing £600 million through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) to support the delivery of 96sustainable transport packages across the country, aimed at promoting local economic growth and reducingcarbon emissions.

9. The evidence presented here focuses on land transport and, in particular, public transport—it does notcover air and maritime services though it is acknowledged that these have a particularly important role to playin some communities. Nor does the evidence focus on the private car, although again it is acknowledged thatthe car has an important role to play, especially for those who live in areas where public transport is notavailable, or who cannot physically access public transport.

How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (ie whetherpeople get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

Buses

10. Outside London, 63% of all public transport trips are made on a local bus; there were 2.3 billion busjourneys in 2010–11. Many people rely on their local bus to get to school, to work, to the doctor, to visit their51 State of the Countryside Report 201052 State of the Countryside Report 2010, Commission for Rural Communities53 State of the Countryside Report 201054 Office for Disability Issues sponsored module from the Office for National Statistics’ Opinions survey, 2011

http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-equality-indicators.php#f255 Based on Census 2001 (no car or van estimates at LSOA level for pensioner households. Figure is expressed as a proportion of

all pensioner households (2001 Census). This compares with 41% of pensioner households in non remote areas)56 2010 National Travel Survey Table NTS020157 2010 National Travel Survey Table NTS620 (Take-up of concessionary travel schemes) and NTS0601 (average number of trips

per person per year)58 Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications, Office for National Statistics,

2011http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/images/rt43-rural-urban-areas_tcm97–107562.pdf59 Price and Choice in Remote Communities’ March 2012



friends and family, or to go shopping. Given their importance in providing employers and businesses access tolabour markets, buses are important for a well-functioning and growing economy.

11. Through a combination of bus company investment, local council infrastructure improvements andGovernment regulation and funding, buses are more accessible with more high-tech information and ticketingfacilities for passengers than ever before.

12. Some 85% of households in England (excluding London residents) live within a six minute walk of abus stop, and the more people that can be encouraged out of their cars and onto buses, the greater the positiveimpact on congestion, air quality and noise pollution in our towns and cities.

A Green Light for Better Buses

13. In March 2012, the Government announced a series of reforms to improve the system of local bussubsidy and regulation in England. These are set out in the paper “A Green Light for Better Buses”. TheGovernment’s vision is for a “better bus” with more of the attributes that we know passengers want: morepunctual, inter-connected services, an even greener and more fully wheelchair and buggy-accessible fleet, andthe widespread availability of smart ticketing. The proposals have been carefully formulated to attract morepeople onto buses, to ensure better value for the taxpayer and to give local transport authorities more influenceover their local bus networks.

Programme of Action

14. The DfT recognises that all bus markets are local, and so is taking different approaches to commercialand supported bus services. The Department’s aims are to:

— Reform the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) to ensure better value for money and to cutthe link with fuel usage.

— Make the bus more attractive through partnership between local transport authorities andoperators and the correct subsidy incentives—thereby increasing passenger numbers andproviding more, better quality services.

— Increase competition by implementing the Competition Commission’s recommendations(including on multi-operator ticketing).

— Encourage innovation in procurement and service delivery at the local authority level to getmore for less.

15. These proposals aim to build on existing DfT investment in bus travel made through major schemefunding, the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Better Bus Area Fund and Community Transport Funding.

Concessionary Travel

16. The right to free bus travel for both older and disabled people is enshrined in Primary Legislation. TheChancellor of the Exchequer confirmed the Government’s commitment to protect key benefits for older people,such as free bus travel, in the 2010 Spending Review.

17. Around £1 billion a year is now being spent on concessionary travel. There was a change in 2010 to theage of eligibility for the national entitlement, which should help with the longer term financial sustainabilityof the statutory concession.

18. Local Authorities spent the following on concessionary travel, the majority of which is for reimbursingbus operators for the statutory concession, but spend also includes authorities’ own discretionary enhancementssuch as free travel in the morning peak as well as scheme administration costs:

— 2008–09: £0.990 billion.

— 2009–10: £1.000 billion.

— 2010–11: £1.072 billion.

— 2011–12: not yet published.

19. Local authorities have the freedom to offer additions to the statutory minimum local bus travelconcession, as well as alternatives such as taxi tokens/cards. [See case studies 1 and 2—Annex 3]

Bus Service Operators Grant

20. BSOG is currently paid by DfT to bus operators in order to support local services. In 2012–13, BSOGpayments are expected to total around £360 million. At present, BSOG is paid quarterly, based on an estimateof how much fuel operators will use during their claim year.

21. In “A Green Light for Better Buses”, the Government set out policy proposals for reforming bus subsidy.These reforms include:

— devolution of BSOG to local authorities where the funding relates to services they support—ietendered services—to allow decisions to be taken locally on how it should be spent;



— devolution to Transport for London (TfL) of BSOG paid to London bus operators who operateservices on contract to TfL;

— possible changes to the incentive payments which bus companies may qualify for; and

— tightening the existing rules defining which bus services can claim BSOG, so that the fundingis put to the best possible use.

Better Bus Area/Green Bus Funding

22. In March 2012, DfT announced the winning bidders for the £70 million Better Bus Area and £31 millionGreen Bus Fund competitions. Together, this package will encourage people onto the bus, cutting congestion,improving air quality, promoting a low carbon transport infrastructure and encouraging growth.

23. Projects under these two funds will help drive forward bus travel in England, helping to buy, amongstother things:

— the development of hop-on hop-off multi-operator tickets that put spontaneity back into thehands of the passenger;

— real time information (including audio visual systems) for bus passengers and for bus operatorsto cut down waiting time and prevent buses bunching up;

— smarter traffic lights that recognise buses and give them priority with barely an impact on othertraffic; and

— lead local transport authorities across England will benefit from the £70 million Better BusArea Fund.

24. The Government has also supported retrofitment of pollution abatement equipment to buses in London,to reduce pollution. Defra has provided funding to local authorities, such as Oxford and Norwich, to supportbus-based low emission zone initiatives.

Competition Commission

25. DfT has made clear throughout the two years of the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the UK Busmarket that what matters is encouraging more passengers onto buses, and getting best value for the considerableamounts of money the taxpayer puts into local bus markets. The Competition Commission has a particular andwell defined remit that is more narrowly focused on ensuring competition takes place.

26. Nonetheless, the remedies it has suggested will provide real benefits to passengers by encouraging newplayers into local bus markets, and helping bus passengers understand the public transport options open tothem. So, for example, there will be better quality buses and information through partnership working betweenlocal transport authorities, and more tickets that can be used on any bus operator on a given route.

Physical Accessibility on Buses

27. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access totransport services and opportunities to travel as other members of society. The Equality Act 2010 makes itunlawful for a bus operator to discriminate against a disabled person simply because they are disabled, treatdisabled people less favourably or fail to make a reasonable adjustment to the way they provide their services.

28. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) require facilities such as low floorboarding devices, visual contrast on step edges, handholds and handrails, priority seats and provision forpassengers in wheelchairs. All buses carrying more than 22 passengers used on local or scheduled services willbe required to be fully PSVAR compliant by 2015, 2016 or 2017 (depending on the bus type). The transitionwill take place over time and transport operators will inevitably use a mixed fleet of accessible and non-accessible vehicles.

29. Latest statistics (March 2011) show that 60% of buses in Great Britain (almost 100% in London) meetthese accessibility requirements, and 85% are low floor. The Government will continue to monitor progresstowards full compliance with PSVAR. The DfT will liaise with bus companies to ensure investment inaccessible buses remains on track.

Taxis

30. The Government has asked the Law Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of taxi andprivate hire vehicle (PHV) legislation. They are consulting from May to September 2012. The final report anda draft Bill is due in December 2013. The Commission’s consultation document asks for views about how tomake most appropriate provision for people with disabilities. The Government will be responding to theconsultation in due course.

31. The Government has commenced a number of the taxi sections in the Equality Act 2010, principally thosewhich simply transferred existing obligations from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so, for example, taxi



drivers cannot refuse to take a guide dog. The Government is still considering its commencement strategy forsection 165 of the Equality Act (placing duties on taxi drivers to assist passengers in wheelchairs).

Community Transport

32. The Local Transport Act 2008 increased the flexibility of arrangements for providing communitytransport services, and expanded the provision around taxi-buses, both of which can help to fill the gaps wherecommercial transport services are not viable. In 2009–10, over 15 million passenger trips were provided by atleast 1,700 community groups. The community transport sector has been building capacity and is able to offerservices that address local needs and increase patronage.

33. In recognition of the important role community transport can play in delivering local services, theGovernment provided a total of £20 million across two rounds of Community Transport Fund between 2010–11and 2011–12. This funding has been distributed to 76 local transport authorities (Councils and PassengerTransport Executives) to support the establishment and development of more community transport links toemployment and services, particularly in rural areas. This additional funding complements the LocalSustainable Transport Fund, to which all English local authorities have been able to submit bids for a shareof £600 million over four years, aimed at encouraging sustainable transport solutions. [See case study 3—Annex 3]

Trains

34. The Government remains committed to the legal deadline of 1 January 2020 by which time all railvehicles must be accessible. 41% of all passenger rail vehicles currently in use in Great Britain (over 6800 railvehicles) have been built or fully refurbished to modern access standards, including 47% of the heavy rail fleet.

Improving access at rail stations

35. The Railways for All Strategy published in March 2006 sets out what the rail industry is doing toimprove the accessibility of the rail network. The Strategy takes a “whole journey” approach, from the provisionof information and purchase of tickets to the accessibility of station buildings and vehicles. The Departmentfor Transport is providing funding through the ring fenced £370 million Access for All programme for anobstacle free, accessible route to and between platforms serving passenger trains at 154 priority rail stationsby 2015. An additional £100 million of funding has recently been announced to extend the funding until 2019.

36. The 154 stations have been prioritised in terms of footfall, then weighted by the incidence of disabilityin the local area, based on the 2001 Census. This targets spending at the most heavily used stations where itcan benefit the largest number of disabled people. A proportion of stations has also been selected to ensure afair geographical spread.

37. Since 2006 an annual Small Schemes fund of up to £7 million has also been available that enables localauthorities, train operating companies and other interested groups to bid for funds to make locally focussedaccess improvements to stations. More than 1,000 stations (including some in rural areas) have so far beenoffered grants on a match funded basis totalling approximately £25 million towards more than £70 million ofstation access improvements.

38. From 1 April 2011, a new Mid-Tier Access for All programme was launched for projects requiringbetween £250,000 and £1 million of Government support. By March 2014, more than 150 stations will benefitfrom a range of access improvements such as new lifts and ramps, etc.

39. Each train operator is required to produce a Disabled Persons’ Protection Policy, available at stationsand on their websites, that sets out the facilities and services available to disabled passengers.

The Pedestrian Environment

40. There is little point in improving the on-board accessibility of particular transport modes if the passengercannot get to them in the first place. The Department for Transport will be publishing a Door-to-Door strategylater this year to align with its planned Transport Strategy. The aim is to set out the short, medium and longterm vision for taking forward the door-to-door initiative. It is intended that the strategy has buy-in acrossgovernment, with industry and with external stakeholders so that it will provide a lasting vision withstakeholders committed to seeing improvements in this area.

41. The pedestrian environment is important as part of the door to door experience. The Department forTransport has published a number of guidance documents that emphasise the importance of accessibility andinclusivity in the design of streets and other such public places.

42. In November 2002, the Department published Inclusive Mobility—a guide to best practice on access topedestrian and transport infrastructure. This guidance concentrates on accessibility issues for disabled andolder people. The Department’s Manual for Streets published in 2007 stresses the need to design inclusively,and this ethos is embedded in all relevant guidance produced subsequently in the form of Local TransportNotes. For example, the latest Local Transport Note, LTN 1/11 Shared Space, focuses heavily on the needs of



older people, disabled people, and blind or partially sighted people in particular. It also draws attention toduties under the Equality Act 2010.

Availability of Information

43. The absence of travel information can be a barrier to travel. The London 2012 Spectator Journey Plannerwas delivered in August 2011 with the capability of identifying routes that are level access and/or with staffassistance from a core network of 600 transport locations (National Rail, London Underground and DocklandsLight Railway stations and accessible coach stops) to every London 2012 venue. As part of the legacy, theGovernment’s aim is to embed the journey planning functionality into existing journey planning software, anddevelop a new network of accessible locations and services that can be reliably operated and advertised innormal operating conditions.

44. The Department for Transport is building in principles of accessibility into future developments such asthe reform of ticketing.

45. DfT published Transport Solutions for Older People on 13 February 2012, which signposts localauthorities to existing resources, information and practices, including innovative examples of tailored transportsolutions around the country: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/transport-solutions-for-older-people/

Training

46. Physical accessibility is not the only potential barrier passengers face. Staff attitudes can also play alarge part in passengers’ ability and willingness to travel. The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers,Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 place an obligation on drivers ofregulated buses to assist disabled persons when asked, and this may include announcing the required stop orsafely deploying lifts, ramps or “kneeling” systems in order to assist wheelchair users boarding or alightinga bus.

47. Since September 2008, all professional bus and coach drivers have been required to hold a Certificateof Professional Competence (CPC) and carry out 35 hours of periodic training every five years as a requirementof the EU Directive 2003/59. Approximately 75% of drivers have completed some form of disability awarenesstraining through the Driver CPC, and this figure continues to rise each year.

48. The DfT is also encouraging the development of travel training schemes which will help to give disabledpeople and others the skills and confidence to travel independently and safely. The Department is also lookingat how to encourage more travel training schemes across the country. In May 2011, it published “TravelTraining Good Practice Guidance” http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/inclusion/tts/traveltrainingguide/. [See case study4—Annex 3]

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting theaccessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public servicesadequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transportneeded to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

49. The importance of accessibility is recognised in a number of cross-government initiatives.

Access to Work

Reduced cost travel for Jobseekers

50. Some Department for Work and Pensions claimants already get concessionary bus fares because of age(usually 60plus—although that is being changed to 65plus gradually from April 2011), or disability or by beingon benefits.

51. Jobcentre Plus District Managers have access to a new discretionary Flexible Support Fund, which theycan use to supplement other mainstream services to address individual and collective local needs. It is fordistrict managers to decide individually how to make best use of the fund, which, in appropriate circumstances,could include helping someone with the cost of travelling to an interview where (perhaps) the journey isparticularly expensive or difficult. Where appropriate, District Managers may also use the Fund in collaborationwith partner organisations and funding streams to help address specific employment-related needs, which couldinclude transport-related issues.

52. On behalf of the rail network, the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has had a long-standing agreement with Jobcentre Plus to provide reduced rail fares in England and Wales for long-termbenefit claimants or those with additional barriers. In the recent past this included all New Deal for YoungPeople and New Deal 25+ participants as well as the additional groups listed below:

— New Deal for Disabled People.

— New Deal for Lone Parents.

— New Deal 50 Plus.



— Jobseekers Regime and Flexible New Deal (Stage 3 only).

53. These travel concessions were valid while seeking work and for the first few months after starting a job.An attractive feature of the New Deal travel card was that it provided a 50% reduction to peak tickets as wellas off-peak tickets, thereby helping with job-search and interview costs. As ATOC members include somecompanies that operate both rail and bus services, the bulk of the use of the New Deal travel card has been onthe bus network. DWP is in discussion with ATOC about its continuing support for out of work claimants.

“Holistic” schemes to tackle worklessness barriers

54. A number of Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) have also run forms of WorkWise schemes whichcombine a number of elements to help people overcome transport barriers to employment. Schemes comprisethe core elements of free or discounted travel to interviews and to meet the costs of travel in the first weeksof a new job, combined with personalised travel advice to broaden horizons and job search. According to thePTE Group, this is offered by a number of their members to reasonable success.60 [See case study 5—Annex 3]

55. Evaluation of WorkWise schemes run by Centro has shown that 70% of beneficiaries are still in theirnew jobs after six months and, in one PTE-led “WorkWise” scheme, 80% would have struggled to reachemployment opportunities without WorkWise support. (However, it is not possible to say how much of thiswas genuinely additional).

Subsidised hire of motorised or pedal transport

56. Particularly in rural areas, a lack of regular public transport can limit opportunities to work and study,particularly for young people. Schemes exist that aim to tackle this barrier through short term loans of mopedsand bicycles. A typical loan period might be 6–9 months to allow time to save up for a more permanenttravel solution.

57. Wheels to Work (W2W) was originally trialled in Shropshire with 50 bikes and gained nationalprominence in 2002, when a best practice guide was published by the Countryside Agency. Since then, Wheelsto Work programmes have been established in a number of local authority areas around the UK and these wereinitially supported via grants from the Countryside Agency through Rural Transport Partnership funding. InDecember 2004, the Countryside Agency commissioned the consultants Steer Davies Gleave to undertake anevaluation of twelve of the Wheels to Work or Learning schemes. Their full report can be downloaded fromthe Commission for Rural Communities website: http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk

58. W2W is one of the innovative solutions delivered at a local level which aims to break the cycle of youngpeople in rural areas in particular being unable to take up work or training opportunities. Without a job, theycannot afford to buy a vehicle to get them from A to B, but they do not have adequate transport to get themto employment or training opportunities in the first place. W2W operates by providing young people with ameans of transport such as a motorcycle (and safety equipment/training) for a period of around six months sothat they can take up training or work offers and make the money to purchase their own transport. There arecurrently around 38 schemes spread across the country. There has, however, been a reduction in the number ofW2W schemes across the UK. All of the schemes have been dependent on intermittent grant for local funding,creating an uncertain future for the remaining W2W schemes. Some existing and some new schemes havebenefited from successful LSTF bids.

59. Whilst schemes are successful in many areas, delivery is fragmented, without any coherent overarchingstrategy for integration with other services.

The Government has recently identified this issue and is actively seeking a way forward with local operators;a national Wheels to Work co-ordinator is being funded. However, not all Local Authorities recognise the valueof such schemes and, consequently, many areas exclude such projects in their proposals for Governmentfunding under schemes such as the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. The Government welcomes a moreconsistent approach from Local Authorities, and greater recognition of the value of Community Transport instrategic transport provision.

Planning

60. The National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012 sets out the Government’s planningpolicies for England, and provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils canproduce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans which reflect the needs and priorities of theircommunities. The core planning principles which should underpin both plan making and decision taking requirelocal authorities to “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport,walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”.

61. In the section on “Promoting Sustainable Transport”, the Framework

States that Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for themovement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to:60 MVA Consultancy (2009) Evaluating Performance: Qualitative Study of WorkWise in North Solihull (DRAFT)



— accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;

— give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality publictransport facilities;

— create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists orpedestrians, avoiding street clutter and, where appropriate, establishing home zones;

— incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and

— consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

Localism

62. The Government recognises that decisions about sustainable development and service provision are bestdeveloped at a local level. The Localism Act 2011 and its provisions encourage local communities to engagein and influence decision making and delivery of services and infrastructure (including transport) which benefittheir local area. This is at an early stage and successful application of these provisions will need to be monitoredto ensure that communities, including rural ones, benefit fully.

Education

63. The Department for Education and local authorities provide financial support to enable access to schoolfor eligible children, including those with special educational needs. DfT works with DfE to promotesustainable travel to school. A recent example is a series of joint-ministerial stakeholder roundtables to identifythe issues facing both customers and suppliers of school transport.

Health

64. From April 2013, local authorities will take on responsibility for improving public health, supported bya newly devolved and ring-fenced budget of over £5 billion per annum. These developments offer the prospectof a step change in accessibility to public services, both by active modes such as walking and cycling and forpeople with reduced mobility.

65. There is a particular problem for rural residents who have to travel often considerable distances to accessacute health care at specialist centres, in nearby towns and cities. Around 54% of people in remote rural areasare more than one hour travel time from a hospital, compared with 38% in non remote rural areas.61

66. These longer distances and journey times mean that rural residents can experience “distance decay”where there is a decreasing rate of service use with increasing distance from the source of health care.62

Studies have shown that, the closer the service, the more likely it will be used.63 Rural and remote populationsare therefore more likely to be affected by “distance decay”.64

67. It should be noted that, whilst “distance decay” is a reflection of utilisation rates, and cannot be takenas a direct proxy for health care need, it is still a cause for concern, since it leads to delayed intervention andtreatment and hence poorer health outcomes become more likely.65 However, where localised health servicesare provided in rural areas, for example GP surgeries, the situation can be different. The distribution of GPs isrelatively equitable with regard to the size and need of the population; and rural areas generally have higheraccess levels to GP services than urban areas as measured by their ability to see a doctor fairly quickly. Giventhat rural areas tend to have older populations, there is likely to be greater demand on GP-led services, as GPconsultation rates increase with age. The data at Annex 2 illustrates the GP situation.

68. There is existing good practice regarding input into Local Transport Plans by some Primary Care Trusts,and these are encouraging, but more joint transport planning needs to take place. The move to more localisedClinical Commissioning Groups may create opportunities to engage at a local level with Transport Authorities,and the Government is keen to encourage any such engagement between these tiers of decision makers, whichenables transport planning to take health service needs into full consideration for the benefit of residents.61 Core Accessibility Indicator: Proportion of households 60 minutes travel time of a hospital by public transport/ walking,

Department of Transport (2005).62 Deaville, J A (2001) The nature of rural general practice in the UK —Preliminary research Institute of rural Health & the

General Practitioners committee,63 Stark, C, Reay, L & Shiroyama, C (1997) The effect of access factors on Breast Screening attendance on 2 Scottish islands

Health Bulletin 55, 316–32164 Pugh, R, Scharf, T, Williams, C & Roberts, D (2007) Obstacles to using& providing rural social care Briefing 22

WWW.scie.org.uk/publicatios/briefi ngs/briefi ng2265 Niggerbrugge, A, Haynes, R, Jones, A, Lovett, A & Harvey, I (2005) The index of multiple deprivation 2000 access domain: a

useful indicator for public health? Social Science and Medicine 60 2743–2753Campbell, N, Elliot, A, Sharp, L, Ritchie, L, Cassidy, J & Little, J (2001) Rural & urban differences in stage at diagnosis ofcolorectal & lung cancer British Journal of Cancer 84, 910–914



Rural Transport alternatives

69. Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) has been established to provide a centre of ruralexpertise within Government, and is able to advise Whitehall departments on the likelihood and possible scaleof rural impacts, and to suggest actions that might be taken to mitigate these.

70. With an existing minimal level of public transport provision in many rural areas, a small change intransport provision can have a very significant impact upon the daily lives of people living and working inrural areas. A rural resident recently confirmed that the withdrawal of one morning bus service now meant thatthere was no public transport to convey her children to school in the morning. It is very important thatconsultation and engagement guidelines and good practice are followed to ensure that the needs of ruralcommunities can be represented.

Post Offices

71. Post Offices provide a range of services to customers across the socio-economic spectrum, carrying outa critical economic function for many small businesses, and often playing a significant social role in ruralcommunities. Previous network transformation programmes have resulted in nearly half the rural networkclosing and, currently, 6,500 rural post offices remain in operation. As well as five national access criteria,there is a local access criterion which stipulates that 95% of the total rural population across the UK shouldbe within three miles of the nearest post office outlet.

72. New models of service delivery are being rolled out and it is important that the full impact of these andtransport connections are considered in future planning and service delivery.

Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in localtransport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibilityagenda?

73. Although DfT no longer monitors Local Transport Plans (LTPs) or local authorities’ performance againstthem, the LTP guidance issued in 2009 says that accessibility strategies and accessibility planning are keyelements of local transport planning as a whole.

74. Evidence from rural stakeholders has reported an inconsistent approach to engagement with LocalAuthorities on the development of Local Transport Plans and how accessibility is addressed within them. Oftenthese stakeholders represent small rural communities and networks and it is recognised that they need capacitysupport to engage at this strategic level.

75. The Department for Transport has undertaken its own evaluation of accessibility planning. The report waspublished on 6 September, and shows that the approach is working overall: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-planning-policy-evaluation-report/ . The Department published accessibility planning guidance66

in 2006. It was designed to help local authorities develop their Local Transport Plans and ensure thataccessibility problems faced by people from disadvantaged groups and areas could be identified and addressed.Anecdotal evidence suggested that the guidance was making a significant difference to people and communities,but a more robust evidence base from which its effectiveness could be more accurately judged was feltnecessary. In December 2008, the Department commissioned an evaluation of accessibility planning tounderstand the processes by which accessibility planning is operationalised and the impact that it has on thework of local authorities, wider partners, individuals and communities. Its main focus was:

— to assess whether the guidance developed by DfT was effective in enabling delivery ofaccessibility planning as it was intended;

— to examine the sorts of processes that lead to good outcomes for accessibility planning strategiesand individual initiatives; and

— to identify lessons learnt about how to develop and implement those strategies and initiatives.

76. The evaluation report is being submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee as part of theGovernment’s evidence. The DfT will await the Committee’s recommendations before addressing specificpoints raised within the evaluation report.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making ingovernment better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and otherconsiderations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would ameasure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be usefulfor policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

77. The Government regularly publishes statistics on accessibility, providing a small area measure of theavailability of transport to key services covering food stores, education (primary, secondary schools and FEcolleges), health care (GPs and hospitals), town centres and employment centres, for the populations who usethem. They are widely used in local service planning by local authorities. A summary of the latest statistics onaccessibility at national and regional level is set out below. More detailed information, including figures at66 http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-planning-guidance/



Local Authority and Lower Super Output Area level, are available on the website at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-statistics-2011/

78. The Department for Transport produces the accessibility statistics of eight key services (listed above) inEngland, by three modes of transport. The three modes of transport are public transport/walking, cycling andcar. For each of the services, apart from further education, accessibility is calculated for the relevant at riskuser population as well as for the general population of users. The data can be used to identify the averageshortest time by mode to the nearest service, the proportion of users and at risk users able to access a servicewithin a specified time and the number of opportunities for accessing each key service available to theresident population.

79. Key statistics from the most recent bulletin (2011) include:

— The average minimum travel time across all seven key services was 14 minutes by publictransport/walking, nine minutes by cycling and six minutes by car. These times were about 2.5to 4% (or 0.2 to 0.55 minutes) longer than in 2010.

— As in previous years, hospitals had the longest average minimum travel times of the seven keyservices in 2011, with average minimum travel times of 30 minutes by public transport/walking,21 minutes by cycling and nine minutes by driving. Primary schools and foods stores were themost accessible services. The main cause of the difference in travel time between each type ofservices is how the locations are distributed throughout England and how the locations relateto the population.

— Users in urban areas could access key services by public transport/walking, on average, in 12minutes compared with 22 minutes in rural areas.

— The proportion of users able to access key services by public transport/walking in a“reasonable”67 time was highest for employment centres (81%). The lowest was for hospitals(29%).

— Overall access to key services by public transport/walking within a “reasonable” time wasgreatest in London and lowest in the East of England.

80. The National Travel Survey provides information about travel behaviour and accessibility by the socio-demographic characteristics of the population. The latest information is available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel-survey-2010/ The Department for Transport also reports on the householdexpenditure on transport using the ONS Living Costs and Food Survey. In 2010, 13.7% of householdexpenditure in the UK was on transport.68

81. WebTAG is a resource developed by DfT that gives guidance on transport modeling and appraisal thatis used across the spectrum of transport analysis, covering local major schemes, national road schemes, airportcapacity, and rail schemes. It is widely used to inform value for money and overall business case assessments,by showing the impacts of transport schemes on the economy, environment and social and distributionalimpacts.

82. The DfT has introduced the concept of accessibility into the WebTAG guidance. In general terms,accessibility can be defined as “ease of reaching”. In WebTAG http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/overview/accessibility.php accessibility is concerned with increasing the ability with which people in different locations,and with differing availability of transport, can reach different types of facility. The term “accessibility” is usedin several different ways, including:

— measurement of ease of access to the transport system itself in terms of, for example, theproportion of homes within x minutes of a bus stop or the proportion of buses which may beboarded by a wheel-chair user;

— measurement of ease of access to facilities, with the emphasis being on the provision of thefacilities necessary to meet people’s needs within certain minimum travel times, distances orcosts;

— measurement of the value which people place on having an option available which they mightuse only under unusual circumstances (such as when the car breaks down)—“option value”—or even the value people simply place on the existence of an alternative which they have noreal intention of using—“existence value”; and

— measurement of ease of participation in activities (for personal travel) or delivery of goods totheir final destination (for goods travel), provided by the interaction of the transport system, thegeographical pattern of economic activities, and the pattern of land use as a whole.

83. DfT’s current Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG) policy is the main form of bus subsidy we provide.This policy allows bus fares to be approximately 4% lower than it otherwise would be and results in bus67 The “reasonable” time is a measure of accessibility which takes into account the sensitivity of users to the travel time for each

service.68 Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011, table TSGB0121 available at: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/

tsgb0121.xls



service levels to be approximately 6% higher than they otherwise would be—therefore making bus travel moreattractive and accessible to transport users.

84. The Department for Transport is currently undertaking a research project that aims to look at monetisingthe social impact of bus travel. On the successful completion of this research, we hope to be able to incorporatethis in the Department’s WebTAG guidance so that transport appraisals will be able to take account of thesocial value of buses. This will help decision-making in the Department to reflect more accurately the socialbenefits attached to buses.

85. The Open Public Services agenda contains a Fair Access objective to ensure that public services aredelivered in a way which does not disadvantage certain groups including those living in remote rural areas. Itdoes not explicitly refer to transport accessibility, and the Open Public Services agenda places considerableemphasis upon delivering services using technology. This relies heavily upon Broadband provision.

86. Previously, transport authorities were required to include local assessments of transport-related socialexclusion and to deliver action plans to address these problems within their Local Transport Plans. On theground research suggests that delivery is patchy and fragmented, and that many local authorities do not havethe skills or capacity to assess local transport disadvantage and/or do not know how to address this as part oftheir local corporate agendas.69

87. The most commonly used software package used by local authorities, Accession, is currently beingrevised with a new software package due for launch later this year. Enhancements include improvedperformance times and increased functionality. The DfT has not funded any of this development work but hasbeen actively involved in identifying what improvements were required.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure toaccess public services.

88. The UK Government is investing £530 million to improve access to superfast broadband for 90% of theUK population, with the aim of the UK having the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015.In addition, £150 million is being invested in super connected cities and up to £150 million on improvingmobile networks.

89. However, there is currently limited data on which to assess the actual impact, or quantify the benefits,that improved broadband will bring. This is in part due to the short amount of time that superfast services havebeen available in the UK. This extends to our understanding of the impacts that increased availability andimproved quality of broadband, and online services, including those provided by the public sector, may haveon both individual and business travel, and transport demands.

90. The Government’s case for investment in broadband is in part premised on an assumption that improvedbroadband will lead to improved information flows and increased access and use of online services, both publicand private—with consequent potential reductions in the need for individual and business travel.

Improving access to online public services through improvements in broadband and telecommunicationsinfrastructure is of particular importance to those living in rural areas. People in rural areas may not have therange of public services available to them which people living in urban areas may benefit from, or mayhave greater difficulty accessing services due to the distance needed to travel, or due to a lack of availabletravel options.

91. We know that people already use the internet in their interactions with public services—in 2011, 32%of Internet users obtained information from public authority websites, and 27% submitted official formselectronically.70 We also know that the channel shift to online public services has been shown to providepublic sector efficiency savings associated with the reduction in government transaction costs.71

92. Evidence from Berkshire shows that the public sector would save £25 million pa in transaction costs ifthe digitally excluded were able to access the internet and undertake similar numbers of transactions on lineas the digitally included currently do, whilst 120,000 fewer visits to GPs would be possible if the 140,000digitally excluded people in Berkshire were able to access the internet.72 Other evidence has shown that useof telehealth technologies could reduce hospital admissions, and therefore also associated journeys, for LongTerm Conditions, by 24%-54%.73

93. Further, increasing the use of online services can help improve information flow between governmentand citizens, and can open up new ways of organising, communicating and collaborating to deliver services.This will result in consequent economic benefits from efficiency gains.69 Centre for the Research of Social Policy, 200970 Office for National Statistics. Internet Access—Households and Individuals, 2011. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_

227158.pdf71 Shifting 30% of UK Government service delivery contracts to digital channels has the potential to deliver gross annual savings

of more than £1.3 billion, rising to £2.2 billion if 50% of contacts are shifted to digital, according to a report prepared by PWCfor the UK Government Digital Inclusion Champion: The economic case for digital inclusion, October 2009.

72 Sheppard, S, and Spillane, S, 2011. Economic and Social Impact of Broadband in Berkshire. A report prepared by AdroitEconomics for the Thames Valley Local Economic Partnership.

73 Kings Fund WSD Action Network Evidence Database



94. There is evidence of the economic benefits of what is known as “agglomeration”—essentially spatiallyconcentrated economic activity.74 Improved broadband and increased use of online services can enable theeconomic productivity benefits typically associated with urban agglomeration to be realised more widely, butwithout physical agglomeration. This could have consequent benefits for rural communities in particular, andcould help ameliorate the costs associated with travel congestion. It is not thought that the potential benefitsfrom this have been quantified, but they could be large.75

95. Further, there is evidence from the US that existing developments in terms of information andcommunications technology, broadband and mobile communications are changing road traffic patterns, and thatgrowth in peak time congestion has stopped.76 However, other studies have confirmed that the relationshipsbetween improved communications and travel is not necessarily straightforward. It has been found, for example,that, in relation to the consumer sectors of society, improved communications can both reduce and increasetravel; improved communications can reduce the need for travel, whilst consequent economic improvementscould at the same time increase the demand for travel.77 This US study shows that there is little evidence thatimproved communications reduces private vehicle travel in particular, although some evidence has shownreductions in use of some forms of public transport.

96. In summary, from the evidence currently available, we do not yet fully understand the actual impactsthat improving access to online public services, or broadband, may have on the need for people to travel toaccess public services, and that it may not necessarily be the case that improved communications mitigatesagainst either total travel demands, or the need for transport infrastructure.

97. Broadband Delivery UK and Defra are currently developing a programme of research and evaluation toassess the range of socio-economic and environmental impacts which will arise from the Government’sinvestment in improving broadband infrastructure. These studies will aim to better understand the economicbenefits of faster broadband and whether the investment represents good value for money. The studies will alsoinvestigate the social impacts (such as social behaviours, community engagement and effects on well-being orquality of life measures), and the extent to which access to public services have been improved. Environmentalimpacts and cost savings resulting from reduced travel, and decreased reliance on car use will also beconsidered.

98. This investment in broadband could create new and attractive locations for businesses, improve the reachof online businesses and allow many more people the real opportunity to take up remote working.

99. Maximising the potential of remote and flexible working is an important ambition for the Departmentfor Transport. With high quality communications networks, people are being given real choices in the waythey work—replacing the need for a long daily commute, with a more flexible approach to working life, givespeople the choices they need to meet work and personal commitments in a flexible and environmentallysustainable way.

100.The Department’s message is not “don’t travel”, but “travel only when necessary”. Where travel isunavoidable, we want cost effective and environmentally friendly transport to be the number one travel option.Individuals and businesses will have their own reasons for wanting to adopt a smarter way of working andtravelling, be it for financial, environmental or social reasons. The key is that we end up with reducedcongestion, reduced carbon emissions and improved quality of life.

Annex 1

RURAL CONTEXT

Areas are defined as rural if they fall outside of settlements with more than 10,000 residents. The RuralUrban definition78 defines four settlement types:

— Urban (with a population of more than 10,000).

— Rural town and fringe.

— Rural village.

— Rural hamlet and isolated dwellings (also known as dispersed).

The main characteristic about rural areas is that they contribute to the social, economic and cultural fabricof the country and have considerable potential for supporting both economic and social growth. Approximately9.8 million people, or 18.9% of the population, live in rural areas. The majority of these (9.2 million people)74 Venables, 2004. Evaluating urban transport improvements: cost-benefit analysis in the presence of agglomeration and income

taxation. http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/tony.venables/Xrail7.pdf75 Plum Consulting (2008) A framework for evaluating the value of next generation broadband. This report can be accessed at:

http://www.broadbanduk.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1009/Itemid,63/76 The Economist. 10 April 2008. The new oasis—nomadism changes buildings, cities and traffic. http://www.economist.com/

specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1095046377 Choo, Lee, and Mokhtarian, 2010. Do Transportation and Communications Tend to Be Substitutes, Complements, or Neither?

U.S. Consumer Expenditures Perspective, 1984–2002.78 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/area-classifications/rural-urban-definition-and-la/rural-urban-

definition—england-and-wales-/index.html



live in Less Sparse Rural areas.79 With approximately 50% of those living in rural areas aged over 45 years,the rural population is on average older than in urban areas. Rural areas are ageing at a faster rate than urbanareas. The fastest rate of growth is amongst the older age groups (age 85 years and over). Disadvantage,deprivation and isolation can be hidden in rural areas and older people who are generally disadvantaged do notstand out as a visible group.

Rural England is not homogeneous. It is made up of a wide range of differing types of places, includingremote upland farmsteads, fishing communities, former mining areas, small market towns, and prosperous peri-urban villages. The rural population is diverse in its demographic make-up, and the rural economy is as broadly-based and varied as the urban one—agriculture contributes only a relatively small amount to the wider ruraleconomy, which is worth around £200 billion pa (19% of national GVA) and there are more manufacturingjobs per capita in rural areas than in urban ones.

Annex 2

DISTRIBUTION OF GPS

CHART 1

Distribution Patients per GP by PCT Rurality

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

Large Urban Major Urban Other Urban Rural 50 Rural 80 Significant Rural

Thou

sand

of P

atie

nts

per F

TE G

P

Register patients perGP (Thousands)

Primary care needsadjusted patients perGP (thousands)

— Distribution of GPs is relatively equitable with regard to the size and need of the population.

Results taken from the 2010–11 GP Patient Survey. 80

CHART 2

Access to GP services by location

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

% able to see a doctor fairly quickly % satisfied with opening hours

Per

cent

age

of P

atie

nts

Large UrbanMajor UrbanOther UrbanRural 50Rural 80Significant Rural

79 England Statistical Digest 2012, Defra80 http://www.gp-patient.co.uk/results/



— Rural areas generally have higher access levels to GP services than urban areas as measuredby ability to see a doctor fairly quickly. Satisfaction with opening hours is broadly similar,suggesting general practice has adapted to meet the requirements of their populations.

Annex 3

SOME LOCAL CASE STUDIES

1. Concessionary Fares for Young People on Metro Transport, West Yorkshire

Metro have a number of travel offers for young people:

— Under 5’s—free on most bus and all rail with Metro symbol when accompanied by adult

— 5–10—half fare on most bus and all rail with Metro symbol, no photocard required

— 11 to 16—half fare on bus and rail on production of photocard

— 16–18—half fare if attending school or college and in receipt of child benefit on productionof photocard.

There are also day, weekly and monthly discounted tickets available for regular bus and train users that willprovide cheaper travel than the basic half fare.

Metro also have a dedicated website for young people and teachers:

http://www.generationm.co.uk/

This gives details of fares, special offers, and has a teachers section giving details of training programmes,including the SAFEMark scheme that helps prepare children to use public transport.

2. Blackburn GoNOW Youth Zone Travel Card

Blackburn with Darwen Council has introduced the GoNOW Youth Zone Travel Card for young people inBlackburn travelling to the Youth Zone centre. This travel card scheme offers up to 40% off bus journeys formembers of the Youth Zone aged between 8 and 19. The scheme has been developed by Blackburn withDarwen Council working with Blackburn Youth Zone and local bus operators Veolia Transdev, Darwen CoachServices, Rossendalebus and Holmeswood Coaches.

The Youth Zone opened in June 2012 and is open to all young people in the area aged between 8 and 19.Facilities include a rooftop football pitch, a sports hall and variety of music and art open spaces, and is openevery day of the year. More on the centre can be found at http://www.blackburnyz.org/ .

3. Dales Integrated Transport Alliance (DITA)

DITA’s aim is to ensure that a sustainable transport network is provided throughout the Yorkshire Dales area,to benefit both the local communities and visitors. The organisation is a community-led group of individualsand businesses, and is currently funded primarily by Tranche 1 LSTF.

Examples of DITA projects include: evening bus services between Harrogate and Pateley Bridge, andbetween Grassington and Skipton; and a car share scheme. DITA also provide sustainable travel informationfrom a number of “hubs” based in the villages around the Dales area which are staffed largely by volunteers.

DITA’s website can be found at www.dalesconnect.net

4. Middlesbrough—Independent Travel Package from successful Tranche 2 LSTF bid

The Independent Travel package consists of two elements; the first will engage and empower local residentswith disabilities to deliver Community Access Audits. Middlesbrough Shopmobility will act as the deliverypartner through recruiting a co-coordinator to manage a programme of community access audits, and reportthe findings back to the Council, who will rectify the physical accessibility issues highlighted by the findings.As unemployment reaches critical levels, the most disadvantaged social group, are those with disabilities.Building on a previous Working Neighbourhoods Fund project with Shopmobility, these audits will includeand ensure that disabled people can get to bus stops and local facilities. This will result in the requiredinfrastructure improvements, such as footpath re-surfacing, introduction of drop kerbs and the removal ofunnecessary street furniture, being of an adequate standard to encourage accessibility throughout the town bylow carbon modes of transport. This will reduce the physical barriers to employment, education and trainingopportunities. This will be delivered in the town centre, as well as a satellite station at Stewart Park (with theassistance of the Vocational Training Centre).

The Travel Training (TT) element will follow on from and complement the access audits; delivering anindependent and impartial assessment process and a dedicated Travel Training programme. It will work with awide age range, and produce and procure training resources/materials, and teach people with learning andphysical disabilities about journey planning, road safety and independent travel skills, in a safe environment,enabling them to access employment, education, training and leisure opportunities via sustainable modes of



transport. A training co-coordinator will be provided by Middlesbrough Council to develop the package, co-ordinate employees, recruit and train volunteers to deliver learning outcomes. Practical training will utilise thepurpose built, travel training and road safety facility at Priory Woods School. The facility is an innovative, andthe only purpose built site in the Tees Valley capable of delivering such a programme. There is a large physicalenvironment located on the site for practical training, and a designated indoor area for the classroom basedlearning aspect of the training programme. Travel training has added value, offering a sustainable alternativethat not only instigates cultural change but also reduces dependency on local authority home to school, andsocial care, transport. In order to achieve the above, and address transport as a barrier for disabled people, thepackage is split into unique and focused areas of work.

5. Merseyside Travel Solutions 2011–15

This is a scheme targeted at young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) who, as aresult of their situation, were at a disadvantage and less able to travel further afield to find work either becauseof financial reasons, or low travel horizons. The solutions offered can also be used for training opportunitiesas well as employment. This scheme is being offered by Merseytravel, and all 5 local authorities, ensuringconsistent county wide best practice. Between October 2011 and March 2012:

— 40 NEETS have been supported via Connexions Greater Merseyside, including journeyplanning support, and help in getting NEETs a scooter licence. Bus passes were issued to fiveNEETs which enabled them to undertake fork lift truck training.

— An additional 480 interventions were achieved by the travel teams, with 325 receiving a travelsolution such as a scooter, bike or travel pass.

In recognition of the success of this and other accessibility schemes, Merseyside was awarded Beacon Statusin 2008 and their on-going accessibility work is now integrated with the City Region Employment and SkillsStrategy and the City Region Child Poverty and Life Chances Strategy.

More information, including guides and printed travel aides for the service users, is available athttp://www.letstravelwise.org/content95_Travel-Solutions-Guides.html.

20 September 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Cambridgeshire County Council

This paper provides two examples of accessibility focused projects that Cambridgeshire is implementing.

Cambridgeshire Future Transport

1.1 This is a joint initiative with partners from across Cambridgeshire including local authorities, healthservices, community groups and transport providers, working together to find solutions to Cambridgeshire’stransport and accessibility challenges. It aims to improve local transport provision to better meet local needswhile at the same time reducing the amount of subsidised bus services.

1.2 The purpose of this programme is to identify practical, achievable and sustainable transport solutionsthrough more effective, efficient and coordinated transport delivery mechanisms.

1.3 The programme is exploring new approaches that:

— strengthen the connections between transport solutions and community outcomes;

— enable the pooling of resources across boundaries where applicable;

— provide a strategic framework to bring partners together;

— stimulate opportunities to create new community joint ventures to operate as local deliverybodies;

— engage more widely with other services to explore the potential to innovate and improve serviceaccessibility in ways that reduce the need for journey; and

— provide transport solutions that better meet communities’ needs at less cost than traditionalbus subsidies.

2. Background

2.1 The background to this is that on 30th January 2012, the County Council committed to a three yearphased programme of phasing out the £2.7 million used to subsidise bus services. Cabinet also approved theallocation of £1.5 million per annum funding for the Cambridgeshire Future Transport (CFT) project to supportthe provision of focused, alternative, more appropriate and better value-for-money transport solutions. The aimof the project is to work with local communities and service providers to invest this more targeted budget inproviding transport solutions that better reflect the needs of the local areas.

2.2 The majority of subsidised services operate in the more rural areas of the county where passengernumbers are low or where the lengths of journey mean that operating costs are high, making the services



unviable to operate commercially. On some of these services the level of subsidy required is very high in, oneexample it costs the authority £12 per person, per single trip. This does not represent good value for money,this project is therefore looking to work with the local communities to investigate alternative ways to providetransport which provides a solution to the transport need but is also cost effective. It is appreciated that theseare also the areas where there is the greatest need for transport. For some, the subsidised service will be thelifeline that enables them to access services. For this reason a new transport solution must be in place beforeany subsidies are stopped.

2.3 In the early stages of the project, work was undertaken to look around the country to find examples oflocal transport solutions. Solutions will vary across the County and one size will not fit all. Solutions mayinclude community operated schemes, smaller vehicles, demand responsive transport, links to commercial hubs,such as the Busway or Park and Ride as well as direct routes to certain destinations and the many variationsin-between. The project aims to be creative and find innovative solutions to historic problems.

2.4 A key element of CFT is encouraging local communities and service providers including partners tobecome more involved in the process of designing and delivering transport, developing a culture of co-production. This moves away from the historic approach whereby subsidised services have been designedbased on previous or existing provision. The first step is working with local communities to asses the transportneed in their local area to then work with transport providers and the local authority to design transportsolutions that best reflect the identified need. By encouraging community involvement throughout the processand broadening the reach to include potential passengers, as well as existing, the resulting transport will bemore sustainable and appropriate.

3. Investing in Local transport Solutions

3.1 A first phase of this project is developing a programme working with local members and theircommunities along with transport providers to co-produce local transport solutions. This programme willintegrate with bus subsidies withdrawal and will need to identify solutions that offer better value for moneyand better meet local needs. Some of the proposals coming out of this so far include

3.2 Co-producing a new service to better meet local needs; In Area B, a geographical area to the south ofCambridge, the working group worked on a number of local transport solutions eventually narrowing theoptions to two. Of these the one that gained support from the community and local parishes is a 1hr 15 minloop which feeds passengers into the Citi 7, Whittlesford rail station and the Park and Ride at Babraham. Atender process for the new service has now finished and it is anticipated that this service will begin to operatein March 2013.

3.3 Better integration One of the key areas being explored is how better integration can be achieved withinthe provision of statutory transport and the potential for budgets to be pooled both internally and externallywith partners such as the NHS.As part of this work we are looking to enable the aligning of resources andpriorities across organisational boundaries—Looking at pooling budgets both internally and externally andproviding a framework to bring partners together.

3.4 One such example is working to deliver improved access to healthcare (Doddington Hospital) wherethere has been join up between the initial work within the CFT programme and the Fenland Area CommunityTransport and Access subgroup to deliver improved access to the local Hospital. The theory is to use a localcommunity transport operator to run an hourly door-to-door dial-a-ride service that can be used by patientsentitled to non-emergency transport help, but to also provide a service for non-entitled passengers and relatives/friends. This would then free up the ambulance service to concentrate on its core business of emergency orhigh risk non-emergency transport. The cost of this alternative provision could reduce the NHS funding byproviding the service at a lower cost than the current ambulance service and the income to the communitytransport operator would hopefully make the service viable. If successful the model could then be rolled outto other areas where there are significant patient movements and a local community transport provider.

Fenland Area Approach

1. Introduction

This is a highly successful programme which is aimed at addressing accessibility issues in Fenland District,north Cambridgeshire.

2. The Challenge

— Fenland district covers some 54,645 hectares of mostly agricultural land in Cambridgeshire. Itis predominately rural and sparsely populated with services and facilities found within themarket towns or within neighbouring districts.

— There is a population of 94,200 (2010 ONS) with around three quarters living in the markettowns. There are over 20,000 people living in villages or more sparsely populated settlements.

— Around 20% of households within Fenland do not have access to a car.



— Fenland has a higher population of people aged 65 and over (around 20%). At ward level, byassessing the number of older people, with the % of households without a car and the IMDaccess to services data, it has been possible to show that these issues are linked.

— Traditional public transport is limited in many parts of Fenland with the predominant level ofservice being off peak from 9.30 am to 4pm.

— There are also difficulties for children and young people to access services with limited or nopublic transport at evenings and weekends.

3. Addressing the challenge—Fenland DC Transport Approach

The Fenland Approach to the Access to Services Challenge has 5 key elements:

— Partnership Working and Stakeholders Transport and Access Group—This is an important groupthat drives the project. This group works together to align interests and reduce duplication tofind solutions to resolve transport issues more quickly.. Its membership includes localauthorities, public and community transport providers NHS and voluntary groups. Links withTown and Parish Councils are also very important.

— Evidence Gathering & Data—A significant barrier to addressing access to services issues is alack of evidence and information. Eg Access to healthcare is an issue; however there is a needto scope what the specific issues are and the scale of the problem. Accessibility issues are alsodifferent within each settlement and as such it’s important to have an understanding of howeach place works. Data and evidence was gathered and a review undertaken to highlight gapsand where further work was needed.

— TAG Work Programme—Subsequent to the review, a focussed work programme has beendeveloped and agreed by all partners. The Fenland District TAG has 4 work areas—Childrenand young people, Healthcare and older people, Transport infrastructure and community rail.

— Access to Information—Promotion & Publicity—the provision of transport services aresupported by ongoing promotion and publicity. A change in a person’s circumstance can meanthat they need information at short notice that they have not needed before. Transport servicesare also subject to change. Information must also be available in places where people can findit such as GP Surgeries, Libraries or the Post Office.

— Policy Development & Approach—It is clear that no one size fits all approach was going toaddress access issues in Fenland. The nature of the District is so varied that a policy approachwas needed which would be flexible enough to address the full range of needs. The most criticalrequirement overall is that people can meet their daily needs without access to a car. A policyapproach has therefore been developed using three tiers, which are as follows:

— Public Transport—traditional bus and rail services

— Dial-A-Ride—Semi scheduled minibus services that collect people from their homes,meeting the needs of people who cannot access public transport or who do not have anypublic transport services

— Community Car Schemes—these are schemes established by Care Network, aCambridgeshire Charity concerned with ensuring that older people can maintainindependent living. Community Car Schemes are run by volunteer drivers and arecompletely flexible catering for individual specific journeys.

— Market Town Transport Strategies—joint strategies for each market town that includeprogrammes of improvements for walker, cyclists and public transport users. Typicaleach strategy will be a programme of improvements for 5—10 years. Schemes aregenerally funded through the Local Transport Plan also S106 from developments.Fenland has MTTS for March and Wisbech with a Chatteris Strategy due to beadopted in June 2010

4. Implementation and Outcomes

Policy & Project Implementation—Access to services

An initial starting point was to recognise the inconsistency in the level of transport available across thewhole of Fenland. Some significant gaps were identified including access to information and the cost of travel.

The Transport and Access Group has implemented a varied work programme including evidence baseresearch, large programmes of marketing and advertising transport services and working with local communitiesand stakeholders to improve services. Further details are provided in table 1 below which sets out the mainprojects and the reasons why they were considered as solutions.

The outcomes of all the above work are as follows:

— An effective Transport and Access Group which includes all key partners, is effective as achampion of local transport and is focused on the delivery of improvements now and in thefuture. This ensures that transport improvements are made more quickly.



— There is one approach to the delivery of public and community transport at the local level inFenland. This enables improvements to be made quickly and more easily.

— Greater awareness of the public and community transport available in Fenland across the wholecommunity. This is leading to greater use of the services.

— A targeted approach to delivering new and improved public and community transport whichmeets local need.

— Local people are seeing transport improvements that they requested.

— Significantly higher levels of use of public and community transport.



TAB

LE

1—IM

PLE

ME

NT

ING

SOL

UT

ION

S

Solu

tion

/Pro

ject

Year

Rea

son

for

Solu

tion

sC

omm

ents

Map

Bas

edR

esea

rch

2007

—T

here

isa

need

for

evid

ence

show

ing

whe

rebu

sPr

omot

ion

oflo

cal

bus

serv

ices

,FA

CT

Lin

king

diff

eren

tG

ISla

yers

such

asbu

sro

utes

and

the

loca

tion

ofbu

son

goin

gse

rvic

estr

avel

,w

here

the

infr

astr

uctu

reis

loca

ted

and

Dia

lA

Rid

ese

rvic

esan

dbu

sst

opst

ops

with

the

loca

tion

ofC

once

ssio

nary

Bus

Pass

Hol

der

post

code

s.w

here

peop

leliv

e.M

any

peop

ledi

dno

tliv

ene

ara

infr

astr

uctu

rem

ade

resi

dent

saw

are

ofT

his

asse

sses

whe

ther

bus

user

sliv

ene

arbu

sst

ops

and

serv

ices

.st

op.

the

tran

spor

tav

aila

ble.

Use

ofM

apB

ased

Res

earc

hto

impr

ove

bus

stop

infr

astr

uctu

rean

d20

07—

The

rear

eov

er2,

000

unm

arke

dbu

sst

ops

inT

here

isa

bus

stop

with

infr

astr

uctu

relo

catio

nson

goin

gC

ambr

idge

shir

e.no

wlo

cate

dw

ithin

400m

ofm

osto

fth

eU

sing

the

evid

ence

,FD

C&

CC

Cdi

scus

sed

with

the

tow

nco

unci

lsan

dho

mes

inth

e4

Fenl

and

mar

ket

tow

ns.

loca

lbu

sco

mpa

nies

the

best

loca

tions

for

new

bus

stop

infr

astr

uctu

re.

Fenl

and

Tra

nspo

rtD

irec

tory

2011

—T

here

isa

need

topr

ovid

ein

form

atio

nab

out

all

type

sT

hedi

rect

orie

sar

eav

aila

ble

inth

eO

neB

ym

appi

ngbu

sst

opin

fras

truc

ture

that

was

alre

ady

inFe

nlan

d,FD

Con

goin

gof

publ

ictr

ansp

ort

inon

epl

ace.

Thi

sav

oids

conf

usio

nSt

opSh

ops,

Lib

rari

es,

GP

Surg

erie

s;an

dC

CC

wer

eab

leto

disc

uss

with

the

tow

nco

unci

lsan

dth

elo

cal

bus

and

help

sto

heal

thca

regr

oups

are

prov

idin

gth

emco

mpa

nies

the

best

plac

esto

plac

efu

ture

infr

astr

uctu

reto

thei

rm

embe

rs.

Get

ting

from

Ato

BC

ase

Stud

ies

2011

—L

ocal

resi

dent

s,pa

rtic

ular

lype

ople

with

mor

eco

mpl

exA

cces

sto

hosp

ital

book

lets

are

now

inPa

rtof

anin

itial

seri

esof

6—ai

med

atgi

ving

real

life

scen

ario

son

aon

goin

gne

eds

did

not

know

wha

ttr

ansp

ort

optio

nsw

ere

deve

lopm

ent.

vari

ety

oftr

ansp

ort

rela

ted

issu

es.

The

aim

isto

assi

stpe

ople

tom

ake

avai

labl

efo

rac

cess

ing

hosp

itals

,sh

oppi

ng,

educ

atio

nbe

tter

tran

spor

tch

oice

sto

mee

tth

eir

need

s.et

c.H

ealth

and

soci

alca

rew

orke

rsar

eal

sono

wal

way

saw

are.

Patie

ntT

rans

port

Que

stio

nnai

rean

dA

cces

sto

Hea

lthca

reR

esea

rch

2011

—A

cces

sto

Hea

lthca

reis

abi

gis

sue

inFe

nlan

ddu

eto

Aro

und

1,50

0pe

ople

com

plet

eda

The

resu

ltsof

the

ques

tionn

aire

s,al

ong

with

site

visi

tsan

dsu

rvey

days

.on

goin

gits

rura

lnat

ure.

Res

earc

hw

asne

eded

toun

ders

tand

the

ques

tionn

aire

inth

eG

Psu

rger

ies

orth

eM

apba

sed

resu

ltsto

geth

erw

ithan

actio

npl

anto

addr

ess

the

issu

es.

diffi

culti

espe

ople

face

acce

ssin

ghe

alth

care

.ho

spita

lsin

Fenl

and.

Dis

sem

inat

ing

tran

spor

tin

form

atio

n&

polic

y20

09—

Loc

alre

side

nts

wer

epr

ovid

ing

feed

back

sugg

estin

gD

AR

pass

enge

rfig

ures

cont

inue

toPr

omot

eth

eth

ree

tiers

oftr

ansp

ort

onFD

CW

ebsi

te,

One

Stop

Shop

son

goin

gth

eydi

dno

tkn

oww

hat

tran

spor

tw

asav

aila

ble.

The

incr

ease

mon

thon

mon

th.A

llD

AR

and

and

loca

lne

wsp

aper

s.W

ork

with

oper

ator

sof

publ

ican

dco

mm

unity

orig

inal

DA

Rle

aflet

sw

ere

outd

ated

and

need

eda

new

Com

mun

ityC

arSc

hem

ede

tails

are

tran

spor

tin

clud

ing

deve

lopi

ngne

wco

mm

unity

tran

spor

tle

aflet

s.im

age

toat

trac

tne

wcu

stom

ers,

espe

cial

lyyo

unge

rav

aila

ble

todo

wnl

oad

onFD

Cw

ebsi

tepe

ople

.T

his

prom

otio

nan

dpu

blic

ityha

sto

beal

ong

with

copi

esin

prin

ted

form

at.

sust

aine

dov

ertim

ean

dca

nnot

bea

one

off

exer

cise

.Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rtO

pera

tors

—in

part

ners

hip

with

the

TAG

we

2007

—T

here

was

ane

edto

bette

rin

tegr

ate

the

Pari

shPl

anW

eha

vebe

enab

leto

addr

ess

know

nes

tabl

ishe

dm

eetin

gsw

ithop

erat

ors

todi

scus

sPa

rish

Plan

actio

nsan

don

goin

gpr

oces

sw

ithor

gani

satio

nsth

atde

liver

publ

ican

dfu

ture

gaps

inth

etr

ansp

ort

netw

ork

deve

lop

exte

nsio

nsor

chan

ges

tobu

sse

rvic

es.

tran

spor

t.A

llow

sth

eTo

wn

and

Pari

shC

ounc

ilsm

ore

mor

eea

sily

.op

port

unity

toas

sist

with

impr

ovin

gtr

ansp

orts

ervi

ces.

Con

cess

iona

ryFa

res

(DA

R)—

the

sche

me

was

exte

nded

in20

08w

ith20

08—

Res

iden

tsw

itha

very

limite

dor

nobu

sse

rvic

esw

ere

Man

yco

mm

ents

have

been

mad

eby

alo

cal

add

onto

incl

ude

Dia

lA

Rid

ese

rvic

es.

CC

Can

dFD

Cno

won

goin

gse

vere

lydi

sadv

anta

ged

byth

ena

tiona

lsc

hem

eif

they

resi

dent

sth

atth

eD

AR

serv

ice

isa

cove

rth

eco

stof

dial

ari

dese

rvic

esfo

rlo

cal

resi

dent

sdi

dno

tha

vea

bus

serv

ice.

With

ala

rge

elde

rly

lifel

ine

toth

em.

The

con

fare

ssc

hem

epo

pula

tion

whe

repe

ople

cann

otus

epu

blic

tran

spor

tal

low

sth

emto

mak

em

ore

jour

neys

that

DA

Ris

ofte

nth

eir

only

optio

nim

prov

eth

eir

qual

ityof

life.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-06-2013 09:52] Job: 026766 Unit: PG01


Con

cess

iona

ryFa

res

(Rai

l)—

Dis

coun

ted

seni

orra

ilcar

ds.

In20

06—

By

purc

hasi

ngth

eca

rds

inbu

lkw

ithth

eot

her

dist

rict

sA

roun

d70

0di

scou

nted

seni

orra

ilca

rds

part

ners

hip

with

the

othe

rC

ambs

dist

rict

sFe

nlan

dre

side

nts

can

ongo

ing

we

able

tohe

lplo

cal

resi

dent

sm

ake

cost

ssa

ving

s.ar

eis

sued

thro

ugh

FDC

each

year

.pu

rcha

sese

nior

railc

ards

ata

rate

belo

wth

epr

ice

they

can

beob

tain

edat

railw

ayst

atio

ns.

Dia

lAR

ide

Serv

ices

—w

ork

with

oper

ator

sto

intr

oduc

ea

revi

sed

DA

R20

07—

New

timet

able

sw

ere

need

edto

mee

tde

man

dan

dal

soT

hese

ques

tionn

aire

she

lped

FAC

Tto

timet

able

.T

his

incl

udes

4ro

utes

acro

ssFe

nlan

dT

here

are

3se

rvic

eson

goin

gdu

eto

bus

serv

ice

chan

ges

and

with

draw

als.

FDC

put

onse

rvic

esto

plac

esth

atpe

ople

each

way

per

day

Mon

day

toSa

turd

ayfo

r3

DA

Rro

utes

.T

he4

rout

eN

ew4t

hro

ute

wor

ked

with

oper

ator

sto

deve

lop

ques

tionn

aire

sfo

rw

ante

dto

trav

elto

.D

oing

this

mad

eha

son

ejo

urne

yea

chw

aype

rda

y.N

eww

eekl

yan

dm

onth

lyse

rvic

es20

09.

curr

ent

user

sas

supp

ortin

gev

iden

ce.

sure

that

serv

ices

are

wel

lus

ed.

are

also

adde

d.A

ssis

tC

omm

unity

Tra

nspo

rtop

erat

ors—

help

ing

oper

ator

sto

deve

lop

2007

—T

here

isa

need

tosu

stai

nC

omm

unity

Tra

nspo

rtth

eir

busi

ness

plan

s,m

arke

ting

plan

san

dap

proa

ches

,in

clud

ing

aon

goin

gse

rvic

esbo

thno

wan

din

the

futu

re.

The

reis

ane

edC

ounc

illor

bein

gel

ecte

dto

thei

rbo

ard

for

bette

rus

eof

exis

ting

min

ibus

esto

mee

tlo

cal

need

s.N

ewan

dim

prov

edlin

ksha

vebe

enm

ade

with

heal

thca

repr

ovid

ers

asw

ell

asde

velo

ping

abe

tter

unde

rsta

ndin

gof

wid

ertr

ansp

ort

links

.R

ail

Stra

tegy

&C

omm

unity

Rai

lPa

rtne

rshi

p20

09—

Fenl

and

has

3ra

ilst

atio

nsin

the

dist

rict

,w

ithva

riou

sT

heR

ail

Stra

tegy

was

adop

ted

byFD

CD

evel

opm

ent

ofa

rail

stra

tegy

incl

udin

gpo

licy

issu

es,

aSt

atio

nson

goin

gle

vels

ofse

rvic

esan

dfa

cilit

ies.

The

reis

stro

nglo

cal

Cab

inet

inA

pril

2012

.So

me

ofth

eIn

vest

men

tPl

anan

dpr

opos

als

for

aC

omm

unity

Rai

lPa

rtne

rshi

p.su

ppor

tfo

rra

ilin

Fenl

and

but

peop

lew

ant

tose

epr

opos

als

have

been

incl

uded

inth

eD

eliv

ery

ofa

Com

mun

ityR

ail

Part

ners

hip

(CR

P)to

supp

ort

loca

lim

prov

emen

tsto

serv

ices

and

stat

ions

.The

yal

sow

ant

Mar

ket

Tow

nT

rans

port

Stra

tegi

es.

com

mun

ityin

volv

emen

tin

the

railw

ays

agr

eate

rvo

ice

for

impr

ovem

ents

.St

atio

nM

aste

rpl

ans

are

inde

velo

pmen

t.

28F

ebru

ary

2013



Supplementary written evidence submitted by Merseytravel

Below are some case studies from projects that are current or have operated in the past in Merseyside.

Scooter Commuter Case Study Wirral NTT

Alan contacted the Travel Team through his local Job Centre. He had been offered a position over onWavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. The position was full time and permanent. He desperately wanted totake the job but he was worried about how long the journey would take and what the travel costs would beeach week.

Alan was given a personalised journey plan from his home address to his place of work; to enable us to dothis we took his home and work postcode and work times. From this we were able to tell him about the journeyand how long it would take him to get there. The journey would take him 59 minutes; it involved walking, arail journey and one bus, this journey would cost him 65.10 per month for a Trio 2 area bus pass.

Due to the length of the journey Alan was eligible to apply for the WorkWise Scooter Scheme, which wouldenable him to have the loan of a scooter for 6 months, receive all the relevant training, protective clothing andcost of the licence if required. By offering this service to Alan he was able to accept the job and have thepeace of mind that he could get back and to from work each day.

Wheels to Work Case Study Sefton

When Sefton@Work asked the Sefton Travel Team to assist four clients who had been offered a work trialin Kirkby, they knew it would be a challenge given the location of the employer and public transport provisionbetween Bootle and Kirkby, particularly when it was discovered they were required to be at work for 8am.Due to the nature of the work, there was no flexibility with start times.

On researching the transport options, it became apparent that the location was not served directly by anybuses. It was also some distance from Kirkby station. However, it was noted that the clients could cycle toKirkdale station, take the train to Kirkby, and then cycle to their place of work. The overall journey time forthis would be 40 minutes.

This suggestion was presented to the clients who were less than enthusiastic with the suggestion. It had beensome time since each had cycled, and they were not convinced that they would be able to manage the route.Given their reluctance, a travel officer offered to take all four individuals on the route the day before the worktrial, to demonstrate how quick and easy it would be. 1 client insisted he would prefer to walk from Kirkbystation, but three very wary and nervous cyclists joined him on the route to their prospective new place of work.

The travel officer provided some basic travel training along the route, and despite some particularly wetweather, all returned tired but enthusiastic and surprised that the cycle route had been so easy.

The officer met all four cyclists again on the morning of their work trial to accompany them on the route,and all arrived safely and were particularly impressed that they had enough time for a bacon butty beforestarting work. All four clients were all offered permanent positions.

Free Travel Pass Case Study

Michael rang me. He had got himself a job in the Whitechapel Centre. It’s about two miles out of town andit caters for homeless people. They’ve taken on these support workers in order to accommodate that and they’reworking from about eight o’clock at night to eight o’clock the next morning.

Michael found out that we did these travel passes and he contacted me and asked whether he could comedown and get one. Obviously I did the check and everything and he was fine. This must have been theWednesday or the Thursday by the time he realised that we were there in operation and he lived in Liverpool11 which is about eight miles from where he was working. He’d been walking in and back again. Sixteenmiles a day and the weather was freezing!

He had to come out two hours before his start time and walk in that freezing cold weather, then do a twelvehour shift and after doing the twelve hour shift a two hour walk back home again because he didn’t have thefare. He was saying, “I can’t praise this enough, it’s a life-saver”.

Personalised Journey Plans Case Study

We worked with youngsters and I was quite surprised. We said we are going to go through to the IT suiteand do some journey planning and stuff like that and they were all sort of, “Oh yeah we know what we’redoing, we know all this already”.

We couldn’t believe it when got them on the journey planner, we gave them sort of scenarios—You’ve gotto be at MBNA Bank on the other side of Chester at eight o’clock in the morning and this, that and the other... And they were doing them and they were getting to the bus stop at five to eight! We said to them, “Buthave you worked out just how far you’ve got to travel there and where you’ve got to walk to?”



And it was all these sort of time-management issues that came up. People just don’t realise about theplanning process to get you there on time, things you’ve got to think about what might happen you know andit was quite good.

A People-Centred Holistic Approach

We had a lady who started seeing us about twelve months ago. She had been made redundant a couple ofweek previous and was just looking for jobs. She was a single mum, two kids, mortgage and all of that andwithin that month she was struggling to get to interviews because she had nothing coming back in. She hadjob search after job search.

We had the money from Starting Point to send her to interviews and training and the more we saw her,because I’d say we saw her probably once a month, the more desperate she was becoming. The more anxiousand in financial danger she was becoming. She expressed it because we built up, as you do, you build up arelationship, we knew that her mortgage was in jeopardy, her house was ready to be repossessed and she keptplugging away and plugging away.

I think the job she actually got, she had four interviews, one in St Helens, one in Liverpool, one in Lancasterand one in Preston. We totted it up, it was something like £45 travel which she just couldn’t have afforded, noway, especially with trying to pay something towards her mortgage, bring up two kids and live, no chance!

Finally she found a job, we provided her with a pass which she admitted at the time there was no way shecould have afforded, especially the job she was doing. Not only did she need to get into work, as part of herduties she needed to travel around the borough. So even if she’d have got a daily saver, which is £4.20 a day,that’s £22 a week. And just the saving of that £80 a month meant she could start paying early towards backpayments to her mortgage.

We saw her a couple of weeks ago and she’s a completely different woman. She’s independent again, she’sgot some financial worries but she knows that they’re in hand; there is a means to pay them off. She’s left usa couple of cards and a couple of bottles of wine as thank you.

29 January 2013

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Department for Education

Qs 138 &139 Examples of joint working with Department for Culture Media and Sports

There is shortly to be a cross-Government announcement on school sport. Once this has been made, theDepartment will be in a position to share details of the impact of this work.

Q 191 Does the Department have any examples or analysis of transport costs borne by local authorities as aresult of education policy changes (since May 2010).

There has not been any specific analysis of the impact of education policy changes. Anecdotally we areaware that:

— general cuts in local authority funding have led to many authorities cutting discretionarytransport or introducing charging for it. Typically this is transport to faith schools, wheretraditionally local authorities have provided free transport. Before taking such steps, localauthorities should consult widely for at least 28 working days during term time; and

— some local authorities are facing increased transport costs resulting from Academies makingchanges in session times. Under Section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998a local authority has power to charge maintained schools for changed transport costs, resultingfrom session time changes. This does not apply to Academies, which are established underdifferent legislation. Consequently local authorities can only ask schools to reimburse the costof altering transport schedules, otherwise local authorities must meet the cost. We are alsoaware, however, of emerging good practice where the local authority working with all theirschools are improving the service and some schools are taking on elements directly forthemselves. I hope our Efficiency and Practice Review Report will highlight some of thoseemerging good examples.

6 March 2013



Supplementary written evidence submitted by Paul WilliamsLabour Market Operations Director, Department for Work and Pensions

Please find some additional information I felt could be useful following the session on 13 February 2013.

Q126

I promised the committee further information around the National Customer Satisfaction Survey, please findenclosed a link to the published survey (2011), which was the source of the response provided to you on 13February regarding ease of access. Section 3.4.6 discusses access to the service.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011–2012/rrep775.pdf

Q179–184

These questions concerned the accessibility clauses in contracts for services DWP has in place.

An edited copy of the Medical Services Contract document (DEP2010—1704) is available in the House ofLords library and can be accessed from the link below:

In the “clauses” section of the contract it refers at various points to compliance with all laws, statutes,enactments etc. in force at the time of the agreement. Paragraphs 3.1.2, 8.9.1—8.9.3, 9.1.3 and 9.5.2.1 (a & b)in particular refer.

The Work Programme contract may be accessed here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-prog-draft-terms.pdf

The clauses with respect to accessibility are contained in Appendix 9, Diversity and Equality Requirements,on pages 109–120.

At present there are no plans for a tightening of accessibility clauses in future contracts but I have passedon the committee’s view to the relevant team.

Q191

If any of you have any experience or examples of how within your Departments account has been taken ofthe increased costs for local authorities as a result of changes in your policies, particularly where there isderegulation, it would be very interesting to have some kind of indication—not necessarily now, but inwriting—of what is fed, perhaps through the Cabinet Committee in terms of DCLG, in terms of expectationsabout how various needs will be met at a local level.

Strategy colleagues have advised that there is no evidence from any impact study or evaluation of any suchcost transfers.

Q125

The committee asked about costs of telephone calls and whether or not they were a problem. I thought itwould be helpful to give the committee an insight into current departmental policy.

The current Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) policy is that all calls should be free to our 0800numbers to claim:

— State Pension.

— Pension Credit.

— Jobseekers’ Allowance.

— Employment Support Allowance.

— Emergency payments or crisis loans.

It is free to call DWP 0800 numbers from all major landline providers. DWP has secured agreements toensure that it is free to call via seven of the UK’s largest mobile phone operators.

The Department currently uses 0845 telephone numbers where its customers call for other reasons, and theseare calls that typically take less time to resolve. The charges that apply to these calls will be set by thecustomer’s telephone or mobile operator.

We are aware of possible financial difficulties that calling DWP could cause some customers and so we willalso offer to call back a customer calling our services, if asked, or if concerns are raised over the cost of thecall. The Department also provides “Customer Access Phones” in a large number of its Jobcentre Plus offices.Customers can use these phones to make benefit claims or pursue job applications and do not have to paywhen using these facilities.



Q179

Peter Aldous, the MP for Waveney, asked about accessibility issues around claimants attending ATOSpremises in Norwich. I have taken the opportunity to provide further information in this regard.

While all assessment centres meet accessibility standards, where access to assessment rooms is via a liftthere are health and safety implications in the event of a fire if claimants cannot use stairs. There are 123permanent assessment centres, of which 27 do not have a ground floor assessment room available.

The Norwich Assessment Centre is located on the 2nd Floor and it is recognised that this does presentdifficulties to customers with decreased mobility in the event of an emergency when the lift cannot be used.DWP continues to look for options on all sites where ground floor assessment rooms are not available.However, consideration will need to be given to the costs of achieving a solution balanced with the number ofclaimants sent home unseen.

As Norwich Assessment Centre is not located on the ground floor, prior to the customer being called to anassessment, efforts are made by Atos Healthcare to identify customers who may have problems in evacuatingthe building, via the stairs, during an emergency. The information provided to customers highlights the locationof the Assessment Centre and that in an emergency the exit from the Assessment Centre will be by stairs.Customers that feel this would cause them difficulties are invited to contact Atos Healthcare to discuss theirindividual circumstances.

Where decreased mobility makes attendance at the Norwich Centre unsatisfactory, the customer is eitheroffered an assessment at the nearest ground floor centre, with full reimbursement of travel expenses oralternatively a home visit.

In the nine months between April and December 2012, 59 claimants were sent home unseen from NorwichAssessment Centre for health and safety reasons. This figure includes instances where claimants have beensent home unseen due to ground floor accessibility issues. This equates to 0.8% of Norwich’s total face to faceassessments completed for Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit Reassessments duringthis period.

13 March 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited06/2013 026127 19585

transport and accessibility to public services€¦ · transport and the accessibility to public...

Documents