My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all to do with transport. I am sure noble Lords will remember that one of the missions is on transport and that that mission says:
“By 2030, local public transport connectivity across the country will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing”,
and that:
“The success of this mission will be measured through indicators on commuting modal share and average journey time to centres of employment. New connectivity metrics that account for population density with distance travelled will help identify where the standards are being met.”
7.15 pm
The last time I spoke about transport, I quoted from the annexe looking at the metrics. I would like to do the same again, if noble Lords will bear with me. First of all, the annexe says, following the measurements I have just read out, that
“they do not explicitly tell us whether good standards have been met. Supporting metrics on bus punctuality and reliability measured over the … regions of England, will help to identify where the connectivity and service quality improves. Additionally, a supporting metric covering the proportion of all journeys that are public transport will be monitored for the regions … of England.”
I repeat what I said before: this is all very well, but I do not understand how any of that is going to measure or help towards success if you do not actually have any services to measure in the first place, which is unfortunately the situation in very many rural areas of the country.
We know that there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates the regional inequality in transport spending and that efficient transport networks are the backbone of any economy. Transport for the North estimates that £70 billion worth of investment in the strategic transport plan for the north could contribute to an additional £100 billion in economic growth. So can the Minister confirm that the plans to take HS2 to the north and the lack of commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail demonstrate that, unfortunately, the north is not a government priority when it comes to transport investment? Those of us who live in the north find this hugely disappointing, particularly when we look at what money has been spent, including a recent surge in rail spending, according to ONS figures, in the south-east and London. Once again, spending has gone disproportionately to London and the south-east.
The Department for Transport recently published an evidence review on transport and inequality, and it is mentioned in the annexe on this mission, where it says:
“Transport modes such as buses, cycling and walking play a crucial role in enabling access to work for the isolated and vulnerable, while reducing congestion for other road users.”
The DfT’s review said:
“Where transport is available and affordable”—
available and affordable are the two key points—
“it can provide access to different opportunities … Transport is an important facilitator of social inclusion and wellbeing, which can affect economic and social outcomes, and therefore inequality … Transport barriers can be intimately related to job opportunities, but in areas of socio-economic disadvantage, even where local transport is available there may be limited educational and job opportunities for people to access … If transport is (or is
perceived to be) too expensive, then people are not able to make the journeys they need to get into work or move into education/training.”
So this report is something that the metrics are relying on, but I do not see anything in the Bill that is actually going to change anything in order to provide those opportunities right across the country.
I draw attention to a report published last year by Transport for the North. It was called Transport-related Social Exclusion in the North of England. This deploys rich quantitative data and compelling qualitative testimony to highlight how the lack of frequent, reliable and affordable public transport continues to deny deprived communities access to education, training, jobs, healthcare, recreation and social contact, while raising further concerns about inequalities based on disability, gender, caring responsibilities, ethnicity and LGBTQ identities. The report says:
“Together, these impacts can contribute to a vicious cycle of poverty, isolation, and poor access to basic services.”
For people at risk of transport-related social exclusion, the choice is simple: missed life opportunities, or financial hardship through car dependency. Across the north as a whole, 21.3% of residents—some 3.3 million people—live in areas where they face a relatively high risk of transport-related social exclusion. That is a significantly higher proportion than the 16% who face this in the south and the Midlands. What do the Government intend to do as part of their levelling-up agenda to tackle this issue?
In rural areas, there is a particular issue with bus services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned earlier. We know that many local authority-supported buses have disappeared and, unfortunately, commercial services have not taken their place. We have just had a question about when we are likely to see the Government’s bus strategy. I appreciate the Minister’s response that this is the responsibility of the Department for Transport but, again, if the Government are to deliver on their levelling-up agenda, all departments need to be on board; they need to be on the same page and fully committed. When the bus strategy comes out, it would be extremely helpful if the Department for Transport could make a commitment on how it will be used to try to level up transport services across the country.
I come back to the issues around bus provision in rural areas. Local authority-supported bus provision declined by 54% between 2011-12 and 2019-20, and commercial services increased by only 3% during the same period. This has left communities poorly served, or with no public transport provision at all. The Campaign for Better Transport and the CPRE produced a report in 2020 which found that 56% of small towns in the south-west and north-east of England have such bad transport connectivity that they are considered to be “transport deserts” or are at imminent risk of becoming one.
I have tabled my amendments—I know there are quite a number—to draw attention to the fact that bringing our transport networks up to the same standard as, or close to, those in London, as in the Bill, will be an immense challenge. We believe that devolution and the exercise of integrated transport powers are crucial to the effective operation of combined county authorities
in this area. We believe that all combined county authorities need access to the same powers as those who have the greatest. There must be recognition in the legislation of the challenges relating to transport routes that cross CCA boundaries.
Bus routes, for example, will often go across political boundaries, so collaboration between authorities is crucial. We have talked about this in other areas. It is crucial to achieve the inter-area connectivity that is required and could be transformative for bus routes: for the fares, services, infrastructure and, potentially, even ticketing arrangements. Seamless travel will encourage more people to take public transport and to engage in active travel; that should include good infrastructure and connectivity for cyclists, which I have not seen much evidence of in the Bill itself.
I have another question for the Minister, which I think is critical given the number of commercial bus services that stepped in when local bus services collapsed due to lack of funding. How do the Government intend to approach the private bus companies, which have a profit motive? How will they keep them engaged? I will give an example from Milton Keynes and Stevenage. They have a ZEBRA project, which was designed to bring in large numbers of electric buses to urban areas. We must not forget that part of levelling up transport is how we use it to meet our net-zero targets as well. The problem is that Arriva has just pulled out of this project; the reasons given seem to be that it is concerned about lack of use of the bus routes.
People will not use buses if they do not think they will be reliable and, if they are not using them, the commercial companies pull out. You end up with a vicious circle. If we are to tackle the problems around lack of public transport, isolation and the need to improve services right across the country, there absolutely has to be a plan as well as funding local authorities properly so that they can run bus services. Also, there must be a proper plan to work with the private sector because, otherwise, you will never get the bus services in more rural areas that are needed.
My final point is that there is a great deal for the Government to consider if they are to have any chance whatever of meeting their mission on transport. We believe that our amendments make some sensible suggestions. I beg to move.