With the advent of localism there is always the danger of its less popular corollary the ‘postcode lottery’ and regional inequality.
According to a transport select committee report this month (page 5), transport spending could be falling deeper and deeper into this trap.
While some may argue these inequalities betray a lack of localism and smack of Whitehall’s hand weighing heavily on the distribution of funds, there is a genuine issue around the nature of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and how they bid for the billions that will be funnelled through the Single Local Growth Fund (SLGF).
To emphasise what is at stake for transport spending, the Treasury’s Investing in Britain’s future document last summer revealed: ‘The SLGF will amount to over £2bn in 2015-16, and includes a further commitment for £5bn of transport funding over 2016-17 to 2020-21 to enable long term planning in priority infrastructure.’
Even in 2015-16 the SLGF will amount to more than £2bn, of which more than £1.1bn will come from transport budgets.
Compare these figures with the evidence put before the transport select committee, which saw transport minister Baroness Kramer stating: ‘In 2012/13, the estimated spend per head on transport in London was £545 compared to an average £216 in the regions outside the capital.’
The committee also highlighted evidence from The Institute for Public Policy Research, which identified even greater disparities in regional transport spending. It observed that ‘where transport infrastructure projects involve public sector spending (solely or in partnership with the private sector), the spend per head of population is £2,595.68 in London but just £5.01 per head in the North East’.
Prime minister David Cameron defended the figures, stating they are ‘very altered’ by Crossrail, the largest construction project taking place anywhere in Europe. There is also the issue of how much more expensive infrastructure projects are in London and the South East and the fact that there is a greater density of population necessitating more investment to avoid congestion.
However the transport committee is not alone when it argues the ‘second class’ treatment of regions outside London must be stopped. The MPs added that ‘given the Government’s focus on LEPs bringing in outside investment to supplement taxpayer funding we are also concerned that regional economies, which may not have a sufficiently well-developed private sector to provide alternative investment, may end up losing out’.
West Yorkshire Combined Authority chair, Peter Box, said his region ‘has suffered from a legacy of under spending on transport by successive Governments’ before calling on ministers ‘to use the Local Growth Fund to ensure that there is a fairer allocation of funding’.
The difficulty is the fund is supposed to be competitive and explicitly not focussed on need as much as which project can best boost economic growth.
On this issue various senior figures in ADEPT have been vocal critics, including Tony Ciaburro, chair of the association’s transport board, who has lambasted the ‘winners and losers’ culture the government has fostered with its focus on competitive bidding.
‘The difference in the transport spend per head outside London can not go on’ he said adding there is a real danger regions will fall further and further behind. ‘We would like the government to consider either allocating funding directly through the local authorities or to consider establishing a suitable funding stream to support our members in this work.’
This may not be possible, at least in the sort-term, as even the transport committee called for a period of calm after the recent major changes to local policy that have seen Local Transport Boards established and all but dissolved before even coming into effect, let alone LEPs. ‘Continual churn and uncertainty helps no-one’ the committee’s MPs warned.
And in Westminster, despite these criticisms, David Cameron has hailed the political consensus surrounding LEPs, with Labour doing little to disagree when speaking to Surveyor this month. So for the time being at least ,it would appear all the 39 LEPs are equal under the meritocracy of competitive bids, its just that some may be more equal than others.