Welcome to this morning’s evidence session. This is the first in a series of sessions of the Transport Committee on managing the impact of street works. The session will focus on the impacts of street works on congestion, disruption and road surface quality. In our first panel, we will hear from representatives of road and pavement users. In our second panel, we will hear from representatives of utility and street works companies. Could I ask the first panel of witnesses to introduce themselves?

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Committee. I am Jack Cousens. I am head of roads policy at the AA.

Good morning, everyone. I am Keith McNally, operations director at CPT, the Confederation of Passenger Transport. We are the trade association for the bus and coach sector.

Good morning, everyone. Hopefully, you can hear me. My name is Emma Vogelmann. I am the head of policy, public affairs and campaigns at the disabled persons’ organisation, Transport for All.

Thank you very much and welcome. I will start with the first question. What are the public’s key frustrations with street works? You don’t need to go into a lot of detail because we will have detailed questions later. In an overall way, what are the public’s key frustrations with street works?

I believe the key frustration is down to their frequency, but also the fact that they pop up, in many cases for drivers, with very little notice. Then, on top of that, we get the repetition and the cycle. The gas company seem to be in one week; they go away. Then the water company get in the hole; they disappear. Then the broadband company get in the hole; they fill it back up and disappear and somebody else comes in. We have this horrible cycle of roadworks that never seem to end, but that then create lots of other problems with the road surface, particularly around potholes and ruining the structural integrity of our roads, which is of vital importance.

Thank you. Keith?

Similar really. It is the unpredictability. You can go down a stretch of road and it takes a certain length of time one day. You go down the next, and there are street works and it takes possibly a quite different length of time. Obviously, that is a particular issue for our members who schedule services and are trying to run to a timetable. The other big frustration is when there are traffic management works in place and there is no work ongoing. I understand that there could be reasons for that, but I would say those are the key things.

First, I echo what was being said about the frequency of these works and the lack of notice. At Transport for All, we represent disabled people and we know that disabled people face a huge number of barriers when trying to walk and wheel around their community. These works, in particular, hugely impact disabled people’s ability to use pavements. There are many pavements that are then in further disrepair than they are already, meaning that disabled people sometimes have to travel in the road. As was mentioned, these works can cause issues for the road, making that not a viable option, or it could mean that disabled people need to take a completely alternate route to avoid roadworks where pavement use is not an option, which takes a huge amount of time and energy out of disabled people’s lives.

Thank you. Is the problem getting worse?

We certainly have heard quite a lot from individuals that they are unaware when these roadworks happen. They happen very frequently and it leads, as I said, to further breakdown of pavements and roadworks. It just means that disabled people, one day, will be able to go their normal route to, say, their local shop or to take their kids to school, and then, the next day, they are not able to do that safely. We are certainly seeing an increase when it comes to these works happening and the impact they are having, not just while the works are going on but after the works as well.

A theme that came across strongly from our members was that the number of works undertaken on an emergency basis seems to have increased. I am not sure about the overall volume. Our members say to us that a very high proportion seem to be on an emergency basis. Those are the ones where they get little or no notice. The first they know is when they turn up at the site where there are street works.

They certainly have been increasing. The Asphalt Industry Alliance do their annual ALARM survey. They survey councils across England, London and Wales. In 2018, there were 13,200 utility openings of the road. In the 2023 survey, that went to 17,000 per local authority. It is clear that more work is going on. There are contributing factors to that such as Project Gigabit, where we are trying to improve broadband across the country. With EV charging, we are looking to bring more chargers on board. There is also more evidence of just general works going on by utility companies, be they water, gas or electric.

Connecting to the points the Chair made, Keith made a really good point about emergency works. Is there any feeling that that status has been abused by utility companies and perhaps they are not absolute emergencies?

Yes. The sense that we got was that our members feel it is. It is difficult to tell. In fairness, the point also came through that, in some places, the infrastructure seems to be crumbling. You can have a fault with a water main or something and then there is another fault with the water main further down the road, because the whole thing really probably needs to—

Yes. It is proactive versus reactive, I guess. It is about getting that balance right. Ruth’s question focused on roadworks in general. If we talk about mismanaged and poorly planned works, what are the specific issues associated with them, both for road users and people who are using the footpaths?

A big one is the length of time. When there is pre-notification, it is normally for a set period. We said in our written evidence that we appreciate there needs to be contingency. A really big frustration is when a bus operator or a coach operator makes provision for a closure or temporary traffic lights on a particular day. Then the particular day comes and the road is completely clear. Likewise, at the end of a set of scheduled works, the works continue when we had expected it to return to normal.

Jack.

I will let Emma go. She has her hand up.

Sorry, Emma. I didn’t spot your hand in the background there.

That’s fine. Thank you, Jack. What I wanted to chip in was that what we are seeing is the lack of co-ordination between these different projects, whether they are emergency repairs or if they are long thought-out projects. Planning where they go and when is really causing a barrier for disabled people, because sometimes, if one project is going on, that means that another route will need to be made available. If that route is also receiving work, it makes it even more difficult. The co-ordination between projects needs to be better thought about. If you are taking away one option, a road or a pavement for the community, what other routes are available to make sure you are not working on those at the same time?

This is a leading question, Emma, and follow-up to that, if you don’t mind. We are talking about mismanaged works here. Many local authorities have clear guidance for utility contractors around how their works should be laid out so people can get through, pedestrians and people in wheelchairs and parents pushing buggies. Is it your feeling that guidance is followed by utility companies? That is my leading question.

No, that is a completely fair question. I cannot speak to whether or not that is always being followed by utility companies. What I want to share is a quote that we received from one of our members in the lead-up to this evidence session. A person got in touch with us saying, “Essential water pipe repairs were happening in 2024 and they didn’t install any replacement ramps or dropped kerbs. Until this was pointed out, anyone with the need to walk would need to walk around the block, cross over the road, travel a few streets in the wrong direction to get back into the road.” Guidance might be available on what are the alternative measures that need to be put in when these works are happening to make sure that disabled people are able to continue to use that area. It is not happening as frequently as we would like to see.

That is powerful, Emma. Do you want to come back on that quickly, Jack?

Regarding the co-ordination of works, there was a brilliant advert by Heineken in the late 1990s. There is a team of roadworkers, and they are in the hole. A broadband or internet company drives past and they go, “Oh, you’ve got the hole open. Can we get in with you? Oh, this is a really good idea,” and in they jump. The water company drives past, “Oh, we’ll get in as well.” All of a sudden, they are going, “Wow, we’re saving the public lots of time, money and effort here. We’re only in the hole once. This is brilliant.” A hearse drives past and they decide that is probably a step too far. The point is that the advert showed a sort of glimmer of utopia; if we got the utility companies or, indeed, anybody who needs to get in the hole at a particular time, to show co-ordination and joined-up thinking, it would improve the position for everybody, be they road users or pedestrians. However they use our road network, that joined-up thinking is what is desperately needed.

If you are staying for our second set of witnesses, we will be exploring that very point.

This is a very live issue for me. I have two bits of casework going on at different ends of my constituency, with some significant delays and obstructions and a six-month-long lack of buses, so it is good to be able to ask you these questions this morning. What is your assessment of how well street works are managed to minimise travel disruption? There are a couple of leading questions. What could be done better would probably be a good place to start. Equally, please feel free to tell us some of the problems, although I am guessing that is in the evidence you have submitted as well.

Who do you want to ask?

Emma, do you want to go first, please?

Absolutely, thank you. The first thing I want to raise on that is that often there is very poor communication of what disruptions will be in place and what are the alternate ways that disabled people can use that area of their community. I would put that in there. We know there is a huge lack of accessible diversion when these works are happening. As I said, disabled people may need to go into the road where we know there are potholes and other dangers. I want to put that in. We also know that trip hazards are very common when these works are happening, not just the blocking off of pavements and roads but also the very confusing way that is done and, crucially, the impact it has on disabled people, as well as all members of the community and different modes of transport. This is not just an issue for walking, wheeling, cycling or even driving. It could be that a disabled person is now completely unable to access a particular bus stop because of works that are going on. It is particularly important now, when we are looking to better integrate transport, to look at journeys as multimodal, because there never will be just a single mode of transport used in a journey. Even if you are travelling by car, you are still interacting with the pavement, in some instances even just to get to the car that is parked in your own drive.

Thank you. Keith, what are your comments, please?

For us, the issue is that bus operators, in particular, tend to liaise with the public transport function in a local authority. Then it is the highway element of the authority that deals with the utility companies. Where we can join them all up, we can achieve better management of works. There are some examples that we mentioned in our written evidence, such as in Oxfordshire, where a champion in the authority tries, as far as possible, to tell the operators what is planned and then consider alternative ways of doing things. That can take different forms. It might be changing the timing of the works, shifting them to another time of the year—that sort of thing. Those are the exceptions and we need to try to make them the standard formula; the approach when there is co-ordination in the authorities for at least the pre-planned works.

Jack, you have touched on it with your vision of utopia already. Is there anything more that you think could be done better?

Certainly, proper planning and proper co-ordination between anybody that needs to dig up the road should happen. It is also worth saying there are over 200 bodies that have a right to open the road network. They all have that opportunity; if they feel they need to get in there, they will do so. There are some things outside proper co-ordination that could help—for example, access off the street through manhole covers and things like that. That might be an option. We don’t do it a huge amount here in the UK, but it works elsewhere across the world. Similarly, it is not just about the disruption that happens at the time; it is also the disruption that happens afterwards. We see that in many ways, through to the poor return of the street, once the utility firm has decided, “That’s it. We’ve had enough.” There is signage left after the event. How many times in your constituencies have you gone past an abandoned set of cones or signs and gone, “That was six months ago and they’re still there”?

That is powerful.

I want to follow up on something Emma said. You made a very good point that sometimes this challenge of co-ordination we have been discussing can mean that multiple routes are blocked off at the same time. Keith mentioned Oxfordshire, my constituency. That can be an issue in Didcot, which infuriates people from time to time. Have you seen any good or bad practice in relation to local authorities getting an overview geographically to try to ensure that a town does not end up being blocked up by multiple works and lights happening at the same time?

Absolutely. What I would like to say in relation to local authorities is that our research has shown that local authorities have reported spending 4% of their maintenance budget on repairs to pavements caused by utility works. I know you are speaking with local authorities later today. That is a huge concern from Transport for All’s perspective, knowing there are so many issues with pavements. It was the most reported barrier to all modes of transport that disabled people recorded in our survey in 2023, so it is a huge concern. We have long called for there to be ringfenced funding for local authorities to repair pavements, particularly when they are causing huge and sometimes very injury-inducing incidents for disabled people. I want to come back to what you said about the good and bad practice. I want to read a particular example that was submitted by a member. This was after street works had been done. They said, “It took four months to get the pavement replaced at a crossing after the street works had been done. The workers had no idea what they were meant to do. I had to phone the Highways Director, who had no idea.” That really shows a lack of joining up. It goes to the point that it is not just while the work is happening; it is about long-term lasting impact. Something as serious as not replacing tactile paving can be life or death for disabled people.

Keith, your members operate across the country. Are they reporting distinct differences in the way different highway authority areas manage this process?

There seems to be a general theme that it doesn’t tend to work that well. The good examples may stand out.

You don’t notice.

Sometimes it is because things come to a head. There is so much disruption that it forces some dialogue and, hopefully, then starts a new way forward. A couple of the examples where they seem to have made progress are in Plymouth and in Oxfordshire. Taking a really bad example of multiple routes, we had an example from Reading, which is quite a small authority, where virtually all the radial routes were dug up in some form or other at the same time. Yes, I guess it is about hoping there will be some co-ordination and working together. I guess one of the things that we want to see is some sort of statutory requirement for everybody who is affected to be properly considered.

Rebecca, you want to come in on the point about Plymouth.

I was interested that you said Plymouth. Could you expand on that illustration? I have two things going on in Plymouth at the moment and my constituents would wholeheartedly disagree that we are a good illustration of what works. I would be interested to know what the illustration is there, for the benefit of the Committee as well.

It was the bus operator working with the authority. It probably comes back down to this: within the authority, there are the transport planners and there are the highways people. Go South West indicated that they had made a bit of progress.

To be fair, that makes sense of things. One issue I currently have is a bus thing, where the bus has been stopped and completely cut off a community, but that is a different bus company, so maybe that is why. That is helpful, thank you.

Carrying on with the theme of buses, I have another question for Keith, please. You have obviously spoken about this already to some extent. Could you give us a bit more of a flavour of how much bus services are impacted by poorly planned or managed street works?

The key point is that operators schedule timetables. They want to run punctually. The most important factor of a bus service as far as the public are concerned is whether it runs on time or not. If you drive your car down a particular road and are delayed by 10 minutes, you have lost 10 minutes, but the bus going down that road has to go down that road and then come back. It keeps repeating the same sequence throughout the day. There is a cumulative impact. There are cases where you can have a stretch of road that it normally takes 10 minutes to travel down. We have had examples from places like the west midlands where on that stretch of road, normally 10 minutes, it can take 50 minutes to do the same journey. You cannot run a timetable on that sort of basis. In terms of the management, sometimes if you are driving or you are cycling or walking, you can divert around something. The point that the previous Member was making was that people get cut off if the bus does not do as much of its normal route as possible. You then have the situation where you run a longer route, for example a cross-city route—often those appeal to the public because they introduce new connections and enable people to connect without changing services—but the longer the route, generally the more prone you are to suffering delays. It works against a better bus network when you have multiple sets of street works.

If it is okay, I would like to come in on the bus point. It particularly impacts disabled people when bus routes are changed or when bus routes take a lot longer than anticipated. Disabled people take more journeys by bus than non-disabled people, so it is already immediately going to have a disproportionate impact. In addition, any work that impacts bus stops, benches or other public seating areas that are often at bus stops can remove a very essential rest point for disabled people. For anyone with an energy-limiting impairment or chronic pain, that is a huge barrier to them. I want to comment on the point about delays caused by street works. We found that 36% of our survey respondents said that traffic was a barrier to them using any vehicle mode of transport because it can cause increased pain, inflammation, exhaustion due to extended sitting, and it can also increase exposure to air pollution. This point goes to how disabled people are disproportionately impacted by changes to bus routes.

That is an important point. Thank you. We are going on to the notifications of works.

We have talked a bit about management and co-ordination, but as a fan of things like water and internet, I am aware that the street has to get dug up. Isn’t this about information? Is the information about advance works that is provided to the public or to bus operators good enough?

It certainly is part of it. Part of the dilemma is that more and more works are on an emergency basis, as we talked about before. For the pre-planned works, it is partly about giving an accurate assessment of what is going to happen and then sticking to that as far as possible. As an industry, we accept that you can investigate a problem and then it may be quite different when you repair the pipe or whatever. It is quite different from what you anticipate and will take a different length of time. It is about ongoing communication, ongoing information. If the plan has changed, tell the people who need to know that the plan has changed, rather than just drifting on and getting the job done or moving away from the site, because your crews are needed somewhere else, and leaving it. Information absolutely is a key part, as is the consultation piece where you might plan something and then, as the utility, you might be able to do things in a slightly different way that has less impact.

Or faster, come to that. Jack?

I think you are right: in the vast majority of cases, these are a necessary evil. We need the upgrades. Therefore, the roadworks and the street works have to take place. We probably need to split it out a little bit: notification before and notification during. For notification before, I appreciate that it can be very difficult, particularly for emergency works, especially legitimate emergency works, to notify members of the public. That is where we move into an evermore social and digital world. We need to try to get the message out there very quickly, “Really sorry, we have to do these works. These are the reasons why. This is how long we think it’s going to take us. Here’s a dedicated website to get your information.” For the pre-planning stuff—again, thinking about uniformity and marrying everybody up—it would be great if a local authority could turn around and say, “For this period of time, we’ve got these utility companies all working in the road. This is what they are doing. This is the estimated timeframe. By doing this, it will reduce the congestion by X,” rather than having individual ones. That is a really good positive thing. Again, getting the message out to road users and constituents is difficult. One of the systems that is frequently used is putting an advert in the local newspaper. Sadly, not many people go and buy their local newspaper. It means we have to evolve with that. We have to make it more digital.

Many areas do not have local newspapers anymore.

Indeed. If I think about my own home county of Hampshire—I only know this really because I am a nerd when it comes to all this stuff—local authorities produce roadwork maps that you can log into and you can see what is happening today, and what is happening in the next two or four weeks, next month, whatever. As I said, I should know that because I am a transport nerd. If you just said to somebody, “You know this is available on a map?”, they would go, “Really, is it?” They might go and play with that for a day or two, but then they forget all about it. Certainly, you only really look at it when you are doing a big journey or you are thinking about something in particular. Maybe if you are a road cyclist, for example, and you are thinking, “Actually, I don’t want to go where roads are closed,” you might use the mapping for that thing. In terms of notifications during, there are legitimate reasons why there are no workforce in the road. For example, “We need the tarmac to dry.” Tell us. One of the biggest frustrations is, “Why is nobody there continuously?” Tell us. People will understand if there is a legitimate reason why nobody is there, but information is key.

I echo everything that was said about consultation for pre-planned works, specifically consultation with disabled people whose voices are most often excluded from planning decisions. I want to come in on the point around the ways that we communicate information to residents. I appreciate that local newspapers are becoming less and less popular, but I want to advocate for a range of methods to be used to communicate this information to those who might be impacted by it. Research has shown that 23% of disabled adults are non-internet users. That could be because they do not have access to a device that connects them to the internet, but it could also be due to inaccessible applications, websites and other digital tools. I am going to look at the map you mentioned that was digitally accessible. It may or may not be for disabled people, and they may not have equal access to that information, but thank you for that. I want to read a quick quote that was submitted by one of our members. I think it speaks a lot to the ways of communication and shows that they are not sufficient. A member contacted us to say, “We had street works outside my flat. I didn’t manage to leave for a whole week because I was too nervous to approach them and ask about alternate routes.” That shows that this person tried to look into alternate routes for themselves but potentially was unable to find out. The ways that they were able to get communication were not accessible, or did not feel comfortable for them. Local authorities need to do more in terms of letting people know before, during and after.

Thank you very much. I have a couple of supplementaries. You started talking about alternative better communication methods, which I am really interested in. Before we come back to that, specifically on emergency closures—perhaps even on things as prosaic as the signage, the information and the detail—I represent a rural constituency where you could describe driver behaviour as, shall we say, confident and persistent when faced with road closure signage. Is there anything specific on information around emergency closures from anyone?

Again, it is really difficult. How can you very quickly convey to that road user, “This is why we are here, and this is how long we think we’re going to be”? At the moment, we use short, sharp messaging: “Emergency works.” That is all we say, really. If there is some way that we can flesh that out, where people can find more information, it can only be to the benefit of everyone else.

On alternatives and better things that we could do, you have all touched on what an alternative could look like. Are there any other comments on how information could be provided in a more user-friendly, accessible and better way? Emma, you were talking about alternative communications. The comment about digital inclusion is really important. In an ideal world, if you could wave a magic wand, how would you find out about closures, whether planned or emergency?

That is a very important question. From Transport for All’s perspective, it is about not providing the information in only one way, but really thinking about the different ways that all members of the public need to receive information. We see quite a lot, with various Government work and projects going on right now, that alternative formats in consultations or information are not being provided to make sure that you have a range of options. Do you have an easy-read version for someone with a learning disability, for example, which is very clear on what is happening, why it is happening, how they might be impacted and what they should do if they are? Are you providing a BSL version of that information? Are you providing an audio version of that? It is really important to have as many modes of communication as possible because that is the only way that you are going to meet accessibility needs.

What would be ideal for bus and coach operators? Is it a daily job sheet? Is it a systems integration thing? What would be the best-case scenario?

There has to be specific communication with bus and coach operators. Every operator that provides registered local services needs to provide open data about their services. There is no excuse for not knowing that an operator runs down a particular stretch of road or street. Given that there are individual users of a piece of highway infrastructure, there are going to be challenges communicating with every individual, so for each operator of a registered service there are hundreds or thousands of people who will be affected. We feel that bus and coach operators should be a primary target for any information that is shared. There should be specific information for that operator so that they can try to make the journeys of all the people who are planning to use their services better.

Jack, your example of the map really proves the point that communication is only effective if it is received, and not just there. Any comments from you?

Exactly that. One of the things that we have thought of is this. When there is a power cut at home or the water goes off, you very quickly get a text message saying, “We are aware that your electricity has gone off. We’re working on it. We think this is how long it will take to return.” Maybe there is an option that the utility companies can have where they have that direct contact with the customer, where they opt into a text or an email, and within a five-mile radius for emergency works they get a text message or an email: “We’ve got some emergency works going on. For more information, here is the weblink.” Similarly, for planned works, I fully appreciate I said everything should be down the digital route, but from the conversation we have had not everybody has that ability. It needs to be easy-to-understand leaflets, “This is what we are doing,” for the planned stuff.

Likewise, electricity companies have registers of vulnerable users and customers they have to proactively reach out to, so it is not beyond the wit of mankind.

Exactly. Again, if you made it as an opt-in, you are giving the consumer the chance and opportunity to say, “I actively want that information,” versus, “This might feel a bit overloading.”

Is there not also the opportunity of better and more sophisticated use of satnav mapping, and so on? More information about even proposed roadworks, and certainly current roadworks, could be linked to a person-working-in-the-road sign on the mapping. You could perhaps click different colours or different signage and know what is going on and how long it is going on for. If we have extensive use of open source data, would that not be possible—not just the fact that there are roadworks causing delays to the traffic, but what those roadworks are? Emma, I recognise that significant numbers of people, particularly people who are not drivers, don’t have satnavs, but for those who are, and obviously the commercial users, is there scope there or should I be asking the highways people?

As part of the AA Route Planner, we capture roadworks. We capture road closures and, indeed, we mark them. If anybody puts the route into the website it will flash that. Similarly, if people are using their mobile phone as a satnav, yes, it will do that. If you are thinking about the old-fashioned, static plug-in satnavs that many people still use—

Really?

Yes; my parents are among them. Those do not get updated. Those maps will be five or 10 years out of date, let alone having live roadworks. You are absolutely right that modern cars are far more connected to the outside world. Getting a feed-in would be far more beneficial.

Getting more data fed in. Thank you. Active travel now.

I want to ask about the long-term effects of openings on pavements and roads. Emma, Keith and then Jack, surface quality can suffer when there are repeated openings and reinstatements are patchwork in nature or otherwise of poor quality. How does that long-term damage to the surfaces affect travellers, including from an accessibility point of view?

Thank you very much for that. Poor surface pavements were reported by our survey respondents, at 77%, as the biggest barrier to any mode of transport that they may take. It was the most frequently cited barrier across all the modes, which is hugely impactful. There are so many calls on local authority budgets in terms of what they can spend on surface work and pavement quality that there definitely is not enough funding available. When there are continued or exacerbated issues that come from street works, it means that yet another section of the pavement is completely inaccessible to disabled people. It has a huge impact in the long term as well. I am just trying to find a quote from one of our members. I will find it and send it through later today, if that is okay. We know that this has a long-lasting impact on people’s ability to go out walking or cycling. Disabled people also cycle, so it cannot be overstated as an issue.

Thank you. That figure is really striking. Please send through any supplementary information. We will come back to local authority responses but let’s keep on surface quality for the moment.

All buses and coaches that operate local services need to be accessible, but they are only truly accessible if they are able to dock at a suitable kerb to allow level boarding of wheelchairs. There can be two issues. One is where the work is around the bus stop itself, and that disrupts the actual paving, meaning that people cannot directly access it. Sometimes also, the road surface is not put back properly and you end up with—we have all seen it—dents in the road. The wheels of the bus, in effect, sink into a little hole. Again, you cannot have level boarding. Until that is repaired, that is a longer-term impact. I know it is not directly what you are asking, but one of the challenges with all of this is that when disruption takes place, and people are not able to do things as they normally do, sometimes it is a disincentive to use public transport in the future because they have had a bad experience. That has a long-term impact on us as an industry because there are fewer people using our services.

Presumably, there is damage to vehicles. Is that a problem as well?

Yes. We did not get much evidence on that, but certainly, having operated buses and coaches in the past, vehicle damage is a factor.

It is important to point out that the local road network is valued at £400 billion. It is a huge asset and arguably the biggest asset our local authorities are responsible for. Unfortunately, for a long time it has been in long-term decline. Opening up the road for any reason depreciates the long-term structural integrity of that road by up to 17%. Every time we open up the road, we start ruining not just the top layer that everybody uses but everything that is underneath. The National Audit Office tells us that 4% of the roads maintenance budget for local authorities is spent on clearing up after the utility companies because the level of work is not up to standard. Their budgets are already stretched, and yet they have to spend their money repairing the work of somebody else. We think that part of that is due to the guarantees that utility companies are held by. In England and Wales, the guarantee is two years; it has to be good for two years. In Scotland it is six. Scotland sees a far better return on its investment, and the return of the road from the utility companies is a heck of a lot better. That is perhaps something that should come through. Finally, not all of these will be attributable to utility companies. Last year, we, as the AA, attended more than 643,000 pothole-related breakdowns. That is not just the utility companies but across the board. That is a huge amount of time, money and effort that is being spent looking after people’s cars after they have come a cropper on a pothole.

I have just found two quotes from disabled people that really illustrate the impact of poor pavement quality. The first is from a visually impaired member, who said, “My cane will hit an uneven section of paving and jab me in the stomach and it hurts like hell.” The other person said, “After resurfacing, the road height is often lower so dropped kerbs don’t work as well.” Again, I want to give those illustrations of how poor pavement quality, and sometimes the attempt to rectify that, is severely impacting disabled people.

Emma, coming back to your point—starting with you, and then the other witnesses may want to come in, although I am conscious that time is getting tight—you talked about local authority responses. How high do you think public awareness levels are about complaints processes through local authorities and utility companies? How effective are those bodies at responding when complaints are made?

The first thing to mention is that disabled people have overwhelmingly told us that if they reported every negative experience or interaction that they have on any mode of transport, it is essentially a full-time job. It takes a huge amount of energy and time for disabled people to report everything that could go wrong with their journey, so there is a good reason why disabled people may not complain as often as they could do. It does not mean that there is a low level of complaints. It is just that disabled people do not have the time, or, equally, they do not feel that their complaint will be acted on, which particularly happens when it comes to pavement quality. There can be reported issues of poor pavements and their impact, but it takes a very long time to get the local authority to take action. You mentioned public awareness. Some work that Transport for All has done in conjunction with Sustrans and the Local Government Association shows us that when a non-disabled person makes a complaint to their local authority about how they might perceive there to be a barrier for disabled people—if they call their local authority and they are not disabled and say, “I’ve noticed that this section of pavement is extremely uneven and I’m concerned about how someone who is a wheelchair user might be able to navigate that”—that doesn’t count towards the threshold that local authorities have in terms of getting action to fix a reported issue because that person themselves is not disabled. It really shows that the public awareness might be there, but it is not being encouraged. For people who think about how other people besides themselves might be impacted, it takes time out of their day to report an issue and often it doesn’t result in any action, so people will not do that again in the future. It is incredibly difficult. Disabled people themselves feel that when they make a complaint it is never acted on; it is not listened to. Across the board that feedback loop is not being closed.

Does anyone else want to come in briefly on that point?

One of the other things that we need to try to help local authorities with is inspections—actually going out and inspecting the works of utility companies. Considering they are getting in excess of 17,000 per local authority, the reality is that they only inspect in their thousands simply because there is too much going on. Again, their budgets are stretched. They have very limited resources, and they need to put that resource and time elsewhere. Being able to inspect the works properly would not only help to raise the standards of the works coming back and being given back to the road network, but it would help everybody else out as well. The more we can check the work that is going on, the better we can see that we are increasing and raising the standards.

Is this particularly on standards and compliance?

And the planning of street works. We will start with Emma.

I won’t go over points that I have already made about how disabled people are impacted, but I will say what some of the consequences are of those barriers. There is increased social isolation of disabled people. In the quote that I mentioned, the disabled person did not leave their home for a week. Disabled people are at higher risk of feeling socially excluded. There is also the knock-on effect in terms of employment, access to healthcare and so on. That is an incredibly important consequence of this. Disabled people feel that they lack independence. There is a lack of safety and this feeling that makes people feel very excluded from their community.

There are problems around the stop itself for buses and coaches and with access to the stop for the bus and coach users. The stop itself might be fine, but it is the route to get there. There is the problem for the bus or coach of navigating to the kerb and getting a straight line to enable wheelchair access in particular. Sometimes ambulant disabled people need decent level access as well. There is the problem of when a stop is closed because of a road closure or other works and what alternative stop provision there is. Sometimes there is a temporary stop, but that may not have a proper kerb in the way that the original bus stop would have. Again, it is just cutting off access and making it more difficult for people to get on and off.

I have nothing further to add.

There is definitely room for improvement. From our industry’s perspective, there don’t seem to be a lot of standards. Sometimes there is local dialogue to try to make things better when they are pre-planned. We have probably all seen a temporary stop somewhere that is not really suitable for disabled people.

To talk generically, very briefly, one of the things that we have seen where there have been improvements across the board in terms of focusing the mind of utility companies is where local authorities have had lane rental schemes in place. That seems to focus the mind a little bit better than the fines system in place elsewhere. It is £120, or £80 if they are paid quickly, for over-running roadworks. That does not mean one iota. Improving the process and rolling out more lane rental, which I know is the Government’s plan and intention, would be good. Extending that to the weekends and bank holidays would, again, be good. It would help focus minds. At the moment, that £120 or £80 stays flat. There is a question mark over whether it should perhaps rise with inflation, so that there is a bit more of a challenge to the utility companies. The one fear and danger of that, however, is where they would pass those costs on: ultimately, probably our bills.

Yes. Very briefly, we know that there are various codes of practice that require wheelchair ramps, for example, at transitions from the footway to the carriageway, and for raised footway boards to be put in place if pedestrians need to be diverted, but we have seen that compliance is very inconsistent. Contractors frequently fail to implement those measures. Sometimes the temporary ramps that are put in are poorly designed. They have not been designed with wheelchair users in mind or tested with wheelchair users or those with any other mobility-limiting impairment. Sometimes they are too steep or too narrow. Guidance might be needed there.

The Government plan to make it easier for car owners to charge their electric vehicles outside their homes. I have a mobility operations office in my constituency. They have stressed to me the importance of that for people who hold blue badges. Emma, there is a conflict here, however. Obviously, being able to charge a vehicle outside your home if you hold a blue badge can be transformative for people, but what we don’t want is for the pavement to be destroyed or covered in other clutter in order to deliver that. I am going to put you on the spot, after asking you a leading question earlier. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, or can we get the balance right?

The way to get that balance right is by inclusive design. The only way to do that is by including disabled people from the very beginning. Disabled people need to be consulted and continually consulted through the design of EV charging points and where they go on pavements. I have seen some very poor guidance in terms of how they can be installed. That is the very short answer to your question. The way to do it is absolutely to do that, but to do it in consultation with disabled people because that is the only way that we are going to know what are the barriers to putting it there and what the barriers are to putting it just outside the home. If we cannot design with disabled people in mind, disabled people will continue to be shut out of using the more sustainable mode of transport that we know disabled people want to take. Our research has shown that over 70% of disabled people want to take more sustainable modes of travel, and that includes electric vehicles, but very few disabled people feel that that is an option available to them. That could be because of the design of electric vehicles not being suitable for all the applications that might be needed. It might also be in terms of the charging facilities and the costs associated with that. We know, in the Motability scheme, for example, they can install a charging point at home, if you receive an electric vehicle from Motability, but there isn’t that guarantee or provision for a disabled person who might be trying to use an EV outside the property. The very short answer to your question is that it can be done, but it cannot be done without disabled people.

A gross generalisation would be that people who drive and have driveways tend to be wealthier, so it is just exaggerating inequalities further.

To add to that, if I may, we know that disabled people are more reliant on cars and door-to-door transport than non-disabled people. That is largely because of the inaccessible public transport option. Any new type of door-to-door transport that is being developed—EVs or autonomous vehicles—needs to be designed with disabled people from day one.

Jack is going to come in and absolutely agree with you, I think.

Yes, I am. If we think about it even more widely, 40% of households do not have any form of dedicated off-street parking. With the mass transition that the Government are hoping to achieve from combustion to electric, solving the query of how to cater for terraced housing and proper residential areas is key. There are lots of grants that local authorities can use, such as the on-street residential charging scheme grant—the ORCS grant—and the levy funding. That is split in two, one of which is capital funding to actually fund the chargers. The other bit is really important, and that is giving local authorities the opportunity to invest in people to design the schemes in their area. In high-density residential areas, we need to introduce some form of communal community EV charging. How do we do it? Similarly, when we are thinking about people who want to connect from home but who live on a terraced street, things like cable gullies are very popular now. Carrying that forward, it is about not trying to traipse cables over the top, being clever and hanging them over trees—I’ve seen it done—or indeed plastic ramps that are big and heavy and intrusive to wheelchair users and people with pushchairs and buggies. That’s not great, so cable gullies are a good thing. Similarly, we have seen local authorities wishing to move the street infrastructure away from the kerbside, moving lampposts to the walls and borders of people’s house fronts. One of the good ways to get electricity in a communal area is through the streetlights. Potentially, maybe we have to move them back. All of that has to be done in consultation and in lockstep with people like those at Transport for All and other wheelchair community users to see how we can best get that balance.

It is difficult because we cannot sacrifice accessibility for driver convenience. I see that Emma is agreeing, which is fantastic.

Thank you very much for your responses. We are slightly over time, so we will bring this first panel to an end. As I say to all witnesses, if there is anything else that comes to mind, in addition to your written evidence and what you have said today, please submit it reasonably quickly. That would be great. Thank you for the time you have spent preparing for today’s meeting.