While we understand the
difficulty occasioned by the Comprehensive Spending Review, the
absence of indicative figures for future years represents a loss
of transparency at a time of significant activity and policy change.
Given the Government's commitment to remain within spending limits
set by the previous Government, and the presence in last year's
Reports of indicative figures to the year 2000, we consider that
it would have been helpful for those figures to be reproduced
in this year's Report with a cautionary note (paragraph 6).
We trust that the discussion of regional issues
in the Annual Report will increase in future years as the role
of the Regional Development Agencies and regional chambers is
developed (paragraph 8).
The Department estimated the cost of rectifying
the problems with its new buildings as "close to seven figures"
and was contesting responsibility for the expenditure with the
landlord. If the resolution of this conflict were to place any
burden on the taxpayer we would expect this to be fully itemised
and explained in next year's Annual Report (paragraph 11).
We understand that future environmental appraisals
of policy within the DETR are to be reported to the Green Minister:
we therefore expect that these reports will provide the basis
for a more meaningful assessment of progress towards integrating
environmental concerns across Government. We recommend that details
of environmental appraisals carried out should be set out in future
Annual Reports (paragraph 18).
Full details of the Government's requirements
of, and payments to, Ordnance Survey under the National Interest
Mapping Service Agreement must be published in the Annual Report
following finalisation of the contract. These details should be
accompanied by an equivalent analysis of the Government's requirements
of, and payments to, Ordnance Survey in the last three years of
funding by grant-in-aid (paragraph 22).
The quality of the non-domestic rating valuation
lists which came into effect in 1990 and 1995 was poor. Every
effort must now be taken with the 2000 revaluation to ensure that
confidence in the valuation system is restored. The Department
must act swiftly to implement any changes arising from the policy
review including any increase in funding of the Valuation Office
which may be necessary to guarantee the quality of the list (paragraph
30).
The DETR has been remiss in failing to investigate
the impact of the national minimum wage upon local government
services. We do not accept that the argument of local discretion
is justifiable given the continuing high level of central prescription
(paragraph 32).
We accept that the DETR has limited resources,
and must give priority to the development of new Government policy.
We accept also that the Government has no plans at present to
undertake a further reorganisation of local government. Nevertheless,
we believe that Parliament and the general public have the right
to know the total cost of the recent local government review,
as well as the costs which were supported by Government borrowing
approvals. The Government, too, should know what the total costs
of the recent review were in case a further reorganisation should
be considered at some time in the future. The DETR must therefore
make efforts to establish the total cost of this policy (paragraph
34).
We recommend that the Health and Safety Commission/Executive
include a greater number of contextual indicators, more accurately
reflecting its wide remit, in next year's Departmental Annual
Report (paragraph 36).
We are deeply concerned that a ban on the importation,
supply and use of white asbestos continues to be delayed. The
Government must ensure that the consultation proceeds according
to the timetable set, and should introduce any necessary regulations
as a matter of urgency (paragraph 37).
The Department should provide a detailed breakdown
of spending on National Roads in future editions of its Annual
Report (paragraph 38).
The proper maintenance of the existing road infrastructure
is essential if new road building is likely to be limited. The
additional money to be allocated for this purpose is most welcome.
The Department should set out its view of the backlog of trunk
and local road maintenance in future editions of the Annual Report
and set targets for the elimination of this backlog over ten years.
Priority should be given to the maintenance of the more heavily
used roads (paragraph 39).
The Department should ensure that the additional
funding for rural transport announced by the Chancellor is used
in ways which provide long-term benefits for users of rural public
transport rather than mere temporary service enhancements that
are withdrawn after the end of the initial period of funding (paragraph
41).
Although the relevant decisions were made a number
of years ago, we believe that the Department was negligent in
guaranteeing the leases for the European night stock without a
proper examination of the risk that the service might never operate.
The Department must publish a full account of this fiasco and
prove that its procedures are now robust enough to ensure that
nothing like it is ever repeated (paragraph 43).
We welcome the mechanism which has been devised
to fund the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. There are, however, other
capital projects with insignificant revenue risk for which finance
via Government-guaranteed bonds might be appropriate, and it would
be regrettable and anomalous if this project were to receive uniquely
favourable consideration. The Government should therefore confirm
that the same funding mechanism would be allowed in the case of
other capital projects, and for future reference should set out
the precise features of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link scheme which
meant that the guarantee should not count against the PSBR. It
should further undertake to consult the Office of National Statistics
for its view on the level of risk that would apply in future cases
where a Government guarantee of this sort might be possible (paragraph
45).
The Thameslink project is an important means of
increasing the capacity of the railway in the congested London
area. It is also necessary to allow improvements to King's Cross
St Pancras Underground station. The Department and OPRAF should
give Railtrack every possible encouragement to proceed with the
Thameslink station at St Pancras as soon as possible (paragraph
46).
We welcome the decision by the Department that
there should be an immediate halt to the sale of British Railways
Board land which could be useful to rail operations in the future
(paragraph 48).
A six-fold increase in LT Buses' operating losses,
when bus travel in London is increasing, is grounds for a thorough
examination by the Department. The reduction in the average number
of bids for each route tender is also a matter of concern. The
Department should satisfy itself as to the reasons for the increase
and whether the tendering process is genuinely competitive and
ensuring value for money. LT Buses has confirmed that the move
from gross cost tendering (where LT bears all the revenue risk)
to net cost tendering (where operators bear a revenue risk) has
contributed to the increased operating losses without any increase
in service quality. The Department should encourage LT Buses in
its tests of different types of tender contract which are aimed
at achieving better value for public money. In line with the practice
of local authorities outside London, London Transport should publish
the range of tender bids it receives and the conditions of the
bus route contracts it awards (paragraph 54).
It is not acceptable that the cost to the taxpayer
and the passenger of providing bus services in London should be
increasing significantly while bus services are failing to meet
most of their quality of service targets. The Department must
discover whether this failure is the fault of the operating companies'
management, of London Transport Buses for failing properly to
monitor compliance with the contracts it has let, or of factors
such as traffic congestion that are outside their control. It
must then explain how it proposes to address the problems that
exist. We were also disappointed to learn that the level of bus
emissions was not one of the bus operators' performance targets;
we recommend that it should be (paragraph 55).
Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on professional
fees in connection with railway privatisation. This extravagance
must not be repeated. The Department and London Underground will
together be spending more on consultants in connection with the
public-private partnership than the additional money that will
be spent on rural public transport. The Department must publish
full details of which professional firms it and London Underground
employ, the work each firm performs, the fees paid to each, and
the reason why the work could not have been performed in-house
(paragraph 56).
It is too early to assess the benefits of combining
the two agencies in the new Marine and Coastguard Agency. We are
anxious, however, that nothing should endanger the maintenance
of a constant watch from all Coastguard stations. The professionalism
of coastguards must not be undermined, and we will take a continuing
interest in the work of the Marine and Coastguard Agency (paragraph
57).
