Examination of witnesses (Questions 460
- 479)
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2000
SIR RICHARD
MOTTRAM, MR
JOHN BALLARD,
MR TOM
ADAMS and MR
ALAN EVANS
460. Do you think that a department's performance
against PSAs should be externally validated?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I do not see a compelling reason
to externally validate it. A lot of the data that we use is being
generated independently. It is scrutinised and generated on a
basis which is independently monitored because we now have better
arrangements with National Statistics and a lot of the information
we are using is generated through the National Statistics machine.
I am not aware that anybody criticises our data as being unsound.
461. In which case would there would appear
to be any compelling argument against external validation, for
example allowing the National Audit Office, for instance, to cast
an eye over and to comment if they wanted to?
(Sir Richard Mottram) No, but it is not their fundamental
task, is it?
Mr Donaldson
462. You appear to have downgraded the importance
of some of your targets. For example, why is the target to triple
rail freight by 2007 now only aspirational when it was fully endorsed
in the Integrated Transport White Paper?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I think that the target to triple
rail freight by 2007 was a target of a particular company and
it was actually described in the 1998 Transport White Paper as
an aspirational target. We have done nothing to this target. What
the White Paper said was that the "main rail freight operator,
English, Welsh and Scottish Railway [EWS] has an aspirational
target of doubling its traffic measured by its own kilometres
over five years." We reported that target. We welcomed the
fact that they had such an aspiration. We could not commit them
to delivering that. As it has turned out I do not think they are
now going to deliver it. What they are now looking to do is to
achieve eight per cent growth per year. We strongly welcome that
if they achieve that. We have not changed that target in any way.
463. Are you saying that if they do not achieve
the eight per cent, too bad? You did endorse the target that was
previously set.
(Sir Richard Mottram) I will put it slightly differently
then. Not slightly differently. We have a policy, if it is value
for money, to help support transporting freight on railways. We
have such a policy and we back that policy up with public money.
As a Department we have tried to work in a very co-operative and
constructive way with English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. Everything
that we can do as a Department we will do to help them so long
as it is value for money and proper use of taxpayers' money to
help them and anybody else who wants to get into the rail freight
business to facilitate growth in rail freight, that is the job
of Government, but we cannot be responsible for their performance
and the commercial decisions that they have taken.
Mrs Gorman: How do you facilitate that?
Mrs Dunwoody
464. They give them money mainly. Are we to
take it, Sir Richard, that in your report when you quote other
people in the transport industry—take transport for the
sake of argument—that you are really saying "these
may be targets but, of course, if somebody else is responsible
we can only say we thought that was a good idea at the time"?
(Sir Richard Mottram) No. I am being asked a specific
question about this target, was it aspirational or was it not?
What I am saying is this target was in terms expressed by them
as aspirational. We endorsed it in the White Paper on that basis.
We should make clear in relation to targets that we accept as
a Department, and this is an interesting point about Public Service
Agreement targets and so on, that they are meaningful in the sense
that we can deliver them. If we cannot deliver them we should
not have them as a target for our Department.
465. So we do not want aspirational PSAs?
(Sir Richard Mottram) We do not want aspirational
PSAs precisely.
466. No, no, what a good idea. Therefore, we
can assume those things which are mentioned in your Annual Report
are not aspirational—
(Sir Richard Mottram) Targets that we have accepted
and which are reported on in our Annual Report are not aspirational.
Mrs Gorman
467. I think I have asked my question on this.
It is a question of how do you connect between your Department,
your aspirations and the people out there? Gwyneth Dunwoody very
kindly answered my question for me. It does seem to me that a
lot of these wonderful aspirations put pots of money on one side
but the real connection between the bloke who has got an idea
in the head and thinks a bit of money might help him is often
very long and torturous. Are you aware of that? Do you ever explore
these avenues or do you think now you have filled up the pot that
is the end of it?
(Sir Richard Mottram) Filled up the pot in which way?
468. The bit of money that you are allocating
to whatever aspiration it is.
(Sir Richard Mottram) If you think about how the Department
tries to work, whether it is in relation to transport or in relation
to anything else, what we tend to have is a suite of things that
we are doing. We will have a policy framework which we hope is
reasonably clear and which we try to communicate to people through
a whole series of means. We might have a legislative framework,
we might have legislation and we might have co-operative fora
of various kinds, which the Department works on all the time,
which reach agreement. We issue best practice, often in consultation
with those who would implement the best practice. We sometimes
give people money to do specific things. We try to do all of those
things in relation to most of our policies. If I can say one more
thing, Chairman, what is very interesting coming to this Department
from the Department which I used to be in charge of, which was
Defence, it is much more complicated here because we have got
to persuade people to do these things.
Mrs Dunwoody
469. It is always more of a bore, is it not?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I think it is more interesting
actually, much more interesting. But it is potentially trickier
because you have got to persuade people to change their behaviour.
If we go back to the point you raised with me earlier about motorists,
we do want motorists to change their behaviour, that is we want
them to use cars only when it is really sensible to use cars.
We do not want them to stop using cars, we do not want to be anti-car,
we want them to use cars for those journeys for which a car is
appropriate. In order to seek to change people's behaviour you
have got to communicate with them and you have got to get them
on-side, they have got to see there is something in it for them.
So, therefore, for example, it is no use exhorting them to use
public transport if you do not provide public transport. You have
got to have all of those levers in place and you have got to persuade
people to change their behaviour.
470. Do you evaluate in any way what the cost
of getting through your message is—
(Sir Richard Mottram) We do.
471.—in relation to the amount of money
which actually gets allocated to the end product meaning the improved
rail freight or whatever?
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
472. It is easy to go on employing more and
more people to put the message across but are you doing something?
(Sir Richard Mottram) There are different cases. If
you take, say, the case of rail freight, we issue grants for certain
activities in support of rail freight against defined business
cases, against clear criteria, where they have to deliver in relation
to the money they are given. All that is laid down, it is a wholly
structured process. People only get money if we believe the business
case satisfies the criteria and the legislation and we monitor
their performance. If we talk about some of the more intangible
things that we are trying to do, for example like the Are you
doing your bit? environmental campaign, we would have a set
of objectives in relation to that campaign, we would monitor whether
we think we have achieved those objectives and what we think about
that campaign in the light of that. Another example would be road
safety.
Chairman
473. Sir Richard, we do have to watch the time.
(Sir Richard Mottram) I am just trying to be helpful.
Chairman: I realise you are trying to be helpful
but I have a problem with trying to get all of the questions in
if I can.
Mrs Gorman
474. There is just one last point. There is
a whole raft of people in the private sector who help people to
access grants, access European grants but also domestic grants.
It seems to me that it is complicated and difficult otherwise
these people would not be making a living helping people to do
it. I want you to tell me what you think the cost of your message
is because it seems that other people have difficulty in getting
through to the grant itself as opposed to knowing about the grant.
(Sir Richard Mottram) I think we would have to deal
with specific cases there. If we have ways of working with people
which are not user friendly we should change them. If you have
got specific cases where you think we are not being user friendly
I would look at it and seek to change it.
Mr Gray
475. Just bringing you back one second to an
answer you gave to Mr Benn a moment ago. You said process targets
have been reduced in their usage because people out there do not
understand them as well as other targets and they are less understandable
to the general public. I think that is what you said.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
476. Am I right in thinking from that answer
what you are saying is the targets, therefore, are not actually
targets which the Government must drive itself forward to achieve
but the purpose of the targets is to say to people out there that
they have been achieved?
(Sir Richard Mottram) No, I am not saying that at
all. What I am saying is an ideal target would capture an outcome
that people wanted to achieve, or at least a substantial output
in relation to an outcome that people could understand and would
be challenging, would be achievable, would be time specific and
people out there could understand what it meant. That is what
I am saying.
477. Why does it matter?
(Sir Richard Mottram) Because they hold Government
to account.
478. Let us imagine a target that is very demanding,
all of the things you describe apart from the last bit, but is
extremely obscure, extremely difficult for the public to understand,
the public are totally and utterly uninterested in a particular
target but nonetheless it keeps the Government on their toes and
actually makes the Government drive forward with other things.
What would be wrong with that?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I think the answer there would
be to say that such a target would obviously be a very good thing
but I would argue that you should think about how you can express
it so that people can understand it.
479. Of course you should explain it but one
of the criteria for setting such a target should not be its explainability.
(Sir Richard Mottram) That is a fine point.
| 
