Examination of witnesses (Questions 540
- 559)
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2000
SIR RICHARD
MOTTRAM, MR
JOHN BALLARD,
MR TOM
ADAMS and MR
ALAN EVANS
Chairman
540. I think that is one of the things that
we feared, that perhaps no-one is accountable.
(Sir Richard Mottram) I am not saying no-one is accountable,
I am just saying it is not a DETR body, it is a Customs &
Excise appointed body which is a private non-profit distributing
company. The framework was set up in this way obviously for very
good reasons in the original legislation.
Mrs Gorman
541. Then why, may I ask, are we asking you
this question because the question we are asking you is about
the Landfill Tax Credit?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I do not know what questions
you are going to ask me so I do not know the answer to that. We
have a very direct interest in this tax.
542. Like the environment.
(Sir Richard Mottram) We think that the environmental
benefits of this tax are worth having. We think that the scheme
itself generally speaking has worked well. What is interesting
about the Guardian articles—I will not speak for
the Guardian—is they do not call into question the
value of this tax, what they call into question is the way in
which it is being implemented. We have a direct interest, I am
not shuffling this off.
Chairman
543. Your direct interest is particularly to
the things like fly tipping, is it not?
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes, it is, and to the success
of the scheme. So if the scheme was undermined by failures we
would have a strong departmental interest. I was just making a
technical point that ENTRUST is not my responsibility. I will
take it away.
Miss McIntosh
544. I wonder if we could return to one or two
of the issues we touched on earlier. What is the Government doing
to encourage more people in rural areas to car-share where that
is appropriate? Is the Department taking any specific initiatives
in this regard?
(Sir Richard Mottram) We have in two senses. One is
that as part of Greening Government, green travel plans and so
on, we encourage car-sharing, including in rural areas. The other
is that in relation to the Environmental Action Fund we have funded
one experiment and we hope that experiment, and we will try to
spread the word about this, will generate a lot more interest
in rural areas in car-share. We are in favour of it and we are
seeking to facilitate it.
545. Were you or were the Department satisfied
with the standards achieved in provisional local transport plans
that were submitted last July?
(Sir Richard Mottram) We were reasonably satisfied,
yes. This was the sort of first year really. Obviously we as a
Department and the authorities who submitted them have a learning
process and we have since issued further guidance in collaboration
with them. Yes, we were satisfied, we thought it was a good exercise
which was entered into with great commitment by the authorities
concerned and taken very seriously by the Department. We were
pleased with it.
546. I understand Oxford Brookes University
reached a different conclusion.
(Sir Richard Mottram) They had criticisms of it, yes.
I am not saying that it was perfect, one would not have expected
it to be perfect, it was the first year of something. We have
learned some lessons. The provisional plans were agreed in a way
which I think generally speaking, although obviously some authorities
had concerns about it, were welcomed. We are now working on a
longer term basis with more detailed guidance. As far as we know
the authorities we work with are reasonably satisfied with this
process.
547. Could I just turn to this question of de-trunking
and how local transport plans will fit into that.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
548. Is my understanding correct that the way
roads are going to be maintained in the future is partly through
the SSA and partly through the normal highways maintenance budget
the local authority would have?
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes, and capital of course.
549. And capital and partly through the local
transport plan projected expenditure.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
550. And partly, I think you mentioned, the
transfer of resources which the Department has not yet concluded.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
551. I have in front of me, and other colleagues
have this as well, a document that was submitted by John Gant
from the Department.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes, John Gant, my Department.
552. I would like advice from you, Sir Richard,—
(Sir Richard Mottram) I probably do not have this
document in front of me, that is the only problem.
553. Earlier you said this is an area which
is under discussion and it is one that I and Members of the Committee
take a keen interest in. I have a particular interest in North
Yorkshire's accident record which is the worst in the country
and it is not people from North Yorkshire who are causing the
accidents, as we have established. I am very concerned that we
have not had enough money to even grit the roads in the last year
or two which has road safety implications. Within the table that
is called "Summary of Rates and Adjustments for Transfer
of Funds", I must say like other targets when you build a
roundabout and when you have reached the number of fatalities,
deaths and injuries, this does—
(Sir Richard Mottram) We try to prevent them actually
but I know what you mean.
554. Prevention is better than cure obviously.
It does seem a very, very complicated proposal that the Department
and the Highways Agency are coming up with. Could you shed any
more light on that to the Committee this morning?
(Sir Richard Mottram) I could not really. The principle
that we are operating under—and I can go away and look at
this document and come back if you have got particular concerns
about it—is de-trunking on the basis that was set out in
the 1998 White Paper and the provision will be provided to those
authorities who take the de-trunked roads to maintain them to
the appropriate standard. As I said earlier, although again we
can look at specific cases, generally speaking the Highways Agency
network is maintained to an appropriate standard. So, generally
speaking we are not transferring roads which need a lot of maintenance
to get them up to scratch. Then the argument becomes what would
be an appropriate level of transfer to keep them at the level
at which they need to be maintained? That is a technical question
if the Committee has got concerns about it but I could not remotely
pretend to be an expert.
555. It does actually say there that for the
purposes of this paper routine maintenance is deemed to include
winter maintenance and when North Yorkshire have been deprived
of sufficient funds to maintain the winter roads I would like
to put down a marker. Perhaps we can refer to this when you have
more of an idea about how those funds are transferred as the de-trunking
programme progresses.
(Sir Richard Mottram) Yes.
556. Do you think that the local transport plans
are looking sufficiently at walking and pedestrian safety in their
content?
(Sir Richard Mottram) We have issued guidance to local
authorities about how they might think, with us, about making
places more pedestrian friendly. We were reasonably satisfied
with the approaches they were taking in their plans. This is a
subject that produced a lot of mirth but I think it is rather
an important subject myself. When I am driving around the country,
and I do not know whether other people think this, I can see that
there is actually a lot of money going in at local level to try
to make places more pedestrian friendly.
Chairman: I think that this is a topic that
the Committee is going to return to.
Mr Gray
557. This is really as a supplementary to this
to look at the way the Department is actually working. I wrote
to Keith Hill in February to ask for a meeting on behalf of Wiltshire
County Council to discuss our new transport plan and received
a reply yesterday turning the request down. That is five or six
months. That is not very good. Is that the average time of ministerial
replies these days?
(Sir Richard Mottram) No. One of the problem areas
in the Department is that we do not reply well enough to Members
of Parliament's letters and so on. Obviously a delay of that kind
is not acceptable.
558. It used to be two weeks, that was the target,
was it not?
(Sir Richard Mottram) The target we operate is the
same as under the previous Government, 15 working days. Our performance
is not good enough.
Chairman
559. So what is the performance?
(Sir Richard Mottram) Our performance on ministerial
correspondence in the last year was 45 per cent. We have a PSA
target which is to improve by 2001-02 to, I think, 63 per cent.
Our performance was 45, it is not good enough. We have set in
hand all sorts of measures, which I can describe for the Committee,
to improve our performance. Obviously this is an example that
is not a good example.
| 
