House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport First Report

1 Introduction

1. This is the third annual report of the Transport Committee, which has the task of examining the expenditure, policy and administration of Department for Transport (DfT), its Executive agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs). During the year we have completed those inquiries which were in progress at the time of our last annual report and undertaken a wide range of other work. In setting our programme we have had to balance a variety of factors. Although the Liaison Committee's core tasks underpin our work, they do not set out a fixed programme; we use them in ways that ensure we both respond swiftly to live issues, either before the House or in the country as a whole, and take a longer view of selected policies.

Working methods

2. Select committees work in many different ways, and perform a number of different functions. Collectively, the House has given us guidance as to our responsibilities both in the Standing Orders and now in the core tasks, but the way in which they are fulfilled is a matter for each committee. There is no right answer to the question of how select committees can best operate. We particularly value the fact that our limited size means that Members can engage with every inquiry, and that we are able to work as a team, in which everyone has expertise to bring. We know that other committees extend the range of subjects they can cover by working through sub-committees or even rapporteurs. We have not done so.

3. In an age where everything is assessed, select committees too are open to scrutiny. We welcome that. But ultimately, committees themselves have to decide how best to carry out their remit, and those decisions will depend on the choices of the Members concerned, and their judgement of how best the Committee can deploy its resources, which are limited both in staff numbers, and in the time that Members can devote to committee work without skimping other important parliamentary duties. There are many commentators who consider that select committees could and should do more of the particular kind of work that the commentator in question considers valuable. But, in our view, it is important to be clear that select committees are not academic units, or auditing bodies, but groups of Members of Parliament. We make great efforts to make sure that our reports are accurate, and rest on evidence. One of our functions as MPs is to hold the government to account, and select committees make an important contribution to that process. But much of our best work this year has not been in "holding the Government to account", a phrase which implies post hoc examination of decisions made by others, but in intervening in the policy debate, or even initiating such a debate, and producing real results. Sometimes our interventions have been on matters which affect everybody, such as The Future of the Railway;[1] sometimes they have been on far smaller issues, such as the regulation of taxis,[2] or the funding of the British Transport Police.[3] We are in a dialogue with Government, and although we often wish that the Government would listen more, we do not underestimate the extent to which a select committee can produce real change, sometimes quickly, sometimes through keeping a particular topic under review over several years.

4. Ultimately our choice of inquiries is guided by our political view of what is important, and our judgement of where we can best operate. Sometimes a consequence of our work is easily measurable, in changes to government policy, or simply new knowledge brought to light. But much is far harder to assess; a series of select committee reports can, over many years, change the political consensus. And an important benefit from the select committee system - the existence of a group of knowledgeable Members from different parts of the political spectrum, used to working together and weighing the evidence - is inherently unquantifiable.

THE INQUIRY PROCESS

5. Like all departmental committees, we work by undertaking inquiries and, if we consider it appropriate, producing reports. It is very rare indeed that we take evidence in confidence; we believe it is extremely important that our evidence is taken in sessions that are open to the public, and that it is on the record. In the past session, we held 32 meetings, agreed 18 reports, and took evidence from over 200 witnesses. A great deal of work is carried out in addition to the formal process of taking evidence; staff correspond with witnesses to clarify their evidence, undertake desk research on published material and monitor policy development within government. This means that although some reports are produced very quickly, there can be quite a long interval between evidence taking and publication of a report. For example, in November 2003 we took evidence on the tendering process for National Rail Enquiry Service; the tendering process was causing concern, and we thought it important to have a speedy hearing.[4] However, the Report itself appeared this year, after further written investigation. The two stages of the inquiry performed complementary but separate purposes; our evidence session explored the issues and put them on the public record while the tender process was a matter of public concern; the Report gave a considered view both of the performance of the National Rail Enquiry Service itself, and of the measures that would be needed to ensure the quality of the service in future.

6. The progress of our inquiries depends on Department's giving accurate information about the work they themselves are conducting. We appreciate that it may be difficult to estimate when studies will be completed, but inaccurate guesses hinder our work. In October this year we explained that our inquiry into Traffic Law and its Enforcement had been delayed because the Home Office had told us that a key review would be published at the beginning of the year.[5] We waited for several months before we decided to report; nonetheless the review has still not appeared, and we have asked the Home Office to supply it.

7. Sometimes we decide simply to take evidence on particular subject, without making a report. Not only does this mean that we are better informed, it makes evidence available to the public, and enables us to monitor topics of long term interest which may have already been discussed in a previous report. For example, in our report on Overcrowding in Public Transport we described the difficulties that had arisen when new rolling stock was ordered for the Southern region which required more power than the system was equipped to supply.[6] This year we took a supplementary evidence session on the Southern Region Power Supply Upgrade.

8. Sometimes our inquiries drive the political agenda. In the last Annual Report, we reported that our inquiry into the Future of the Railway, which was then in progress, had apparently prompted the Government to initiate a review of the structure of the industry. This year, we completed the inquiry, and concluded that the current structure of the rail industry was not "fit for purpose". The Government's agreement with this basic premise can be seen in the Railways Bill, which is currently before the House. During the year, we conducted another agenda setting inquiry, into Traffic Law and its Enforcement, and took a long look at the Government's policies for producing the Cars of the Future.[7]

ASSISTING THE HOUSE

9. Perhaps the most notable thing about the past year has been the extent to which we have been able to draw upon our experience to respond quickly to matters of current concern. Sometimes these are issues which have not yet come before the House, such as the Office of Fair Trading's proposals for deregulation of the taxi market, but we have been increasingly trying to ensure that our work connects with the work of our colleagues elsewhere in the House, in ways that add to it rather than duplicate it. The previous annual report mentioned the way in which we had drawn upon the evidence we had taken in the inquiry into Traffic Law to produce a short report on the Traffic Management Bill.[8] We responded to concerns about the extent to which the Energy Bill took account of the needs of maritime industries by conducting an extremely speedy inquiry.[9] We similarly undertook an inquiry into the Galileo satellite navigation system, on a timetable which enabled us to report before the project was discussed at the European Union Transport Council, and, indeed, before the debate in European Standing Committee A.[10] The extent to which our work has been available to the House can be seen by the fact that our work has been "tagged" as relevant to debate on five occasions, two of our reports were debated in Westminster Hall and four were the subject of Estimates Days' debates on the floor of the House.

10. We very much value the ability to inform the House, and when necessary we have altered our programme to enable us to do this. Our staff monitor the secondary legislation and European Union proposals which come before the House. However, we should be clear that our task is to assist the House and colleagues on other committees; not to replace them. There are times when we feel it is appropriate for the Chairman and other Members to put forward amendments to legislation before the House, as we did on the Energy Bill. For example, if the Committee is concerned about a particular policy, there may be a legislative opportunity to change it. Such interventions are the exception rather than the rule; we do not have the resources for line by line legislative scrutiny, and could not perform it without damaging our other functions. We will not, for example, be conducting an exhaustive analysis of the Railways Bill; if we did so, it would be the only item on our programme for several months, and would not be completed until after the Bill had passed. Moreover, our scrutiny should have a different quality from that conducted by those charged with the scrutiny of legislation or delegated legislation. We are concerned with the policy intent underlying the Government's legislative proposals, rather than with the way those proposals are drafted.

MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION

11. Just as we cannot, and do not wish to, scrutinise every proposal or piece of legislation emanating from the Department, so we cannot scrutinise how each piece of legislation is implemented. We could invite the Department to submit memoranda each year on each piece of legislation; we do not believe that the burden on the Department would be justified, and we suspect that such a practice would simply lead to a succession of papers putting departmental activity in the best possible light. In practice, of course, the way in which legislation has been implemented, or the effects of legislation, are important factors in many of our inquiries, as we discuss later in this report.

Membership

12. The effectiveness of Committee depends on its members. Like all select committees, Members are nominated in proportion to the representation of parties within the House, and like all select committees, our Members come from many places within the United Kingdom; they represent constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and from many different areas in England. This balanced membership enables us to take a broad view of transport policy. The current membership of the committee is given in the opening pages of this Report; Mr Gregory Campbell and Mr George Osborne also served during the year under review.

Relations with the Department for Transport and other government departments

13. In last year's report, we commented that, at a working level, our relationship with the Department for Transport was extremely good. It is our task to report frankly about the performance of the Department and its Agencies, and the Department helps us by readily providing the information we need. Ministers have appeared before us whenever we have requested it; during the year we took evidence from the Secretary of State twice and from other Ministers in the Department on five occasions.

14. This year in particular, much of our work has dealt with areas where different departments needed to work together to make Government policy effective. For example, the policy toward Cars of the Future will depend on Treasury tax incentives, the pollution targets shared jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, and incentives developed by the Department of Trade and Industry. As we relate in more detail in the discussion of the core tasks, each Department has its natural group of "clients", and may not readily recognise when its policies affect the "clients" of another Department. Even when the Government sets itself admirable targets, such as that to reduce road death and injury, departments such as the Home Office can fail to work as they should to implement it. We believe that part of our value is that we can take evidence from across government, and challenge Government Departments to act as part of a greater whole.

15. For this reason it is particularly satisfactory that during the year we have been able to take evidence from Ministers and officials from departments other than the DfT, including the Department for Education and Skills, whose Secretary of State appeared before us, the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. We have only encountered difficulty on one occasion, and those difficulties were resolved speedily when the Treasury informed us that there had been a misunderstanding. We very much hope that this indicates wholehearted Government acceptance of the principle that departmental select committees need to consider Government policy as a whole, and cannot be confined to taking evidence from "their" department.

SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS

16. In our last report, we noted that "there may be scope to build on [our relationship with the Department] so that the information on the forward programme given to us by the Department is more structured; we will be asking our staff to explore this further."[11] As a result of discussions between our staff and officials, the Department has agreed to send a wide range of information without it having to be specifically requested. The Transport Committee Office is now routinely sent all Statutory Instruments, departmental consultations and agendas of forthcoming European Transport Council meetings. Using these, staff draw our attention to matters which might be of interest. We do not pretend that this system amounts to systematic monitoring of everything the Department does; 11 Members supported by a small secretariat could not hope to provide such a service. But it does mean that we are broadly aware of the Department's activities, and it gives us the opportunity to intervene if we wish. We are extremely grateful to the officials in the Department for Transport. We assure them that they are not sending material to the Committee for no good purpose; it is carefully examined, and is extremely useful.

Staffing

17. In 2000, the Liaison Committee recommended that greater resources should be given to select committees. As a result, the Committee's staff has grown steadily so that it now includes four staff who manage inquiries (one of whom works part time) and three support staff. We have also occasionally drawn on the assistance of students working in the House as part of a year's work experience. In addition to our permanent staff we are able to draw on the expertise of our specialist advisers, and the resources of the Scrutiny Unit. Since our full staff complement was reached this spring, the increase in committee resources has not only allowed us to undertake a wide range of inquiries, but has given us the flexibility to adjust our programme in response to events. The experts from the Scrutiny Unit who are used to working for committees and can be drawn on to assist at short notice have given us essential extra help.

18. Although we frequently have to assess our priorities, currently, we do not consider that our activities are severely constrained by lack of staff. This may not always be the case. The Scrutiny Unit may not be able to respond as readily as now if the demands placed on it increase, because committees seek to use its services more frequently or because its involvement in prelegislative scrutiny grows. Committees set their own working patterns; currently we do not use sub-committees and are content with a staff which has the resources to give us the support and information we need to draw up our own plans of inquiry; a future committee might wish to work differently, or be less willing to accept trade-offs between the amount of work we can undertake and the speed of reporting.

1 Seventh Report of Session 2003-04, The Future of the Railway, HC 145-I Back

2 Third Report of Session 2003-04, The Regulation of Licensed Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the UK, HC 215-I and Fifth Report of Session 2003-04, The Office of Fair Trading's Response to the Third Report of the Committee: The Regulation of Licensed Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the UK, HC 418 Back

3 Twelfth Report of Session 2003-04, British Transport Police, HC 488 Back

4 Eleventh Report of Session 2003-04, HC 580 Back

5 Sixteenth Report of Session 2003-04, HC 105-I Back

6 Seventh Report of Session 2002-03, HC 201 Back

7 Seventeenth Report of Session 2003-04, HC 319 Back

8 First Report of Session 2003-04, HC 144 Back

9 Ninth Report of Session 2003-04, Navigational Hazards and the Energy Bill, HC 55 Back