House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport First Report

2 The Core Tasks

19. The select committee Chairmen who comprise the Liaison Committee have identified four objectives for Committees, each of which is broken down into specific tasks. The tables below set out the core tasks, and also show in summary form how the Committee's activities over the past year related to these tasks. This is followed by a narrative section which highlights aspects of our work in relation to each core task. As we remarked last year, inquiries do not fall neatly into single categories, nor was it the Liaison Committee's intention that they should do so. A single inquiry may carry out many of the tasks identified by the Liaison Committee, as our table shows.

Table 1: Liaison Committee's Core Tasks

OBJECTIVE A: TO EXAMINE AND COMMENT ON THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 1 To examine policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White Papers, draft guidance etc, and to inquire further where the Committee considers it appropriate.

Task 2 To identify and examine areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.

Task 3 To conduct scrutiny of any published draft bill within the Committee's responsibilities.

Task 4 To examine specific output from the department expressed in documents or other decisions.

OBJECTIVE B: TO EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 5 To examine the expenditure plans and out-turn of the department its agencies and principal Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

OBJECTIVE C: TO EXAMINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 6 To examine the department's Public Service Agreements, the associated targets and the statistical measurements employed, and report if appropriate.

Task 7 To monitor the work of the department's Executive Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies, regulators and other associated public bodies.

Task 8 To scrutinise major appointments made by the department

Task 9 To examine the implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives.

OBJECTIVE D: TO ASSIST THE HOUSE IN DEBATE AND DECISION

Task 10 To produce Reports which are suitable for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating committees.

Table 2: Work of the Committee in Relation to Core Tasks

Work of the Committee in Relation to Core Tasks Scrutiny of Policy Proposals Examination of Policy Deficiencies Draft Legislation Scrutiny Department Output Expenditure Scrutiny Public Service Agreements Executive Agencies, NDPBs and others Scrutiny of Major Appointments Implementation of Legislation Debate in the House or committee

Inquiries For Which Reports Were Published

Traffic Management Bill (HC 144) X X

Departmental Annual Report (HC 249) X X X X X

Regulation of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (HC 215-I) X X X

The Office of Fair Trading's Response to the Third Report of the Committee (HC 418) X X X

Disabled People's Access to Transport (HC 439) X X X X

The Future of the Railway (HC 145-I) X X X X X X

School Transport (HC 318-I) X X X X

Navigational Hazards and the Energy Bill (HC 555) X X X

The Work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency
(HC 205)
X X

National Rail Enquiry Service (HC 580) X X

British Transport Police (HC 488) X X X

The Rail Regulators Last Consultations
(HC 805)
X

The Work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (HC 500) X X

Financial Protection for Air Travellers
(HC 806-I)
X X X

Traffic Law and its Enforcement (HC 105-I) X X X X X

Cars of the Future (HC 319-I) X X X

Galileo (HC 1210) X X

Work of the Committee in Relation to Core Tasks
Scrutiny of Policy Proposals Examination of Policy Deficiencies Draft Legislation Scrutiny Department Output Expenditure Scrutiny Public Service Agreements Executive Agencies, NDPBs and others Scrutiny of Major Appointments Implementation of Legislation Debate in the House or Committee

Inquiries in which Evidence was taken and no Report Published

London Congestion Charge
(HC 591-i)
X X

Railways: Southern Region Power Supply Upgrade (HC 836-i) X X

Current Inquiries

Rural Rail X X

Tonnage Tax X

European Union Competence and Transport X X

Road Pricing X X

Performance of London Underground X X X X

Disabled People's Access to Transport (follow up) X X X X

Search and Rescue X X

Objective A: To examine and comment on Policy

EXAMINATION OF POLICY PROPOSALS

20. The Committee focuses a great deal of attention on scrutiny of emerging policy proposals. As the core tasks themselves make clear, new policy initiatives can come from a variety of bodies, and appear in a number of forms. The Committee has intervened in a variety of ways, some of which are described below.

LEGISLATION AND DRAFT LEGISLATION

21. Although the core task refers only to scrutiny of draft legislation, there are occasions when the Committee has intervened on legislation before Parliament. Occasionally we feel that our experience gives us the expertise to comment on a particular issue, or that those considering legislation might be helped if the Committee conducted an inquiry into a particular policy area. In our last annual report we referred to our work on the Traffic Management Bill. This year, we responded to concerns that the provisions of the Energy Bill [Lords] did not adequately take into account the hazards that badly-sited offshore energy installations could pose to shipping.

22. The House of Lords had inserted two clauses to protect shipping lanes from infringement by wind farms, and there were indications that the Government might invite the Commons to remove these provisions. Accordingly, we arranged an urgent hearing on the matter, and our Ninth Report, Navigational Hazards and the Energy Bill looked at offshore wind farms and their effects on maritime safety and navigation.[12] Our report found this was a instance of departmental government at its worst; the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) had developed a policy which ignored the basic needs of the shipping industry. As the lead department for the Bill, the DTI should have made sure that all interests were considered at an early stage. We reported that during our inquiry Government policy towards the clauses inserted by the Lords had changed from outright rejection, to a belief they needed amendments to ensure that they were "workable". We published our report before second reading in the House of Commons, so that it was available to assist our colleagues in the House and Standing Committee in their scrutiny of the Energy Bill. Our Chairman and other members also tabled an amendment to ensure the Government did not seek to overturn the clauses in question, but to replace them. This amendment was withdrawn from the paper when satisfactory Government amendments appeared.

23. No draft legislation was assigned to the Committee to scrutinise, but two pieces of draft legislation fell within our remit; in fact, the Committee had decided to undertake inquiries into the subjects in question before Bills themselves emerged. Our previous annual report mentioned our work on the Disability Discrimination Bill, a case in which the Committee was aware that a draft bill had been promised and began an inquiry to establish why it had taken so long to emerge.[13] Similarly, we had decided to inquire into school transport before the announcement of a draft School Transport Bill.[14] In both cases we speedily established that the bills would fall to other committees for formal prelegislative scrutiny; since the transport issues were part of a greater whole, we had no concerns about those decisions. However, we were concerned that the transport implications of the bills in question should be thoroughly explored. Our aim was not to deal with any detailed drafting points (and indeed we called for evidence before the draft bills were available), but to look at the broad policy involved. We successfully completed our reports in time for them to be used by the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the Education and Skills Committee; we hope our colleagues found this work helped them in their broader consideration of the draft legislation.

A draft draft Bill?

24. During our work on traffic law and its enforcement (see below), the Department for Transport asked whether we would be willing to consider a memorandum setting out its plans for a Road Safety Bill, for which it was seeking approval for the next session. Given that not all bills can be published in draft, we welcome this example of the Department trying to share its thinking with the Committee at an early stage. It was helpful that the Department realised its proposals could be relevant to our inquiry into Traffic Law, and took this initiative. We particularly welcomed the fact that the Minister appeared before us to explain the proposals. However, we would have found it easier to deal with if the memorandum had appeared earlier in the year. As it was, we were able to ask witnesses to our inquiry for their comments on the Governments proposals, but were not able to probe them in depth.

25. We included comments on the Department's proposals in our report on Traffic Law and its Enforcement. While welcoming the Department's openness, we must say that the memorandum sketched many of the Department's proposals, and we were unable to produce a considered view on several of them, simply because the detail needed was lacking. We applaud the Department for Transport's initiative in sharing its legislative plans at an early stage. However, any departments which are considering following its example must realise that the quality of the contribution a committee can make to such dialogue depends both on the quality of the Government's initial contribution, and on the time Committees have available to scrutinise it.

NON DEPARTMENTAL POLICY PROPOSALS

26. Policy proposals do not simply emanate from the Department, and it is important that Committees intervene when they have a view on the advice being given. It can take some courage for a department to resist proposals from a supposedly expert and authoritative body, and a timely committee report can ensure that proposals are dealt with at an early stage. Conversely, the Department may seek to avoid taking necessary but difficult decisions, even when its own regulatory authorities urge it to do so; here too, committees can help by timely intervention. Examples of each type of incident occurred during the last year.

27. The Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) paper "The Regulation of licensed taxi and PHV service in the UK" was the subject for the Committee's third report of the session The Regulation of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the UK. The OFT had made recommendations in three areas: quantity regulation; quality and safety regulation; and fare regulation. We reported that the OFT did not have suitable evidence to support its proposal that local councils should no longer be permitted to regulate the number of licensed taxi vehicles in their area if they considered it appropriate, since its statistical and survey evidence were flawed, and it had discounted all evidence of the adverse effects of deregulation. The Office of Fair Trading's Response to that report was considered in our fifth report of the session.[15] In spite of the OFT's defence of its position, we found there was nothing in the OFT's response to make us change our original view. We were delighted when the Government announced that local authorities would not lose their powers to regulate the number of taxis, but would have to explain the reasons for any quantity restriction.

28. In contrast, we intervened when it appeared that the Government was not taking the issue of financial protection for air passengers sufficiently seriously. We undertook that inquiry to follow up a recommendation made in our report on Aviation, the previous session.[16] In December 2003 the Government said that it would consider the protection given to travellers who were not covered by ATOL or ABTA bonds "in the light of the CAA's recommendations, which are expected within a few months";[17] by June 2004 we felt it was time to find out what had happened. We agreed with the CAA that more financial protection was needed; the Government has asked for further studies to be undertaken; we will be keeping this under review, to ensure that the Government is not scared off from action.

EUROPEAN PROPOSALS

29. As we reported last year, one of our major inquiries has been into European Competence and Transport. This is still ongoing. We have also conducted an inquiry into the Galileo satellite project. In addition, many of our inquires have a European emphasis; our report on financial protection for air passengers considered the possibility and timing of the new consumer protection; the report on The Work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency examined the implementation of particular directives.[18] The inquiry into Cars Of the Future considered the impact of European Standards on matters such as emissions and safety.

AREAS WHERE POLICY IS DEFICIENT

30. As we have already remarked, our most notable policy intervention was on The Future of the Railway. Our deep concerns about spiralling costs and poor performance led us to look into the future of the railway. Our inquiry closely examined the roles and performance of the Rail Regulator, Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority, and also considered the safety regime. We held seven public evidence sessions and received 126 written evidence submissions as well as 30 supplementary submissions. In summary, the evidence we received led us overwhelmingly to conclude that a fundamental re-organisation of the railway was required. In broad terms, the Railways Bill embodies our recommendations, although the Government has not accepted a recommendation for a single Railway Agency. It is particularly notable that the Regulatory Impact Assessment cites the Committee's work as powerful argument for the premise that change is necessary.

31. Departmental government can hinder the development of sensible policy. Traffic Law and its Enforcement looked at the way in which the enforcement of traffic law, and indeed, that law itself, failed to treat road offences seriously, even though the Government has a target to reduce the number of people killed or injured on the roads, and the Department for Transport and its Agencies devote a great deal of effort to this. The Report was strongly critical of the Home Office, which had failed to identify road crime as a priority policing area, and, despite repeated reviews, had failed to bring forward the legal reform necessary to tackle irresponsible drivers.

DEPARTMENTAL OUTPUTS

32. As we explained in the first Chapter, we now have a structure for monitoring the more routine output of the Department, such as statutory instruments and consultation documents.

Objective B: to scrutinise the expenditure of the Department

33. As we describe in more detail below, the Committee holds at least one session a year with the Secretary of State to examine the Departmental Annual Report. In addition, with the assistance of the Scrutiny Unit, our staff examine each Estimate and supplementary estimate, and brief the Committee on matters of interest. In addition to the Estimates Memorandum, which the Department has routinely sent, we regularly ask the Department for written explanations of particular aspects of its estimates.

34. The Committee aims to examine each of the Department's Agencies and NDPBs over the course of the Parliament. These sessions examine the expenditure of the agencies in some detail. They may also examine the interface between finance and administrative decisions. Our Report on the British Transport Police looked at the problems facing the new Police Authority as a result of its establishment as a Non Departmental Public Body, and those facing the BTP itself because it was sponsored by the Department for Transport, rather than the Home Office.[19]

35. Much of our work on individual topics also involves examination of expenditure. Our inquiry into The Future of the Railway looks at the way in which the current structure committed the Government to paying, in effect, whatever the Regulator determined was appropriate for the railway. Our current work on Rural Railways involves consideration of the costs it is reasonable to allocate to such lines.

Objective C: To examine the Administration of the Department

PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND TARGETS

36. The Department for Transport's aims and objectives are identified in the Public Service Agreements (PSAs), set in the Spending Review. In our second report of the session The Departmental Annual Report [20] we examined the PSAs, associated targets and expenditure in the Annual Report published by the Department for Transport in May 2003, the first such report since the division of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) into new departments.[21] We held an oral evidence session with the Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP and Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport, Mr David Rowlands. We have held a similar evidence session in November 2004.

37. In addition, many of our subject inquiries look at targets in context of the wider policy of which they are part. Traffic Law and its Enforcement looked at the target for reducing road casualties, Cars of the Future examined targets for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; The Future of the Railway looked at targets for increasing the use of the rail network, both for passengers and freight. Sometimes our work includes criticism of a target; we have long been sceptical about the target for increasing the number of passenger kilometres travelled on the railway, arguing that it was too heavily biased towards long-distance services, and that substantial increases in number of shorter journeys would not be adequately recognised. That target has now been abandoned.

SCRUTINY OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND OTHERS

38. We have continued our cycle of scrutiny of the Department's agencies and associated bodies, with reports on The Work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency[22] and The Work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.[23]

SCRUTINY OF MAJOR APPOINTMENTS

39. We took evidence from the new Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport, David Rowlands, and the new Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Captain Stephen Bligh. We also examined Sir Alistair Graham, the Chairman-Designate of the British Transport Police Authority before he took office. These examinations were all part of our wider work, rather than being in the nature of "confirmation hearings"; we take a keen interest in Government appointments, but do not feel it is necessary to be implicated in them.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISLATION

40. Almost all our inquiries touch on the implementation of legislation in some way. Work on the Office of Fair Trading's proposals about taxi deregulation, described above, required us to look into the effects of the existing law, and this is true of many apparently "forward looking" inquiries. Sometimes, as with the inquiries into The Future of the Railway or Traffic Law and its Enforcement, we are concerned with the practical effects of a broad legislative framework, rather than the implementation of a particular piece of legislation. The first of these has already produced legislative change; we hope that the second will do so in due course. Sometimes, as in our examination of the British Transport Police, we look at the effects of a single bill; in this case the unexpected consequences of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. In this particular case, we hope that many of the problems can be resolved by administrative means. Similarly, we are close to completing an inquiry into Tonnage Tax, which is examining the effectiveness of the measures introduced by the Finance Act 2000.

41. Sometimes the value of our work arises from the fact that we look repeatedly at the way in which legislation is working in practice. We have not published a report on the London Underground Public Private Partnership since our predecessor committee reported in January 2002[24], but we have regularly taken evidence on it. Our decision to do so was recently welcomed by Mr Tim O'Toole, the Managing Director of LUL:

We have similarly kept the London Congestion Charge under review.

ASSISTING THE HOUSE IN DEBATE AND DECISION

42. This year, our work has been particularly connected to the work of the House. Our Reports were relevant to four second readings: those of the Traffic Management Bill, School Transport Bill, the Energy Bill [Lords] and the Railways Bill. The reports on the Regulation of Licensed Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles were debated on an Estimates (half) Day.

43. Our reports also have continuing relevance, and many reports from the previous year were debated. Our report on Aviation was both the subject of an Estimates Day debate and tagged to the debate on the Government White Paper on the Future of Air Transport. Reports on Overcrowding on Public Transport and Ports were the subjects of lively and well attended debates in Westminster Hall, and our previous year's report on The Work of the Highways Agency was the subject of an Estimates (half) Day debate.

12 Ninth Report of Session 2003-04, HC 555 Back