5 Agencies
41. During this Parliament we have been taking evidence
on each of the Department's agencies in turn. We have been concerned
about the extent to which the Department is in control of its
agencies' finances. We were extremely pleased to be told that
financial systems had been improved, and that the Highways Agency
now had a professionally qualified finance director, that the
Department was intending to introduce monthly accounts, and that
the departmental accounts were no longer being signed off late.[30]
42. As part of our regular monitoring of departmental
expenditure we asked for a fuller description of the "immediate
pressures" which had led to an increase in the Department's
funding in the spending review. As we had expected, these pressures
had largely resulted from the rail industry, but we were also
interested to note that the Highways Agency faced additional spending
pressures due to changing assumptions about the Agency's PFI programme.[31]
Further questioning revealed that the Highways Agency has reduced
the proportion of capital investment being delivered through its
PFI programme, and even when PFI projects are used, the majority
of these contracts will now be accounted for on-balance sheet.
We welcome the Highways Agency's new realism about the nature
of the projects for which PFI is sensible, and its change of policy
on PFI accounting; they may appear to increase public expenditure
in the short term, but they give a more realistic assessment of
public expenditure on roads.
43. We questioned the Department about the Highways
Agency targets, which currently include Ministerial targets, Road
Users' Charter targets and Whitehall targets. We note that from
2004-05 there will no longer be separate ministerial and road
users' charter targets; this must be sensible. However, we are
concerned that the new performance measures are in many cases
less precise than before.
44. We asked the Department particularly about the
Highways Agency's previous performance requirement to survey all
non-motorised crossing points in the core network, and to complete
a five-year improvement programme by the end of March 2008. The
Department told us that the list had not been developed into a
five-year programme because of funding pressures, and that the
Agency was now unlikely to be able to implement all identified
non-motorised user crossings by 31 March 2009, and that it no
longer had any target to do so. We were assured that "in
developing the Business Plan consideration will be given to how
best to meet the needs of non-motorised users within the budgets
available."[32]
The Department has an overall policy to increase walking and cycling;
it should not be hampered by budgetary pressures within one of
its Agencies. It is ironic that the Highways Agency target for
non motorised crossings should be abandoned when local authorities
are being urged to increase accessibility to walkers and cyclists
by improving rights of way in both rural and urban areas.[33]
The Department must ensure that the Highways Agency takes the
needs of non-motorised users seriously, and provides the crossings
they need. This target should not simply be abandoned.
30 Q87-89 Back
31
Ev 25 Back
32
Ev 25 Back
33
Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans, pp 7,24, 43, 83 Back
|
