Select Committee on Transport Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Department for Transport

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE FOLLOWING ORAL EVIDENCE ON 16 NOVEMBER 2005

ROADS

(Q9)  What measures are planned to incorporate road links which experience severe seasonal congestion into the new national congestion target?

  The new target focuses on the worst 10% of journeys on each of the roads covered by the target. It will often be the case that seasonal or one-off events will result in journeys that are among the worst 10%, so there will be a direct and strong incentive for the Highways Agency (HA) to seek to improve road conditions at these times.

  A total of 103 routes have been defined across the HA network covering virtually the entirety of the network for monitoring purposes. All but a small number of these routes will be included in the new target. It is likely some routes will need to be excluded from the target because the data for these routes will not be of good enough quality.

  In discussion, the Committee mentioned routes to the South West, Silverstone, Castle Donington and the A64 to Scarborough. It is likely that the A30 from Exeter to Bodmin will not be included in the target because good quality data will not be available in time. Some sections of the M42 and M40 near to Silverstone and Castle Donington may not be included in the target to begin with due to their current level of data quality, although they would be brought into the target over the next year. The A64 will be included in the target.

  In addition to some of the defined routes being excluded from the target, a number of short stretches of road could not be included in routes. Each of these "spurs" is short in length and most actual journeys including one of them would spend a greater amount of time on one of the defined routes.

  For all sections of road not included in the target—either excluded routes or spurs—performance will be monitored and performance managed and incentivised by the HA and the Department using other indicators that require less data or are less sensitive to lower quality data.

(Q11)  Could you clarify why the congestion target for local roads uses person delay while the target for strategic roads uses vehicle delay? How does this relate to Departmental objectives and congestion-reducing initiatives on the inter-urban network?

  The target for strategic roads is focused on improving journey time reliability. This reflects the Government's view that journey time unreliability is the most frustrating aspect of congestion for many people. The target, by looking at the delays experienced on the worst 10% of journeys on each route, aims to incentivise the Highways Agency to address the causes and consequences of the slowest journeys, and hence to reduce the likelihood and duration of long delays. Delivery of the target will improve journey time reliability by reducing the probability of long delays.

  We are not yet in a position to produce an indicator of reliability for urban roads, as the data requirements for such an indicator are considerable, although we are hoping to do so in the future. In the meantime, the target focuses on the movement of people, since this is especially important in an urban area where buses are a vital part of the transport mix. A person-based indicator takes account of the fact that a bus carries many people but only counts as one vehicle. The new indicator will be collected for a total of 153 routes into the urban centres of the ten largest urban areas. These are a sample of the most important routes in these areas, taking into account traffic and person flow, levels of delay and local strategic importance.

  The strategic target fits under Departmental Objective I which states: "Support the economy through the provision of efficient and reliable inter-regional transport systems by making better use of the existing road network; reforming rail services and industry structures to deliver significant performance improvements for users; and investing in additional capacity to meet growing demand". Many initiatives will address unreliable journey times on the strategic network, including HA Traffic Officers, advanced traffic management, better information for road users before and during journeys, variable speed limits, better management of roadworks, improved winter preparedness and planning for one-off events. Planned capacity enhancements should also improve the worst 10% of journeys, both by improving journey times in general on those roads and reducing the probability of incidents causing further delays.

  The urban target fits under Departmental Objective II which states: "Deliver improvements to the accessibility, punctuality and reliability of local and regional transport systems through the approaches set out in Objective I and through increased use of public transport and other appropriate local solutions". Again, many initiatives being planned by local authorities will improve journey times that people experience, including improved bus priority, encouraging car sharing, more park and ride schemes, wider use of school and workplace travel plans, improved management of the network using Intelligent Transport Systems, better management of roadworks and improved parking controls.

(Q14)  The Secretary of State offered to provide a note setting out on what basis he had said Manchester had the second worst congestion outside London, and what measure had been used to assess congestion levels.

  In his speech to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on 21 October, the Secretary of State said: "Manchester City suffers the second highest average delay time for drivers in the UK—second only to London". This is using average vehicle delay calculated using 2002 data derived from the National Speed Survey. Note that the statement refers to Manchester City rather than Greater Manchester. The figure for Manchester City was 32.9 seconds lost per vehicle kilometre, compared with 36.4 seconds for London, and an average across all of the urban areas covered of 24.9 seconds.

(Q19)  The Secretary of State offered to send a note on what measure will be used to assess congestion in LTPs and whether, and why, this measure—and the information required to be collected by local authorities—has very recently been changed. How will the altered definition affect different local authorities? Can the Department clarify whether the calculation change is expected to lead to changes in local authorities' strategies for tackling congestion? If the change in the definition and the information required has no effect, then why was it changed?

  The 10 largest urban areas are each setting a congestion target in their Local Transport Plans (LTPs) using an indicator of person movements on key routes into city centres. (London is counted as one of these 10 areas and will be setting a target on this basis, although it is not producing an LTP.) Originally the LTP target was to be based on vehicle delay, with a person-based indicator to be developed at some point during the LTP period. However, in response to representations from the local authorities concerned at a meeting early this year, the Department has been working with the 10 largest urban areas to speed up the development and implementation of a person based indicator, because of its potential to support and incentivise effective management of road performance in urban areas. All of the 10 urban areas are being treated in the same way, so none will be disadvantaged. To help put in the place the new indicator and target quickly, transitional payments totalling £1 million have been made available to the 10 urban areas for 2005-06.

  The new indicator, by focusing on people rather than vehicles, is designed to fit better with local authorities' congestion strategies and their management of the tension between growing demand and limited road space. It removes some perverse incentives that would have applied with the previous vehicle delay target, particularly relating to buses.

  In addition to the above target, which is mandatory for the 10 largest urban areas, there are other targets relating to congestion which other authorities must include in their LTP. In particular, authorities with urban areas populated by more than 100,000 people must include a target of peak traffic flows to and from urban centres. All authorities must include a target of area-wide traffic flows, although this indicator is intended mainly as a proxy indicator on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. There are many LTP targets which have a bearing on congestion, such as those relating to bus patronage, satisfaction and punctuality, and cycling.

(Q101)  What effect do rising fuel prices have on traffic demand? How have traffic levels altered in relation to the changing price of fuel over recent years, and how does this compare to changes in traffic levels seen while the fuel duty escalator was in effect?

  There are a number of factors (eg income, levels of car ownership, fuel price & efficiency) that are important in determining traffic demand. Rising fuel prices increase the cost of driving and, all things being equal, would be expected to reduce traffic volumes.

  A literature review[2] carried out for the Department by the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London into empirical evidence on the responsiveness of road traffic to changes in fuel prices uncovered a range of estimates. The study reported an average long-run fuel price elasticity (the percentage change in the volume of traffic resulting from a 1% change in the price of fuel) of -0.29. This suggests that a 1% rise in the price of fuel will result in a 0.29% fall in the volume of traffic.

  The chart below shows growth in traffic and real fuel prices[3] from 1990 to 2004. When the fuel duty escalator was operating (from 1992-2000), annual growth in real fuel prices was around 4.4% and annual growth in traffic was around 1.6%. From 2000 to 2004, fuel price has fallen by an average of 2.6% per year while traffic has continued to grow by around 1.6% per year. The fact that traffic continued to grow at the same rate in spite of falling fuel prices suggests that there are other factors (eg, high levels of car ownership reducing the scope for further increases, rising levels of road congestion) that are constraining growth.

  It seems likely that traffic growth since 2000 would have been slower had the fuel duty escalator still been operating.

(Q8)  What are the benefits expected to be of the Network Management Duty; and what monitoring is taking place? What percentage of the network is currently serviced by the new Traffic Officers? What targets will be set for the Highways Agency Traffic Officers to clear incidents and keep traffic moving?

  The Network Management Duty imposed on local authorities will require them to manage their road networks in a more pro-active and comprehensive manner, appointing Traffic Managers to help them do so. In doing so there should be:

—  better co-ordination and management of activities on the network so that disruption to road users in minimised;

—  more attention to ensuring that, through the use of new technology and by regular review and maintenance of traffic management infrastructure, authorities are able to maximise their capability for managing traffic on the network;

—  a more structured approach of monitoring and review, so that appropriate action can be taken on different parts of the network, recognising the different roles of different streets.

  The net result of this will be quicker and more reliable journey times for traffic.

  Authorities have a duty to undertake monitoring and they are expected to identify indicators that demonstrate improved network performance and that are relevant to their network. Advice to authorities is given in the Network Management Duty Guidance and further advice will be included in the forthcoming Guidance on Intervention Criteria. The Department has reviewed a sample of provisional second LTPs to see how local authorities are incorporating the duty in their plans. Officials are also encouraging regional Traffic Manager Forums to exchange good practice.

  In terms of strategic roads, the HA has produced a National Guidance Framework with the Police, which sets out the joint benefits to be derived from the Traffic Officer Service over a projected three-year period. The quantitative benefits are:

—  a reduction in incident related congestion in the areas in which the service operates;

—  a reduction in the overall numbers of fatal, serious and slight injuries on the motorways, where the service operates;

—  an overall increase in pro-active policing—particularly road safety and those offences that are recordable.

  The business case also identified the potential for qualitative benefits arising from the Traffic Officer Service as described below:

—  high visibility patrols—provide public reassurance;

—  culture change—creates a joint operational culture between the Agency, the police and other service providers;

—  network intelligence—increased resources provide real-time intelligence on the network status;

—  better signing—greater consistency of sign and signal setting to improve safety and the quality of information;

—  performance measurement/common standards—new control centres will adopt standard reporting and monitoring arrangements and will also provide consistent service provision across the entire motorway network;

—  intelligence gathering—increasing overall levels of support to the network will increase capability to detect criminal behaviour.

  The HA is gathering data on all of the quantitative and qualitative benefits described above. However, because of the staged roll out of the service full benefits are not expected to start to accrue before 2008. The West Midlands is the first region to reach its full service capability (from 30 September 2005) and as such is the only region from which there are measurable results. It is too early to draw any conclusions on the other regions as they are only partially established.

  The Traffic Officer service is operating in five out of the seven regions: West Midlands, South East, North West, North East and East. The Agency is on programme to be operational on all parts of the motorway network by summer 2006. The Traffic Officer Service is operating on 1,303 carriageway miles (this comprises motorway miles plus some small sections of all purpose trunk road) out of a total of 4,093 carriageway miles to be serviced by the Traffic Officer Service. This represents 31.8% of the English network on which Traffic Officers will operate.

  In the period since agreement was reached to establish the Traffic Officer Service, the Agency has been set further targets:

—  2005-06 Business Plan Target—for the West Midlands Region to attend 75% of incidents within 15 minutes of being deployed and to clear 75% of incidents for which they are in the lead within 30 minutes of taking full responsibility for reopening the road to traffic. The Agency is producing regular reports on progress in the West Midlands for the Roads Minister, Dr Stephen Ladyman and preliminary analysis shows that the service in the West Midlands is meeting these targets.

—  PSA Target—The Agency has now been set a challenging target to make journeys on the strategic road network more reliable by 2007-08. Incidents are a significant factor in causing unreliable journeys and the achievement of this target will demonstrate that the Agency is managing incidents better as well as making improvements across all their network operation activity.

(Q6)  What assessment of the permit system for road works is planned?

  The DfT, including the HA, continues to work with stakeholders such as utilities companies and local highway authorities, looking at the type and nature of secondary legislation that will be needed and how benefits from permits, which will apply to both utility works and highway authority works, can be best achieved.

  The Department's aim is to prepare regulations that allow permit schemes to proceed under different scenarios: for example, operating permits on all roads within an authority; or operating permits on the major roads and the existing noticing regime on the rest. The different approaches may have implications for the balance of effort between the main roads and other roads, and on the overall impact and resources involved. We would like to see the various approaches tried in the early permit schemes and review them to see which offers the most benefits.

  These permit schemes will be assessed as specific sub-project within a wider project to evaluate the implementation of the Traffic Management Act by local authorities. We are in the process of commissioning this project to start work in early 2006, initially collecting base data on the existing control regime. The evaluation will look at a range of impacts: on the number and duration of works; on the performance of the road network; on the costs incurred by utilities and authorities and the benefits obtained from less disruption. To ensure equality of treatment between utility and highway works, key performance indicators (KPIs) will be developed for the ongoing measurement of the performance of permit issuing authorities. Those KPIs will also feature in this evaluation of permit schemes.

  In addition, the HA has set up a Permits project that is tasked with looking at options that will both meet legislation and will reduce works related congestion. This project will look closely at all aspects of the legislation and practical ways to implement any potential permit scheme to enable the Agency to reduce works related congestion. By early spring 2006, this project will be in a position to recommend a preferred option. Should this recommendation be for the Agency to run a permit scheme, it is envisaged that the first phased role out of any such scheme will take place around early 2007.

(Q9)  Has there been any recent assessment of the impact of the mandatory speed limits on the M25? Is this assessment ongoing, and how regularly are reports made?

  The mandatory speed limits were introduced as part of the M25 Controlled Motorways study, which was monitored over a 10 year period between 1995 and 2005. A summary report was issued Dec 2004 and a copy has been published via an HA press release.

  The report found that the positive benefits arising from fewer accidents and a reduction in fuel consumption, arising from smoother driving were outweighed by the economic disbenefits of increased journey times, giving an overall negative assessment of the scheme benefits. However, recent changes to how economic benefits are assessed, together with a recently revised safety benefit of 15%, gives an overall positive assessment of the scheme benefits. A revision to the M25 Controlled Motorways summary report is currently being prepared to take account of this.

  There are no further plans to continue this assessment on the M25. However, the Agency will be assessing the impact of mandatory speed limits introduced on the M42 as part of its "Active Traffic Management" pilot.

(Q34)  The Secretary of State said that if the Highways Agency spend too much on one road it will have to spend less on another road. Has any assessment been done of the impact that overruns on some road schemes are having on the overall road building programme?

  In the first instance the Agency's approach is to work with the supply chain to drive down costs of construction.

  Where that is not possible, cost increases are met from a reserve allowance set aside for that purpose within the planned overall costs of the strategic roads programme. Where cost savings can be made, these are fed back into the reserve allowance. A review of the impact on the overall programme is undertaken each time a cost increase is considered to inform the decision on how to take the scheme forward.

(Q66)  The Secretary of State said that the Department is keeping up to date with developments in road pricing schemes around the world. Which schemes is the Department looking at? Has it identified any schemes that may be able to provide a model for this country?

  There is a wide variety of schemes, each with differing objectives and at varying states of practical readiness. Some have been in existence for many years (the Singapore Electronic Road Pricing system and the New Zealand lorry charge). Elsewhere, ideas are at a very early stage (Oregon and Seattle) There are some schemes that have demand management very much to the fore (eg Singapore and Stockholm), some where road pricing is used a means of collecting taxation (eg the lorry charges in Germany, Switzerland and Austria), and some where the objectives are mixed (eg the SR91 Express Lanes in California).

  We will also learn from the experiences of the London Congestion Charge. But we do not believe that it is possible to pick a road pricing scheme off the shelf—schemes across the world have lessons for us to learn, both good and bad. We will use these lessons to help inform our work with local authorities, and will continue to track international developments.

BUSES

(Q22)  The Secretary of State said he was willing to look at giving local authorities extra powers to control buses if demand management measures were implemented. Please provide more details of what is being explored and proposed. When do you hope to have finalised these proposals, and the "revisions in the law" to which the Secretary of State referred?

  Last year's transport white paper made clear that the case for giving local authorities extra powers to control buses, via a quality contract, would be strengthened if it was part of a package to tackle congestion. Local authorities can also gain greater control through partnerships with bus operators. We are discussing with bus operators and local authority representatives how such partnership agreements could be made more effective. An announcement about these and any other proposals will be made in due course.

(Q98)  The Secretary of State offered to provide a note on the funding of the concessionary fares scheme and the decisions on how to distribute it among regions and local authorities. (Q97) How much would it have cost to fund a comprehensive concessionary bus fares scheme that covered peak times?

  The Government is providing £350 million for 2006-07 to local authorities to fund the introduction of free off-peak local bus fares for the elderly and disabled people. Local bus travel is defined as within the boundary of the District or Unitary Council, or the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) in metropolitan areas. Local authorities and the PTEs will have discretion to work together to provide cross-boundary travel as they do at present. They can also offer other extensions to the statutory minimum entitlement, such as travel before 9.30 am and travel on other modes, based on their judgement of local needs and circumstances and their overall financial priorities.

  The £350 million of extra funding will be sufficient to fund the cost to the local authorities and the PTEs. The funding for current half-fare statutory minimum entitlement is allocated through the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) system and is part of the Environmental, Cultural and Protective Services (ECPS) Block. One option would have been to allocate the extra funding through the existing ECPS Block formulae. However, this approach would have resulted in the funding being allocated broadly by population with some other adjustments such as for deprivation. This would result in shortfalls for most of the large metropolitan areas due to their relatively high bus use.

  Consequently, DfT and ODPM examined how the formulae could be made fairer by adding new variables and/or changing the weights of existing variables in the ECPS Block formulae. An option that increased the weights on those variables best linked to concessionary fares uptake (eg pensioners on income support) was included in ODPM's consultation on changes to the RSG formulae.

  The consultation closed on 10 October. The decision on the distribution of the extra funding for concessionary fares will be included in the Provisional Local Government Settlement to be announced shortly (see response to Q121 which also answers Q97).

(Q121)  A note was offered on what extensions to the concessionary bus fares scheme were proposed and where, how they would have been operated and what methodology was used for calculating the projected costs.

  Regarding the costing of different extensions, analysis undertaken for the DfT suggested that an off-peak "go anywhere" scheme by bus would cost an extra £100 million (on top of the £350 million to be provided). A fully comprehensive scheme, allowing travel at all times, by bus could cost around £60 million, on top of the £100 million. These estimates were derived by applying the Welsh free scheme to England using current revenue and patronage data. This would have meant that that a fully comprehensive scheme would have cost in excess of £0.5 billion. We have to balance the available funds with many other competing demands on the public purse. The Government's priority is to ensure an equitable minimum level of provision throughout the country, enabling pass-holders to use their local buses on a fair and reasonable basis. Given the significant sums involved we do not intend to review the provision of concessionary fares before the 2007 Spending Review.

The Department has an agreement with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to increase the number of buses with wheelchair access by 2010. Do you have similar agreements to ensure buses are accessible to people with visual and hearing impairments, by providing audio-visual announcements? If not, why not?

  The Department negotiated a voluntary agreement with industry that 50% of the full size bus fleet should be low floor and accessible (though not necessarily Disability Discrimination Act compliant) by 2010 to ensure that industry was well placed to meet the existing requirements of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR), which require that all such vehicles be compliant by 2017. Low floor vehicle technology was by then tried and tested and offered operators many advantages over their high floor equivalents.

  However, at the time that the PSVAR were introduced, the Department was unable to include a requirement for on-vehicle audible and visual information systems because there was insufficient evidence of available and robust technology. Consequently, the PSVAR did not include requirements for such systems but the DfT agreed to commission research to evaluate their effectiveness. That research reported a positive response initially, however, raised concerns subsequently regarding several technical issues together with passenger and driver perception.

  Since then, the DfT has opened discussions with a number of key stakeholders, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to examine the issues raised including reliability, acceptability and cost. The Department also commissioned further work to investigate driver attitudes and establish the types of on-board information systems in operation elsewhere in Europe, there being very few such systems in operation in the UK (Local Authorities tending to favour at-stop systems). This latest work is due to report by the end of the year. Accordingly, the Department is not yet in a position to either regulate or negotiate a voluntary agreement for the roll-out of such systems.

Has there been any progress on developing "outcome" rather than "output" methodologies to assess the Department's policies on transport accessibility?

  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC- our statutory advisers on the transport and mobility needs of disabled people) commissioned MORI to carry out a survey of disabled people's experience of transport in 2001. We are looking at developing that survey methodology to provide information at regular time intervals on the impact of our policies on the lives of disabled people.

LIGHT RAIL

(Q108)  Has the Ultra Light Tram Group (based in Bristol) sought a meeting with the Secretary of State and has the DfT met the Group?

  We understand that the Ultra Light Tram Group referred to is the company Sustraco Ltd which has developed the prototype Bristol Electric Railbus. The company's Chairman, James Skinner, met officials from the DfT and DTI on 6 January 2005. He has written to the Secretary of State or other DfT ministers on many occasions in recent years and has had, since March 2004, twelve responses from the Secretary of State or other ministers. He asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State once; in his letter of 28 June 2005. The response from Derek Twigg, as minister responsible for light rail, invited Mr Skinner instead to engage in a dialogue with DfT officials. Mr Skinner has so far not taken up this offer.

ROAD SAFETY

Despite record low numbers of road casualties in 2004, cyclist fatalities and drink drive fatalities increased. What steps will be taken to specifically combat these trends?

  Despite long term reduction in drink driving we have never become complacent about the issue. The problem has to be addressed by enforcement and publicity working in cohesion.

  Police have been given (under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005) new powers to conduct evidential breath testing at the roadside, although the effects of this will take a while to work through. A joint statement by DfT, Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) earlier this year on Roads Policing Strategy demonstrates a renewed commitment to this area of police work in which drink drive enforcement is a major element. And with a view to implementing the strategy the police have recently held two well attended conferences—one organised by ACPO and one by the Police Federation. We continue to look at problems with hardened offenders. Through the Road Safety Bill, currently in Parliament, we plan to make some provision for stronger penalties involving re-testing, improvements to the Drink drive rehabilitation scheme, and a possible scheme for Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programmes.

  Anti drink drive messages remain a key priority for the THINK! Road safety campaign. TV and radio advertising launches in December and will be supported by commercial partners putting out information in pubs and clubs. Following close dialogue with the police, radio advertising will focus on enforcement, stressing the risks of getting caught.

  Although the number of cycle fatalities increased from 114 in 2003 to 134 in 2004, this was still a drop in fatalities of 28% compared with the 1994-98 baseline. Also compared with 2003, serious injuries were down by 39% and slight injuries down by 31%.

  Our strategy is to both improve conditions for cyclists and to encourage them to protect themselves. Local authorities are now expected to produce or update a cycling strategy, which should include measures to make cycling safer. DfT's Road Safety Strategy gives guidance to local authorities on how to improve conditions for walkers and cyclists in their LTPs.

  Educating drivers is an important element in making cycling safer. The current version of the Highway Code includes a section for drivers on road users requiring extra care, including cyclists. To make drivers more aware of cyclists the theory test question bank contains a large number of questions about vulnerable road users. The screen-based theory test allows the use of digitised video clips to help test hazard perception with moving images, which include cyclists. The practical driving test has been lengthened, providing a greater opportunity for encountering cyclists.

  The Department has developed the "Cycle Sense" safety campaign. The campaign encourages teenagers to wear the appropriate protective gear, in particular to wear cycle helmets, and to undertake cycle training. Technique, cycle maintenance and visibility are also addressed. The campaign consists of a series of posters, a website and a supporting TV Filler film. We also PR to get the safe cycling messages across to parents, children and teens. A new campaign is planned for spring 2006. "Cycle Smart" for seven to 10-year-olds is a series of posters and a comic which use Disney characters to communicate simple cycle safety messages. We launched a new website, in partnership with Disney, on 18 March 2005—cyclesmart.org.

  Our policy is to persuade cyclists to protect themselves by wearing helmets. An independent review commissioned by DfT concluded that overall there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing injury for users of all ages, though particularly children.

  The Department recognises that pedal cycle training is a valuable safety measure for adults as well as children. Research carried out by the Department has shown cycle training to have a lasting positive effect on safety. We strongly advise parents to encourage their children to take cycle training, and not to let them out on the roads until they are clearly competent to handle their cycles safely.

  DfT has established a new National Standard for cycle training with more than 20 road safety bodies. The Public Health White Paper committed the Government to the new standard, and replaces the Cycling Proficiency Test previously administered by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It was launched on 10 March 2005 when Cycling England, the Government's new advisory body on cycling was formed replacing the National Cycling Strategy Board for England.

The number of 12-15 year old pedestrians and cyclists killed or seriously injured increased compared to the previous year. What action will be taken to enhance safety for young people?

  Measures being taken to enhance road safety for young people include a mixture of education, enforcement and engineering. For example, the DfT and other organisations maintain an extensive programme of research and provide a variety of educational and training resources for children, parents, teachers and professionals available free of charge. DfT's publicity campaigns can change attitudes so people will understand and accept road safety measures. Recently launched new publicity campaigns have been aimed at speeding drivers (January 2005) and teenage pedestrians (August 2005). There is also a year round child road safety campaign.

  The Government recognises the need for lower vehicle speeds in areas where children and other vulnerable road users are likely to be, and local authorities are recommended to consider 20 mph zones. Research has shown that the risk of an accident involving a child is reduced by around two thirds wherever 20 mph zones are introduced.

  The Neighbourhood Road Safety Initiative, launched in 2002, aims to develop and deliver collaborative initiatives in partnership with 15 Local Highway Authorities with some of the worst child pedestrian casualty rates in the country. Up to £17.6 million has been allocated up to April 2007. Best practice guidelines and a literature review on road safety and disadvantage will be prepared.

  The Inner City Road Safety Demonstration Project, launched in 2002, is intended to show how an integrated, partnership approach to the management of deprived inner city areas can reduce casualties on an area wide basis. The six-year, £6 million project was awarded to Birmingham City Council. Lessons learnt will form the basis of good practice guidance.

  The Mixed Priority Routes Road Safety Demonstration Project is being carried out in partnership with ten local highway authorities. These roads fulfil an important function as traffic distributors but also cut through local communities and shopping areas. Conditions for pedestrians are often poor and casualties tend to be scattered along the length of the route. Lessons learnt will form the basis of good practice guidance.

What is the single most important road safety message the Department wants to get across to the public?

  Our single most important message is: "There are simple steps we can all take to reduce the risk of road crashes to ourselves and others."

  We deliver this in all our THINK! Communications by giving people the simple steps they can take to reduce risk eg don't drink and drive, wear seatbelts etc. The message also conveys the main ethos of THINK! Which is that road safety is everyone's responsibility.

RAIL

(Q76)  Why does the Department think it unacceptable to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to increase use of heavy rail, but acceptable to have a target for increased use of light rail and buses?

  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) was given a specific duty to promote the railway, though this was a general duty linked to the SRA's responsibility to provide leadership to the industry rather than one directed specifically at increasing ridership. This was clearly appropriate to the SRA, which was concerned solely with rail issues. A similar duty would not be appropriate to the Secretary of State, who is responsible for all transport modes.

There is a requirement for growth in every region for buses and light rail. Why does the Department have this regional target? Why is there no parallel target for growth in rail use in every region?

  The inclusion of a regional growth element to the public transport PSA target is intended to reflect the importance of growth in the main local transport mode (buses) to the achievement of local transport objectives across the country. Four times as many passenger journeys are made by bus than on the rail network and the vast majority of these are "local" journeys, whereas a high proportion of rail journeys are inter-urban and often inter-regional.

  For heavy rail, where ridership is increasing in any case, priority has been given to improving punctuality and reliability rather than passenger numbers—though the improvements being achieved in those areas will help make rail more attractive and so encourage increased use.

(Q80)  When will in-train signalling be rolled out? When will the programme be complete?

  There is no programme for installing cab signalling across the network as a whole. Radio based cab signalling systems like the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) provide automatic train protection and also have the potential to make the rail network more cost effective and flexible. They can therefore contribute to rail's competitiveness compared with other modes as well as offering safety benefits. However, neither ERTMS (which is being developed as the European standard) nor any comparable system has yet been demonstrated anywhere in the world to be reliable enough for rapid wide scale deployment on a complex, densely used railway network like that in the UK. Trials are nevertheless being arranged, beginning with one which will see it in operational use on the Cambrian Line in 2007.

  Network Rail is meanwhile conducting planning and analysis work and will report to the Department on a proposed rate of rollout of ERTMS with its associated costs, benefits and risks. This will consider ERTMS as a contributor to the long term requirements for railway safety, performance and capacity as developed in the High Level Output Specification. We also expect in due course to submit a National Implementation Plan for ERTMS to the European Commission in line with the Interoperability Directives.

(Q81)  The 85% rail punctuality target has now been met. Will a more stretching target be adopted? If so, when will this target be produced and what level of punctuality do you expect the Department to aim for, and by when?

  The performance measure reached 85.5% in October 2005, though that improvement will need to be maintained during the winter—when performance figures usually fall back—before we can be confident that the target has been secured. We are in discussion with the industry now about the level at which a new, more demanding but achievable target should be set. This is expected to be finalised in January 2006 and to apply to the period up to March 2008.

(Q82)  The Secretary of State said that rail timetables should be realistic. What proportion of timetables have been revised, and what proportion have increased journey times?

  Timetable changes of this sort come about through reviews of the Rules of the Plan, the document which sets out such matters such as journey times between specified points on the network and the type of train to be used. Reviews are carried out by Network Rail in conjunction with the relevant passenger or freight operator. The only recent example of a comprehensive review of this sort was the one which led to the timetable changes introduced earlier this year on South West Trains, though another is now under way covering the Manchester suburban network. One covering the East Coast Main Line is due to begin early next year.

  Reviews of this sort do not necessarily lead to increased journey times; issues identified in the course of a review may be addressed in other ways, for example through increasing, or making better use of, track capacity or by changes to the type or formation of the rolling stock used to provide the service concerned.

(Q80)  What levels of overcrowding do the performance measures currently indicate?

  The Department monitors levels of overcrowding on trains run by South East operators on commuter services into London. The most recent figures, for autumn 2004, show that Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC) increased from 2.7% in 2003 to 2.9% in 2004.

(Q83)  What benefit-cost-ratio would a North-South High Speed Rail Link need to offer in order to be taken forward?

  We are looking into a number of options for high speed links which could include entirely new lines, upgrading of existing ones or combinations of the two. Any option which we proposed to take forward would need to demonstrate a sound business case but we are at too early a stage in our consideration to have set precise benefit-cost or other targets that a proposal would be required to meet.

(Q115)  Mr Donaldson raised the issue of the closure of the Asfordby railway test track. Please provide details on what the plans are for this test track; what proposals have been put to the Department; what decisions have been made; and on what basis. Was the track offered free of charge, or if not, what cost was proposed? Without a rail test track in the UK where will rolling stock be tested when it is new; or following safety incidents, problems or changes to equipment?

  The test track consists of 14 miles of single and double track railway owned by government through BRB Residuary Ltd together with a workshop and sidings at Asfordby owned by UK Coal, all on long term lease to Alstom Trains Ltd. Alstom has advised the Department that it can no longer justify the expense of keeping the test track operational but did not make any proposals as to its future. Alstom has not contacted BRB Residuary Ltd concerning the termination of the lease. If Alstom terminates the lease early, all the fixed assets would revert to government via BRB Residuary Ltd.

  Network Rail is considering the long term need for test facilities for both trains and infrastructure. They have reviewed the test track as a possible site for future investment but consider it to have severe limitations. It has no continuous loop for sustained running and has planning constraints which limit the number of trains run per day. Network Rail's review covers the development of test facilities in the UK and the use of current and planned facilities in mainland Europe and elsewhere to cover all relevant needs. Decisions will be made by Network rail in consultation with the Department and interested parties once the review has been completed.

(Q117)  How many members of staff—and what proportion of the total—of the SRA have not been transferred to the DfT Rail Group section? How many of these had rail specific skills?

  Immediately before transfers to the Department began, the SRA had a total staff of 430. Of those, approximately 180 came to the Department (140 to the Rail Group and 40 to other parts of the Department such as the Legal Group). A small number went to each of the Office of Rail Regulation, the Scottish Executive and Network Rail. That left around 240, or 56% of the original 430, who were not absorbed into the Department or other successor bodies. The Department does not hold details of the skills and specialisms of that group.

ENVIRONMENT

(Q47)  Has the DfT carried out any research to assess what reduction in emissions could be achieved through strict enforcement of the speed limits? If so, please make this available to the Committee. If not, has the DfT any timetabled plans to conduct this analysis, and if not, why not?

  The Climate Change Programme review which is currently underway is looking to come up with a range of measures, including transport ones, that can be packaged together into a new programme to help the UK meet its carbon reduction targets.

  As part of this, a very wide range of measures were appraised—including potentially difficult or expensive measures. These included one scenario under which no vehicles exceeded the speed limits on motorways and dual carriageways. Our estimates suggest that savings in the region of 0.5 million tonnes of carbon per annum could theoretically occur under such a scenario.

(Q88)  Recent research as part of the "Horizons Programme" by Robin Hickman and Professor Banister, at University College London, sponsored by the Department, found that new technology would deliver only half the desired reduction in carbon dioxide by 2030 and that behavioural change would have a more significant impact. What policies for behavioural change will the Department be introducing as a result of this research?

  DfT is already been promoting a range of measures known as "smarter choices" aimed at encouraging people to travel more sustainably. These include local programmes to encourage school, workplace and individualised travel planning; improving public transport information and marketing services; setting up web sites for car share schemes and supporting car clubs; and encouraging teleworking and teleconferencing.

  Further, the DfT has been encouraging local authorities to make smarter choices an integral part of their transport strategies. How local authorities intend to develop and implement smarter choices is a criterion for assessing the quality of the new local transport plans coming into operation next April. Also the modal shift resulting from school travel planning will be a mandatory indicator for local authorities.

  The DfT is working to further our understanding of this issue, with research currently underway to review the evidence on public perceptions of the role of transport in climate change.

  In relation to the research at University College London, it is assumed that the domestic transport sector has to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 60% from 1990 levels. This is not current Government policy but was chosen as a test of the methodology and as a way of giving an idea of potential ways in which large cuts in transport carbon emissions could be achieved. Rather, the actual Government target is an overall 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, but does not specify which sectors this should be saved from.

  The study was commissioned to get a better idea of the potential range of options available for cutting the impact of transport on climate change. It is an interesting contribution to the debate on how best to tackle the impact of transport on climate change. The study does not give the whole picture—it does not look at the costs of the measures proposed, nor does it look at whether it might be more beneficial to make cuts in emissions from sectors other than transport.

  The Government agrees that action is required to move us further towards climate change objectives, but this needs to go wider than just the transport sector. That is why DfT is working closely with Defra and other Government departments on the Climate Change Programme review, which is taking a more comprehensive look at the measures required to move us further towards our domestic and international climate change objectives. Although this project does not directly contribute to the consideration of these climate change programme policies, it will feed into the next phase of DfT work of evaluating the longer term policy options for reducing emissions in the future.

Will the Climate Change Review Programme explicitly set out the cost benefit ratios of reducing carbon emissions from each sector, including transport? When will this be available?

  Synthesis reports summarising the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis carried out for the Review of the Climate Change Programme (CCPR) will likely be published alongside, or at a similar time to, the revised programme itself. The CCPR is expected to be published soon, and Defra colleagues are currently working on finalising a date.

You stated in the previous memorandum in reference to aviation emissions trading that "The UK reserves the right to act alone or bilaterally if progress towards agreements internationally proves too slow". What timescale would be considered slow enough to prompt unilateral or bilateral action on aviation emissions trading?

  In the White Paper we made clear that we reserve the right to act alone or bilaterally with like minded partners if progress towards agreements at an international level proves too slow. This commitment relates to tackling aviation's global impacts and not solely to emissions trading.

  The Aviation White Paper was written two years ago. Since then there has been significant progress. We have seen the recent adoption of a positive Communication from the European Commission that recommends including aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and sets out the Commission's aim to produce a legislative proposal by the end of 2006.

  It is too early to say when aviation could start trading in the EU scheme, as it will be subject to many factors beyond our control, such as negotiations at European level and the timing of any legislative proposal. It would therefore be irresponsible of us to set inflexible deadlines now. Decisions will be taken in the light of progress on future negotiations.

AIR QUALITY

Local authorities declared their Air Quality Management Areas several years ago. Are they adequate to ensure improved air quality? Why have the problems not yet been solved?

  Where a local authority considers that one or more of the air quality objectives, as prescribed in regulations, is unlikely to be met by the required date, it must declare an air quality management area (AQMA). Under the local air quality management system, there is no statutory obligation on local authorities to meet the air quality objectives. Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 only requires local authorities to act "in pursuit of the achievement" of air quality objectives. This is because responsibility for action needed to regulate sources of emissions often lies outside their remit.

  The majority of local air quality management areas across the UK relate to emissions of nitrogen dioxide from road transport. A number of exceedences also relate to particles (PM10). Where the exceedence of an objective is attributable to emissions from road traffic then we would expect the local authority to use their traffic management powers and to work very closely with the HA, if roads on the strategic road network are involved, and, where applicable, other relevant organisations to reduce levels of pollution.

  Under the Government's Freedoms & Flexibilities' agenda, local authorities are now being encouraged to integrate their air quality action plans into LTPs, where local road transport is the main cause of the local pollutant concentrations. Integrating air quality related transport measures into the wider transport agenda at local level should increase the capacity to deliver cleaner air. It is up to local authorities to consider implementing measures, such as improving public transport (bus quality partnerships), local congestion charging and road pricing, as well as low emission zones. The Mayor of London and London local authorities, for example, are proposing to implement a London Low Emission Zone.

  As well as local measures, we also need more national and international action to improve air quality across parts of the UK. The Government and the Devolved Administrations are currently undertaking a review of the Air Quality Strategy to identify possible additional measures to move closer to meeting our national air quality objectives and thus generate cost effective health benefits. The European Commission has proposed a new Air Quality Directive, which now needs to be negotiated and has also recently published its Clean Air for Europe Air Quality Thematic Strategy. The European Commission has also already started to review the potential for a further tightening of the EU vehicle emissions standards, to take place early in the new decade, to ensure that the declining trend in air quality pollutant levels is maintained despite the predicted traffic growth. My officials, along with Defra officials are currently in discussion with European counterparts to take forward further tightening of the standards.

What was the outcome of the European Commission's review of the TransportEnergy grants and what impact has the suspension had on the "Powering Future Vehicles" target for low emission vehicles?

  The DfT carried out a review of the TransportEnergy grant programmes in 2004 and announced that changes would be made to the programmes to ensure a technology neutral approach and one that met the European Commission's State Aid rules. EC State Aid rules require that state aid (financial assistance to business from the State) allowed within the terms of the Treaty must be notified to and cleared by the Commission to ensure compliance with Commission guidelines. Six proposed grant programmes were notified to the Commission for clearance under State Aid rules earlier this year.

  The Infrastructure programme received clearance from the Commission in July and the Low Carbon Research and Development programme received clearance in September. These programmes have been launched and are being administered on behalf of the Department by the Energy Saving Trust (EST). Details can be found on the EST website at www.est.org.uk

  The four remaining programmes—the Low Carbon Car, Low Carbon Bus, Air Quality Vehicle and Enhanced Environmental Vehicle programmes—have yet to be cleared by the Commission. The Department is doing everything in its power to ensure the programmes receive clearance as soon as possible but it is not within our gift to provide specific timescales for the clearance process.

  The TransportEnergy grant programmes are one of a number of measures that have been put in place to help achieve the targets set out in the Powering Future Vehicles strategy. The suspension of the TransportEnergy grant programmes, and the delay in clearing the revised programmes, means grants have been unavailable for a period of time. All other measures, such as CO2 linked Vehicle Excise Duty and Company Car Tax, car labelling and Voluntary Agreements with the automotive industry, have continued and progressed. We have no evidence to suggest that the absence of grants has so far had a significant impact on our ability to meet the Powering Future Vehicles targets.

When do you expect the European Commission to publish the new Air Quality Directive? Will the Department support measures to reduce air pollution from the transport sector and what impact do you expect this to have?

  A proposal for the new Air Quality Directive has now been deposited. It was published on 21 September, but formal transmission to Council and (European) Parliament was delayed by the need to translate into all languages. It finally appeared 18 November.

  A European Council statement of Common Position is expected in June 2006, and it is predicted that the finalised Air Directive will be published in the autumn of 2007.

  The Air Quality PSA Delivery Plan is revised regularly to take account of scientific developments, new evidence on the health effects of individual pollutants and developments in the EU or other international fora.

  The predicted impact of the proposed measures is still being addressed by my Department together with Defra and Other Government Departments.

LORRY ROAD USER CHARGE (LRUC)

(Q58)  The Secretary of State referred to measures being introduced in the medium term to address the contribution of overseas lorries to road wear and tear. Please provide more details of the kind of schemes being considered; the full objectives of these; and a timetable for implementation. The objectives of the Lorry Road User Charge included varying the charge to reflect costs of climate change and local air quality—will the interim measures you have planned include these objectives?

(Q58)  Will the interim Lorry Road User Charge measures make it cheaper to move goods by road? If so, what assessment have you made of the impact on the aims of sustainable distribution?

(Q58)  Will the medium-term Lorry Road User Charge measures and the Sustainable Distribution Fund have consistent objectives? Please set out the objectives of each.

  The work undertaken on LRUC has confirmed that distance-based charging has the potential to be a workable and practical way forward. However, given that the Government is now taking forward work on a system of national road pricing, it is sensible to incorporate distance-based lorry-charging as a part of this work. The Government confirmed on 5 July that it will continue to work with the road haulage industry to ensure that its needs are represented as Government develops proposals for a single, comprehensive system of national road pricing.

  The objective of the sustainable distribution fund is to "buy" the benefits of reduced pollution, congestion and accidents by providing grant support to remove lorries from the road or ensure they are operated in a more sustainable way. While there is some overlap with what might be achieved through road pricing, the approach is different.

  The Government has welcomed the publication of the findings of the Burns Inquiry into fuel costs, foreign competition and freight taxes, and has invited key industry associations to participate in a joint task group, which will work to place the findings of that Inquiry into a broader context. The task group will assess how the pressures identified by the Inquiry compare with those facing other sectors which are open to international competition or have experienced rising input costs. The group will also examine other important issues that affect the efficiency of the haulage industry, including workforce pressures, fair and effective enforcement, regulatory costs and the promotion and sharing of best practice.

  Working with the industry, the Government has previously examined a range of alternative mechanisms for delivering the objectives that had been set for the LRUC programme. It concluded that none of these alternative mechanisms could satisfactorily deliver those objectives at proportionate cost, and secure an acceptable level of compliance, without imposing a disproportionate administrative burden on the haulage industry.

  Nonetheless, as the Secretary of State indicated to the Committee, the main haulage industry associations have indicated that they are likely to seek to discuss specific proposals for measures that could be introduced ahead of any National Road Pricing scheme.

(Q59)  What will be the cost of the termination of the Lorry Road User Charge contract to the Government? If a precise figure is not available, when will it be available? Please write to the Committee once the final figures are known. The Secretary of State said that just over £31 million has been spent on the abandoned Lorry Road User Charge scheme. How much of this amount relates to work that will feed into the road pricing scheme and how much is considered "wasted"?

Has the Government ensured that the interim results of the development work on the Lorry Road User Charge will be made available to future developers of the national road pricing scheme?

  Specific payments to individual bidders are a matter of commercial confidentiality, but the total of the Proof of Solution payments and any payments made for other costs will be reported in the annual accounts of HM Revenue & Customs.

  The work carried out on LRUC has yielded substantial benefits and insights that will be of value in carrying forward future work on national road pricing. The significant benefits to the development of national road pricing arising from the LRUC programme include:

—  Significant knowledge regarding the nature and deliverability of road pricing technologies;

—  An understanding of how in general road pricing schemes can affect stakeholder groups:

—  Experience and understanding in relation to the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to procuring road pricing systems.

  The work has also provided wider experience of managing IT projects that will be shared with OGC for current and future IT projects.

  The retention and transfer of knowledge from the LRUC programme to the Government's work on national road pricing has been managed through the transfer of a small team of experts from the LRUC programme to DfT. This team will advise DfT on technical and systems issues, and bring to bear the wider experience gained through work on the LRUC programme, as options for national road pricing are developed.

(Q68)  We would be grateful for a note on the Department's analysis of the "Brit Disk" for hauliers.

  The key conclusions of the Government's previous analysis of proposals for a time-based lorry road-user charge were:

—  that a time-based charge would not correlate closely with the costs imposed by lorries using UK roads, because these costs depend more on distance travelled than on time spent within the UK;

—  that such a scheme would be heavily constrained by EU law, which places a ceiling on the level of any time-based charge. As the main haulage associations have themselves acknowledged, this means that such a charge would only marginally increase the operating costs of foreign vehicles operating in the UK; and

—  that, although a time-based charge could be varied according to the emissions class and other characteristics of the vehicle, the maximum charge rate would leave very little scope to vary the charge in a way that would affect behaviour.

(Q70)  What are the enforcement agencies doing to increase compliance by foreign hauliers with road traffic law and vehicle requirements?

  The Government, as the Committee are aware, is determined to address the current situation where foreign hauliers who break the law can too easily escape without punishment. Enabling provisions for a new system of graduated fixed penalties are contained in the Road Safety Bill currently before Parliament, alongside clauses that will allow enforcement agencies to take a cash deposit from foreign hauliers who commit offences, bringing us into line with our continental neighbours. The fixed penalties and deposit scheme, which subject to the Parliamentary process, could be in place by early 2007, should improve compliance though increased deterrence as well as providing for more effective enforcement, freeing staff from bureaucracy and leaving more time available to catch offenders.

  We are aware of the growing proportion of foreign lorries using our roads and the risks that some of them pose. The Vehicle & Operator Services Agency's (VOSA's) enforcement intelligence indicates that, particularly for drivers' hours and weight limit regulations, they are less compliant than those of our domestic operators. We are currently working with VOSA, police, the HA, HM Revenue & Customs, ports authorities and others to develop a strategy to address this apparent increase in non-compliance. In essence, this entails shifting some of VOSA's existing enforcement resources, and where appropriate increasing them, in and around the key points of entry into the country and the road network regularly used by international operators. In addition, VOSA will shortly be introducing their Mobile Compliance Device which will considerably improve the accuracy, reliability and accessibility of data their examiners use to target non-compliant domestic and international operators. We are also considering more widespread use in technology such as Weigh-in-Motion-Sensors and Automatic Number-Plate Recognition cameras, which will further enhance VOSA's ability to gather intelligence and target the non-compliant.

(Q72)  Can you provide more information on initiatives being implemented to reduce accidents involving vehicles containing dangerous goods and any proposed changes to the rules governing the transport of dangerous goods.

  The transport of dangerous goods (other than radioactive materials) by road vehicles is regulated by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1732). These regulations update the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 568). The transport of radioactive materials is regulated by the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Regulations 2002 (SI No. 2002 1093). All of these Statutory Instruments implement EU Council Directives 94/55/EC (on the approximation of the laws of Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road) and 96/49/EC (on the approximation of the laws of Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail) as amended.

  Directive 94/55/EC applies the provisions of the European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (known by its French acronym of "ADR") to Member States' national transport, with some minor derogations permitted. The ADR Agreement, in turn, is based on the global, multi-modal non-mandatory United Nations Model Regulations. The Model Regulations are reviewed and revised on a biennial basis, taking account of technological development and any lessons learned from incidents involving the transport of dangerous goods. ADR (and the other mandatory international modal provisions) are subsequently also reviewed and revised on a biennial basis to harmonise with the UN Model Regulations and to address any mode specific issues on the same basis as UN. Subsequently the EU Directives are amended by Commission Directive to apply the latest revision of ADR to Member States' national transport. The United Kingdom is considered to be a leading player in all the international for a that develop these provisions and regularly submits various proposals to improve safety and facilitate trade in such goods (for example, new provisions on safety of dangerous goods in road tunnels).

  Current GB regulations apply the 2005 revisions to ADR. It is anticipated that the European Commission will shortly adopt further amending Commission Directives to apply the 2007 revisions no later than 1 July 2007. The Department has already started work on drafting implementing Regulations. Similarly, the provisions for air and sea transport are also updated biennially. Given that the raft of provisions described above are universally considered to be state of the art, no initiatives specific to the transport of dangerous goods by road over and above initiatives to reduce accidents involving road vehicles generally have been considered necessary.

  Compliance with regulations is, of course, essential to ensure appropriate levels of safety. Enforcement is undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive, VOSA, the police forces and the DfT Radioactive Materials transport Division. The Department holds biennial multi-agency strategic level Enforcement Liaison Group meetings to maximise the efficiency and targeting of enforcement activity. DfT also maintains an active Compliance Assurance Programme for radioactive material transport.

PORTS POLICY

(Q110)  When do you expect a decision to be taken on the development of Shellhaven on the Thames, Bathside Bay near Harwich and Felixstowe?

  We announced in July 2005 that we were minded to approve the proposal for the London Gateway port development at Shellhaven, subject to clarification of a number of issues. We will announce the outcome of our consideration of these issues in due course.

  We received reports of public inquiries into proposed ports developments at Bathside Bay, Harwich in March 2005, and at Felixstowe South in April 2005. These are currently under careful consideration, and we will make announcements on them as soon as possible.

(Q110)  The Secretary of State said that port proposals would be considered under the planning regime in existence when the applications were submitted. Is this approach consistent with planning decisions for new capacity for aviation, roads and rail?

  As the Secretary of State made clear, we take ports decisions in accordance with existing published policy and current law as we do for transport proposals in all other modes. We recognise the value to promoters of a stable framework of policy and law between the time that applications are submitted and the making of final decisions.

ELECTRONIC SERVICES

(Q125)  Mr Rowlands stated that Transport Direct was designed, built and operated in-house by the DfT. Please confirm whether this is the case. Please explain why Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd have received almost £25 million to design, build and operate the Transport Direct Portal since May 2002 (up to 31 July 2005) according to a document held on DfT website at:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/page/dft_foi_040168.pdf

  The Transport Direct team within DfT is responsible for developing the specification for the portal, including for the additional functionality that is being progressively added; for identifying and arranging for the access to the travel information needed to populate the portal; and for working with information providers to improve the scope and quality of the data used. The specialist work of software design and system build, and the day to day operation of the portal, is carried out by Atos Origin under a contract awarded in 2002. The sums paid to Atos Origin cover the work done under this contract.

(Q127)  Mr Rowlands offered to provide a note outlining whether Transport Direct is subject to customer satisfaction surveys and mystery shopper exercises in the same way as the National Rail Enquiry Service. If not, why not; and are there any plans for this kind of scrutiny?

  Measuring customer satisfaction and obtaining feedback on any problems is central to the Department's strategy for improving Transport Direct, growing user numbers to 10 million by the end of 2006 and ultimately facilitating effective transport choices. Given the vast number of possible journey options and the varied potential requirements of users (who may require anything from a relatively simple train time query using the National Rail data which is available via Transport Direct, to highly complex journeys utilising a range of different transport modes) we do not, however, believe that any practical mystery shopper type exercise could cover a sufficiently wide sample of journeys/requirements to be meaningful or useful. Instead, we aim to get the maximum feedback from actual users, including through a "pop-up" online customer survey covering one in every 10 users who have found a journey and printed their journey details, and through electronic feedback forms available to all users of the portal.

  Transport Direct also has a continuing programme of usability and accessibility testing. This programme targets specific user groups—for example long distance business travellers or students—and asks them to perform certain tasks on the website. Their success in completing tasks and satisfaction with the ease of use of the site are all monitored and reported on. This information is fed back to the Transport Direct development team so that the service is continually being modified to meet user needs.

  In addition, the Department runs a market research programme looking at what specific characteristics and features prospective users would like to see included in the Transport Direct service, and at what demand there might be for these features.

Is the Department on target to complete installation of the computerised MOT system by 31 March 2006?

  Roll-out of MOT Computerisation commenced on 18 April 2005. As at the end of October 2005, over 10,000 garages were live, representing 55% of the total number of garages to be activated. Over 4.6 million tests have been recorded on-line of which 73% were passes. The Department is on track to complete the roll-out by the target date of 31 March 2006. However, VOSA will continue to closely monitor system performance to ensure that roll-out is not completed to the detriment of service quality.

EFFICIENCY

A Freedom of Information request to the DfT (28 July 2005) showed that the Department had, to date, spent £10 million on external consultants at IBM, Deloitte, KPMG, and Halcrow to assist in implementing the Gershon Review. Please quantify the amount of money "released" for the expenditure of £10 million.

  The expenditure on consultants referred to has supported a number of the projects that contribute to the delivery of the DfT Efficiency Programme. However, it is not possible to directly relate expenditure on consultants to efficiency gains.

  The majority of the consultant expenditure to date has been incurred on the development of the DfT Shared Services Programme, which will not realise benefits until later in the Efficiency Programme. The Shared Services Programme business case and benefits management plan are currently being developed.

  The DfT Efficiency Programme has so far recorded "cashable" efficiency gains of around £150 million.

The Department expects £122 million in annual efficiency gains in local authorities' spending on transport. How can the Department enforce these efficiency savings when it has no enforcement powers over Local Authorities? Will local authorities which fail to make efficiency savings be penalised; if so how?

  Local authorities have not been set a specific target for their organisation or for each individual service sector or workstream. Instead, they are able to choose how they meet their overall target of 2.5% per annum efficiency gains. It is the Department's role to provide the assistance, challenge and encouragement for local authorities that will facilitate the delivery of efficiency gains expected from the local transport sector. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has the lead on co-ordinating central government activities to secure the efficiency gains required in local services, and in measuring performance.

  The DfT Efficiency Programme recognises that it has insufficient levers in place to gain direct commitment from local authorities to delivery of transport related efficiency gains. As we have stated previously, there is strong competition from all central government departments for the efficiencies available within local government. Early indications show that the transport related efficiency gains from local government are ahead of trajectory. This is primarily due to the efforts of the Highways Agency in developing collaborative arrangements with local authorities and to DfT's work with the Regional Centres of Excellence to develop a transport toolkit which helps local authorities to develop efficiency schemes and measure their efficiency gains.

The memorandum received from the Department in advance of the evidence session stated that "the Audit Commission provides assurance that (local authority) efficiency gains have actually been achieved." Does the Audit Commission actually audit the figures? If not, exactly what role does the Commission have in assuring these efficiency savings?

  The auditors appointed by the Audit Commission carry out an annual "use of resources" assessment covering five broad areas of financial management, one of which is value for money (VfM). This includes a high level review of the Backward Look Annual Efficiency Statements (these are the statements in which local authorities report the gains that they have achieved in the financial year just passed).

  The review undertaken by auditors includes consideration of the process followed by the council in compiling its Backward Look statement and whether the statement is consistent with any knowledge about the council concerned that has been obtained through other audit work. Auditors will report any specific concerns they may have about the statement through the VfM assessment.

Some Highways Agency front line staff are now responsible for administering their own Human Resources function under what is called the "Self Serve" system. We have been advised that the DfT plans to roll out "Self Serve" to front line staff in other Departmental agencies. How many of the Departmental group bodies will be faced with changing their financial management IT system due to the Shared Services programme? How much will this cost? Has the Department estimated what reduction in front line services will result from front-line agency staff spending time administering Self Serve? Can the department provide a cost benefit analysis for the scheme? How much will the Shared Service project save? What is the current timetable for the scheme?

  One of the measures the Department is proposing to implement, in order to achieve efficiency savings, is a move to shared services. The shared services programme will introduce more standardised, streamlined processes across the Department's support services, covering Human Resources, finance, payroll and procurement. Moving to a shared service environment requires the adoption of a single IT platform to help maximise the efficiency gains. The different Business Units in the Department have previously set up independent systems; shared services gives us an opportunity to rationalise these systems.

  "Self service" will enable employees via their PCs to change their own personal details, such as bank accounts, and to record absence. It will allow managers to authorise leave requests and access certain management information rather than employing administrators to key this information from paper forms.

  Staff in a number of the Department's Business Units have been introduced to self service in one form or another in recent years. The Department has recognised that a move to shared services should not place an additional burden on staff engaged in front-line activity and the programme is being designed to ensure that self service is no more time consuming for front-line staff than the current arrangements and as a result there will be no adverse impact on front-line services. Indeed, one of the benefits of shared services is that projected staff savings across the Department's Human Resources, payroll, finance and procurement functions should enable more resources to be moved to front-line services.

  A detailed business case is currently being worked-up, reflecting the outcome of the current process design phase, and will be presented to the DfT Board early next year. The Department is happy to send the Committee the information requested regarding cost benefit analysis when the business case has been finalised.

  The outline timetable for the implementation programme allows for a phased transition to a shared service centre with the first Business Unit functions transferring during 2006-07 and the last in 2008-09.

What progress has been made against the agreed actions from the Treasury's financial review, in terms of actions to improve financial planning processes; clarification of budget management responsibilities; and expertise on managing the private sector?

  Improvements to the financial planning processes in terms of longer term forecasting have been made with reporting to the Board on the medium to long term horizon having commenced in November. The Executive Committee has recently agreed the basis on which reporting on major projects will operate, and the first reports will commence in January.

  Clarification of budget management responsibilities is being taken forward within the context of a project to reorganise line and central Finance. The aims of this project include streamlining and strengthening financial support for Directors General and subsidiary budget holders, clarifying accountability, and improving financial management skills. Work is currently under way on developing detailed proposals for how this should work, and the target is to have a recommended model approved by the end of January, for implementation in 2006-07.

  The Department has developed specialist teams in a number of areas to support the relationships with the private sector. These include major projects teams focussing on the larger projects both at the Departmental and local authority level. In addition a central Corporate Finance team has been developed comprising senior staff from across the public and private sectors to provide support to departmental priorities where complex relationships with the private sector are involved. The team comprises individuals with banking, private finance, consulting, procurement and contracting experience. The team works with relevant policy teams across the department to provide specialist expertise on complex transactions, complementing the skills of the relevant policy team.

We understand the Department is starting to take a greater oversight role of its Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies, including resource and long-term capital expenditure. How will this affect the accountability of the management boards of the Agencies? How will you ensure the Department's greater oversight of its Agencies does not delay decisions affecting front line services?

  Initiatives to extend oversight of DfT Agencies by the central Department are strictly limited to those which will improve performance and clarify accountability. The ones mentioned are aimed at better oversight of finance, not of operational front line services. The Departmental Accounting Officer is ultimately responsible for the expenditure made by the Agencies and needs to ensure that adequate controls are in place. Similarly, the DfT Board needs a degree of oversight to fulfil its function of strategic direction effectively. In planning appropriate mechanisms the Department has been careful to avoid interfering with the existing framework of accountability of Agency Accounting Officers and Boards. Its arrangements therefore incorporate principles of:

—  risk management: for example, the Department has put in place an Investment Appraisal Framework which leaves detailed scrutiny and approvals to be taken at appropriate levels in the agencies and central department, but ensures that the DfT Board has selective and appropriate oversight of certain projects, according to their risk profiles;

—  long term stability: the 10-year funding envelope enables the Department and its Agencies to agree longer term plans and priorities with greater certainty which will, in turn, lead to a strengthening of the accountability chain in respect of the strategic decisions made by Agency Management Boards;

—  mutual support: for example, the recently established Group Finance Committee provides a mechanism for the Department and Agencies to take joint decisions on matters of common interest, without changing the existing accountability framework.

  The Department continues to place high importance on ensuring clear lines of accountability through establishing appropriate governance arrangements. A revised Framework Document for the Highways Agency was published on 29 November. The Driver, Vehicle and Operator (DVO) Group have established a single governance framework covering its four Agencies (the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Driving Standards Agency, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, and the Vehicle Certification Agency). The Agencies now operate under the terms of the Group's Governance Handbook which has replaced the four separate Agency Framework Documents. The DVO Board sets the strategic direction for the Group as a whole and approves a number of operating frameworks within which the Agencies carry out their business (eg the ICT Framework). It also has responsibility for monitoring delivery against the targets set in the Agency Business Plans in particular on strategic projects, budgets and key operational delivery measures. This approach has brought significant benefits in terms of joining-up processes (eg the One-Stop-Service) and adopting a clearer customer focus. The Handbook sets out clear delegated authority limits which have helped to speed up decision making on the basis that they provide clarity on the different roles and responsibilities across the Group as a whole.

RESOURCE ACCOUNTS

Can the Department briefly identify what it has put in place to ensure that the 2005-06 Resource Accounts will be signed before the summer recess?

  The Department agreed a project plan, which includes the completion of audited nine-month consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts. This has been drawn up in consultation with our agencies, their NAO auditors and the Departmental NAO auditors. NAO has undertaken to carrying out interim audit on processes, on which it can place reliance for the year end accounts and this work will enable the NAO reduce the time taken to complete the final accounts audit; thus, enabling a pre-Summer Recess sign-off. The Finance Directorate is co-ordinating accounting procedures across the Department's central operational areas and the agencies to deal with high risk and material issues in-year and to ensure that our efforts are joined up to meet the year-end timetable. Agency Finance Directors and managers are involved in working groups on potentially. Moreover, in addition to close Income and Expenditure monitoring, this year, Directors are being asked to verify balance sheet amounts in year. This will identify potential problems early on and provide additional assurance on the accounts.

  The audit of the Highways Agency, being the largest and most complex of the composite parts of the Department's accounts, presents the highest risk. The NAO is proposing to complete its audit by 30 June, which leaves very little time for amendments to the consolidated accounts, if necessary. The NAO recognises the risk and will prioritise its audit work on the highest risk areas of the account early on.

Why has the number of losses in the Resource Accounts increased so dramatically, with the cost increasing fourfold from £3,911,000 in 2003-04 to £15,618,000 in 2004-05?

  Of the increase, the majority of the losses were in the Highways Agency; the reasons are as follows:

  An exercise was carried out in 2004-05 to determine whether balances due from third party developers on projects were, in fact, genuine debtors and properly recoverable. As a result, the following write-offs amounting to £6.4 million were actioned:

—  VAT book keeping errors £2.9 million—transactions relating to VAT recovered from the tax authorities were incorrectly included in the calculation of debtor balances for third party developers. The amounts had already been recovered by the Agency.

—  Other book keeping losses £2.2 million—debts going back to 2002 and earlier (when cash accounting was in place) were overstated. At that time, regional databases were centralised and data was duplicated.

—  Mis-postings £1.3 million—a developer funded scheme was running in conjunction with one of the Agency's major projects. The HA had a number of Project Identifier Numbers to capture the costs and some of the Agency's costs were been incorrectly posted.

  There was also an increase of £5.5 million in cases of damage to the roads (the network). This comprised—store losses: 2004-05: 2,268 cases amounting to £5.7 million (2003-04: 885 cases amounting to £1.9 million) and, abandoned claims: 2004-05: 1,819 cases amounting to £2.3 million (2003-04: 628 cases amounting to £642,000)

  There was also a sharp increase in the number of green claims written off (where third parties damage the network), either store losses where we weren't able to identify the culprit or abandoned claims where a judgement was made on the cost effectiveness of pursuing the debt). This was mainly due to better record keeping and more timely information being provided by our managing agents.

According to schedule 5 spending on objective 11 (improve air quality) has reduced by about £190k. What impact will this reduction have on the Department's ability to tackle the two air pollutants where targets are not currently being met? Spending on objective 12 (reduce carbon dioxide emissions) has increased by £210k. It seems that money has been moved from objective 11 to objective 12, is this a fair assessment? Will any new money for tackling carbon dioxide and air pollutants be forthcoming in the future?

  We would like to point out that the variances of £210 and £190 are not in thousands but millions as the numbers reported in the Resource Accounts are in thousands, thus objective 11 shows a variance of £210,000k and objective 12 shows a variance of £190,000k.

  In the previous year's comparative, the split between objectives 11 and 12 was overlooked for Highways and this led to apparently large variances.

  If the split had been made correctly for 2003-04, the revised total for objective 11 would be £232.7 million leading to an increase of only £4 million from prior year. As there is no decrease, there would be no impact and the department would be able to tackle the two air pollutants.

  For objective 12, if the split had been made correctly for 2003-04, the revised total would have been £222.4 million leading to an increase of £14 million from prior year. This shows that resources were available to address carbon dioxide and air pollutants.

20 December 2005

---

---

2   Hanly, M, Dargay, J, & Goodwin, P (2001) "Review of Income and Price Elasticities in the Demand for Road Traffic". Centre for Transport Studies, University College London (Contract PPAD 9/65/93). Back

3   Fuel prices index shows a weighted average of petrol and diesel prices. Back

---

Prepared 3 May 2006