6 PRESENTATION
97. The Departmental Annual Report is a key document
in the Department's duty of accountability to Parliament. It must
be constructed and written to the highest standards of literacy
and transparency. Failure of transparency will obscure both Departmental
successes and failures, to the detriment of Parliamentary accountability.
98. The work of the Department for Transport is often
technical and therefore relatively impenetrable. We expect its
Departmental Annual Report to demonstrate high standards of transparency,
accuracy, and completeness. Such a report should be prepared with
the general reader in mind, not the specialist or expert. This
is a considerable challenge.
Structure of the Departmental Annual Report
99. Last year our predecessor committee recommended
that the Department should improve coherence between the various
documents in which it reports progress and, in particular, restructure
the Annual Report to ensure that chapters could be more clearly
related to the Department's strategy and Public Service Agreement
(PSA) targets.
100. Unfortunately progress in the 2005 documents
has been limited. The structure adopted for the Departmental
Annual Report 2005 does not clearly reflect the Department's
objectives and lacks coherence. For example, despite the inclusion
of an index in the Report showing where each PSA target is reported,
it is not straightforward to locate performance information within
the main body of text. The Appendix, which deals with Public Service
Agreement (PSA) targets, is considerably clearer. [80]
101. There has been an improvement in the quality
of the core expenditure tables where expenditure is reported by
objective. But unfortunately there is an important mismatch: the
tables use the Spending Review 2004 (SR2004) objectives
whereas the text reports performance against the Spending
Review 2002 (SR2002) objectives. This makes it difficult for the
reader to relate progress against targets to use of resources.
In addition, investment information is not reported by objective
which detracts from its usefulness.
102. The Departmental Annual Report is intended to
be both forward and backward looking, and in general we found
that a reasonable balance has been achieved. This year marks a
transition from the SR2002 PSA targets to those of SR2004. It
is reasonable therefore that there will be some discussion of
the new targets. But HM Treasury guidance requires that Annual
Reports should focus on progress against the SR2002 targets. While
some PSA targets have continued unchanged from SR2002 to SR2004,
parts of two of the SR2002 PSA targets - improving rail use, and
accessibility, punctuality and reliability of buses and light
rail - have been dropped. In these cases, the relevant Annual
Report 2005 chapters focus more on the SR2004 targets,
the dropped elements being relegated to later parts of the text.[81]
For a slightly clearer report of progress the reader needs to
search out material in the Appendix on PSA targets.[82]
103. In addition, there is insufficient explanation
in the Annual Report 2005 of why some changes to targets
have been made. For example, there is no explanation that separate
projections indicate the rail use target will not be met by 2010.[83]
104. The Autumn Performance Report 2005 is
similarly patchy. While the chapter on buses and light rail contains
a reasonably full account of the changes to the target, that on
rail contains insufficient explanation. Where the Department's
own key documents fail to demonstrate the highest standards of
coherence and transparency, its efforts to disseminate good practice
to local authorities - whose targets and performance it monitors-
will lack credibility.
105. The Department is falling short of the high
standards of coherence and transparency we expect to see in its
Annual Report. The Report must be structured directly around Departmental
strategic objectives. Progress against Public Service Agreement
and other Departmental targets, and resources allocated to each
target need to be highlighted clearly. The Department should explain
clearly in its Annual Report why any changes to targets have been
made. Reporting the Department's Investment Strategy by objective
would enhance clarity.
Editorial problems
106. Why do these problems persist? A part of the
problem appears to lie in uncertain editorial control. The Annual
Report 2005 lacks a single coherent 'voice'. Individual chapters
do not have a common style or structure.
107. In addition, there is a lack of consistency.
For example, Chapter 5, about buses, starts with a section on
responsibility for delivery and then goes on to discuss progress
against the objectives; but Chapter 3, covering congestion, reverses
this structure. In Chapter 4, dealing with rail, the section on
responsibility is left to the end of the chapter; but Chapter
10, which covers the road safety target, contains no explicit
description of responsibility for delivery. Inconsistency undermines
presentational clarity.
108. Editorial control could be improved by the systematic
quotation of useful website addresses. Chapter 4 of the Annual
Report 2005 lists the addresses at the end of the chapter.
Other chapters give addresses in the body of the text or in footnotes.
In addition, Chapters 5 and 6 contain extensive sections on financing
and resources; but Chapters 9 and 10 contain only limited financial
information.
109. There is surprisingly little attention given
to imaginative design and presentation in the Report which, combined
with its considerable length (over 300 pages) makes it frankly
dull. More diagrams, boxes, colour, pictures and other common
graphic devices, could have been used to split up the often unrelieved
text and stimulate the reader's attention. The Annual Report
2005 lacks presentational sparkle.
110. We are pleased that the Department has responded
to our predecessor committee's requests for more information.[84]
This has resulted in a considerably longer report than in
previous years. Stronger editorial control might have resulted
in a qualitatively enhanced document which was nevertheless more
tightly written. A focus on presenting key information in a clear
and attractive way using the presentational techniques noted above
would have increased the impact of the Annual Report greatly.
111. The editorial control of this year's Annual
Report is relatively weak. Improvements are likely to follow where
the writing style is made more vigorous, straightforward and consistent
in tone; where the presentation and design of the report uses
a full range of imaginative graphic aids; and where the requirements
of the general reader are kept firmly in mind throughout. We do
not underestimate the problems of editing the output of a large
central Department. But it is neither an unusual task, nor one
in which officials and Ministers are unpractised. Production of
the Departmental Annual Report is not a chore but an opportunity;
and it must be done better.
112. It may be that the flow of information from
the various parts of the Department to the Report's editorial
team is too slow. We recommend therefore that the Permanent Secretary
reviews the resources put into the production of the Annual Report
to ensure that sufficient time is allowed for imaginative editorial
interventions which will ensure a top class production. We hope
that action taken to address our constructive criticisms of the
way in which the Annual Report 2005 has been presented will result
in livlier reports in 2006 and beyond.
80 Department for Transport, Annual Report 2005, Appendix
D Back
81
Department for Transport, Annual Report 2005, Chapters 4 and
5 Back
82
Department for Transport, Annual Report 2005, Appendix D Back
83
Department for Transport, Autumn Performance Report 2005, page
13. The Report indicates an 11% rise on the 2000-2001 baseline
by March 2005 Back
84
Transport Select Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2004-05,
The Departmental Annual Report 2004, (HC 409), paragraphs 11 -
13 Back
| 
