List of recommendations
Introduction
1. The
Committee is pleased to learn that the Department has taken appropriate
and swift action to rectify some of the concerns identified in
the Capability Review. Much still remains to be done, and we will
monitor progress in this area, and return to these issues when
we examine the Department's 2008 Annual Report. (Paragraph 5)
Objectives, structure and effectiveness
2. We
are unclear as to the Departments' motive for having a set of
five goals, as well as a set of four strategic objectives, given
that there seems to be a degree of crossover between the two.
We are particularly concerned that the Department was restructured
in order to better align with the four strategic objectives, only
to shift its priorities by introducing the five core goals less
than a year later. The second strategic objective is divided between
two of the five goals, for reasons that remain obscure. We question
whether this restructuring of the Department's goals and objectives
has led to any actual increase in the quantity or quality of its
work. (Paragraph 9)
3. We have noted a
number of areas of policy where the Department seems to be stalling
in making a clear decision - examples are electrification versus
diesel on the railways, a national ports policy, the viability
of a national road pricing scheme. While we recognise that the
Department is trying to ensure that policy decisions are made
on the basis of thorough cross-modal analyses and considerations,
there is a danger that the policy-making process could become
bogged-down. The Department clearly has substantial issues that
need to be resolved, but at the moment there appears to be a lack
of clear, tangible vision - at least none that is communicated
to the wider world. (Paragraph 11)
4. We are pleased
to hear that the Department has learnt lessons and acted rapidly
to implement changes to its shared services programme by appointing
a new board director with experience of running shared services
in the private sector. We are also reassured by the fact that
the contract between the DVLA and IBM, their partner in the shared
services arrangement, has been refined. But we are deeply disappointed
that the estimated cost of the project has risen from an initial
figure of £50 million to the most recent estimate of £113
million - a 126% increase. We remain unconvinced that the Department
is of a sufficient size to reap the benefits of the shared services
approach. We reiterate our encouragement for the Department to
actively seek clients for its shared services from parts of Government
outside the Departmental group, in order to secure the long-term
viability of its shared services programme. (Paragraph 16)
5. We were concerned
to learn that the Department had been involved in several separate
incidents where significant amounts of personal data were lost.
We are pleased that the Department has since then put in place
measures to prevent similar incidents happening in future, but
would urge that the systems surrounding the storage and transfer
of any kind of personal data by the DfT or its agencies be kept
under review for the time being. We expect the Department to implement
the recommendations now awaited from the Cabinet Secretary regarding
personal data fully and speedily once these are known. (Paragraph
18)
The Department's management of expenditure
6. We
are deeply concerned that budgetary pressure caused by increases
in the projected cost of programmed road schemes could result
in the postponement or cancellation of other much needed improvements.
The implications of the Nichols Report must be fully considered
by the Highways Agency and there should be a detailed response
to its recommendations. The Secretary of State must make a statement
to the House as soon as the Department's investigation of the
consequences of the cost increases has been concluded. (Paragraph
22)
7. We believe the
LTP funding arrangements are excessively complex and there is
a deficiency of publicly available information from the Department
to explain the arrangements and their implications. We are also
concerned that some local authorities may be unable to fund the
additional borrowing necessitated by these arrangements. We urge
the Department to simplify the system and improve the quality
and availability of information available to local authorities
and others. (Paragraph 27)
8. We congratulate
the Department for delivering 95% of its Spending Review 2004
financial efficiency target, and trust that the target will be
substantially over-achieved. We expect to see real improvements
in services driven by the resources released by this achievement,
though at present the Efficiency Technical Note only says that
the savings "could" do so. (Paragraph 28)
9. We are very concerned
that the Department might fail to achieve its headcount reduction
target. The pace of change does not appear to be sufficiently
rapid. (Paragraph 29)
The Department's Public Service Agreement targets
10. We
are concerned that the Department for Transport appears to have
lost interest in rail punctuality and reliability. The PSA targets
on punctuality and reliability have not been met, so there can
be little justification for dropping the target. A loss of focus
in this area might lead to a reversal in such progress as has
been made in the past five years. (Paragraph 34)
11. The Department's
success or failure will be judged largely on the basis of its
achievement of the PSA targets for which it has lead responsibility.
There is a clear risk that the Minister's stated ambitions for
synergy between economic and green imperatives in the Department's
operations will fall by the wayside. (Paragraph 36)
12. We are concerned
that the Department's approach to its new PSA targets lacks clarity.
The new targets do not address the issues raised by the Eddington
study in any obvious manner. In our judgement, there is no clear
link between the new PSA targets and the Eddington priorities.
(Paragraph 38)
13. The Department
for Transport has been unable to clarify the manner in which it
will contribute towards meeting the PSA targets in which it has
a supporting role. The lack of clarity concerns the budget that
the DfT intends to allocate as well as changes in strategy and
approach. There is a real risk that responsibility for delivering
the Department for Transport's element of these joint PSA targets
will be too diffuse, undermining performance and accountability.
(Paragraph 39)
14. We are concerned
that the fourth indicator of the DfT's new PSA target, to "deliver
reliable and efficient transport networks that support economic
growth" could result in a very narrow perspective on transport
investment. We recommend that, when allocating investment funds,
the Department gives due consideration to factors beyond the absolute
value of improvements in terms of economic performance and growth.
It is important, for example, that the Department should take
equally seriously its supporting role in regional Development
PSA targets. (Paragraph 40)
The Department's impact on economic growth and
productivity
15. The
continued failure to deliver on road congestion targets, especially
given the modest nature of the target, is very disappointing.
The Department has very little time to reverse the trend towards
ever more serious delays on the strategic road network. In order
to do so, the improvements cited by the Department, such as enhanced
Incident Support Units (ISUs) and improved road-works management,
will need to be implemented very quickly and efficiently. The
problem is likely to become more significant, as two of the four
new PSAs relate to congestion. (Paragraph 45)
16. We note that little
progress is being made with regard to road pricing. There is little
evidence to suggest that local authorities have the appetite for
submitting the necessary bids and securing TIF support. We have
previously noted that local road pricing schemes cannot be effective
pilots for a national scheme. We therefore recommend that the
Government re-examine its policy with respect to national road
pricing. (Paragraph 50)
17. We are deeply
disappointed by the lack of progress on lorry road user charging.
In the absence of a national road pricing scheme for the foreseeable
future, United Kingdom hauliers continue to pay towards the cost
of maintaining the infrastructure while their foreign competitors
generally make no such contribution. This situation is highly
unsatisfactory and has been going on for far too long. The Department
must act to level the playing field between UK hauliers and their
overseas competitors. Since a national road pricing scheme remains
a distant prospect, we recommend that the Department revive its
plans to set up a lorry road user charging scheme as soon as
possible. (Paragraph 52)
18. The failure to
achieve the target for punctuality and reliability on the railways
suggests either that the Department is not sufficiently pro-active
in driving up standards among train operating companies and other
partners, or that it does not have the means to compel operators
to get this sorted out. Whichever is the real problem, the Government
needs to act promptly and decisively to ensure that passengers
get the level of reliability and punctuality they deserve. (Paragraph
55)
19. The Department
should clarify the time-frame in which it will make a decision
over the high-speed rail link to Birmingham. We understand the
logic of the Eddington report which suggests that now is not the
right time to make this decision, but given the long lead time
for any major engineering works, we believe the Government needs
to commit to making a decision by 2010 at the latest. (Paragraph
56)
The environment
20. We
are not convinced that biofuels will make sufficient impact on
UK emissions within the time-frame envisaged by the Government.
There are significant issues over the use of first-generation
biofuels in transport, not least of which is the risk that they
might cause as much carbon emission as conventional fuels, once
all factors are taken into account. Other, significant risks relating
to biofuels, in particular their impact on food prices, also need
to be addressed before biofuels can be seen as a major element
in efforts to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions. It may well
be that second-generation biofuels, produced from the non-edible
parts of food crops and non-food plants, can address some of these
concerns, but it is still early days. It is a matter of concern
that the Department currently has no plans to assess the risks
of first-generation biofuels in the short term. (Paragraph 62)
21. We are concerned
that the Department is not giving sufficient weight to the issue
of climate change adaptation, both with regards to planning decisions
and maintenance funding. Greater clarity and coordination is needed
in this area. (Paragraph 63)
22. We recommend that
a target for the Department to improve air quality be reinstated.
(Paragraph 65)
23. We would welcome
any information the Department can give us concerning their plans
to enhance the provision for cyclists. We assume such plans are
being made given the DfT's stated objective of being a 'green'
department in the lead of the struggle against climate change.
(Paragraph 66)
Enforcement
24. We
congratulate the department on its achievement of its road safety
PSA target. We are pleased to note that the Department has also
met its added objective of tackling the significantly higher incidence
of casualties in disadvantaged communities. However, we are concerned
that the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) failed to include
a target in this area for the period from 2008 onwards. It is
essential that there is no let-up in effort in this area of great
public concern. (Paragraph 67)
25. The growth in
VED evasion is cause for concern. It is not so much the lost revenue—though
that is a problem that the DVLA should be making every effort
to tackle—but the apparent growth in the number of motorists
whose vehicles are neither registered, taxed, insured nor roadworthy
that is a serious concern to us. The removal, in March 2007, of
a specific target for reducing the size of this group of illicit
road-users was clearly an error and we recommend that such a target
be reinstated immediately. (Paragraph 72)
26. We are also concerned
about the Department's significant over-estimation of the scale
of VED evasion among motorcyclists, which calls into question
the reliability of all the Department's VED evasion data. We recommend
that the Department review the systems it uses to estimate evasion
rates. (Paragraph 73)
Conclusions
27. The
Department has made some progress in addressing its major objectives,
but the overall picture is disappointing. It now appears likely
that only one of the PSA targets from the 2004 Spending Review
will be met, even though some of these targets were not especially
onerous. This does not inspire confidence that the Department
will be able to use its additional resources to meet all of its
new targets. (Paragraph 74)
28. The Department
for Transport needs to be clear about what its main priorities
are, taking into account the diverse recommendations of the Eddington
and Stern reports, as well as its new targets and goals. We would
welcome a more consistent and coherent set of targets which state
clearly what the Department's priorities are and will enable more
rigorous, objective measurement of its progress in meeting them.
(Paragraph 75)
| 
