Supplementary memorandum from the Department
for Transport (DAR 01D)
Transport Select Committee session—30
January 2008
At the recent Transport Select Committee session
on the DAR, 30 January 2008, we agreed to supply further information
on the topics listed below.
1 DATA LOSS
A note was promised to the Committee regarding
what redress might be available to individuals who sought to claim
damages from the Crown if their data had been lost. [Q129]
— The Committee asked " . . .
in the event of somebody suffering loss as a result of what has
happened [ie the loss by Pearson of a disk in Iowa], what redress
do they have against you?"
— As my Permanent Secretary confirmed
to the Committee [Q124], there is no evidence that anyone has,
to date, suffered any loss as a result of the lost disk incident.
I would again highlight the point I made, which was that no financial
information was held on the disk, and I would add that the risk
of anyone outside of Pearson gaining access to it is considered
to be low.
— In terms of the redress available
to an individual who has suffered damage by reason of a contravention
by a data controller of any of the requirements of the Data Protection
Act, I would draw your attention to section 13(1) of that Act
which provides that:
An individual who suffers damage by reason of
any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements
of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller
for that damage.
— And section 13(2), which provides
that:
An individual who suffers distress by reason
of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements
of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller
for that distress if the individual also suffers damage by reason
of the contravention . . .
— In the present case the Department
is the data controller in respect of driver theory test data and
would be responsible as such for any breaches of data protection
principles by data processors acting on its behalf. Following
on also from the point made by Mr Wilshire [at Q125], I can confirm
that section 13 applies to the Department as part of the Crown
in the same way as it applies to any other data controller (see
section 63).
— However, the Department is not currently
of the view that Pearson, as its data processors, were in breach
of the data protection principles at the time the disk was lost.
In particular, the Department remains of the view, at present,
that the security measures Pearson had in place when the disk
was lost were appropriate and met the requirements of the seventh
data protection principle. That principle requires appropriate
technical and organisational measures to be in place to guard
against, amongst other things, the accidental loss of data. It
does not and could not provide for an absolute guarantee against
such events which unfortunately still do occur from time to time.
— DSA is currently reviewing Pearson's
data handling and storage procedures to ensure all reasonable
design, procedural and process safeguards are in place.
2 THE IMPACT OF SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS ON LOCAL
AUTHORITY ROADS
A note was promised to the Committee on whether this
year had been particularly bad for roads as a consequence of the
severe weather. [Q157]
— The Committee asked whether this
winter had been bad for roads and if there is a particular problem
this year with road surfaces breaking up.
— Annual road condition surveys are
conducted to show the proportion of the network for which road
repairs are likely to be needed, but 2007/8 data is not yet available.
In the mean time we have received no representations or evidence
from local authorities that this Winter has caused particular
concerns.
— The trunk road network is surveyed
in order to ensure the network is maintained in a safe
and serviceable condition. The annual survey programme includes
the measurement of the rutting, the road texture, the
ride quality, the degree of surface cracking and skid resistance.
To date, the assessment of surface condition has indicated no
abnormal problem for the trunk road network.
3 BUS PATRONAGE FIGURES
The Committee requested that the figures shown on
page 29 of the 2007 Departmental annual Report should be disaggregated
and concessionary versus fare paying passengers—was requested.
[Q180]
— For concessionary fares we were asked whether
the Department had disaggregated figures showing the number of
these journeys. The Department recently conducted a special
survey of bus operators to obtain more detailed information on
the proportion of concessionary fare bus passengers by area in
2006/07. This survey will be repeated annually.
— The results of the survey will be
published on 13 March, however, this will not show separate estimates
for those qualifying on the grounds of age and disability as,
generally, operators do not require drivers to identify different
categories of concessionaire.
— We can however show figures from
London based on figures from TfL. Please find enclosed an analysis
which shows that in a recent period, 10% of passengers were aged
60 plus, with a further 2% who held disabled concessionary passes.
London, of course, has had free concessionary fares for some time.
CONCESSIONARY FARE PASSENGERS IN LONDON FOR
PERIOD 1 JULY 2006 TO 30 JUNE 2007
| Million |
|
All TfL passengers
| 2,237
| |
Less 0 to 4yr olds | 38
| 1.7% according to TfL data provided for quarterly patronage estimates
|
Less staff/ police | 31
| 1.4% according to TfL data provided for quarterly patronage estimates
|
All DfT defined passengers |
2,168 | |
Concessionary 60+ passengers |
224 | |
Disabled Passengers | 52
| |
Concessionary 60+ passengers |
10 | |
% Disabled passengers | 2
| |
| | |
4 CHANGES TO STAGECOACH BUS FARES
The Committee fed back that they had had correspondence suggesting
fare changes being made by bus companies in response to changes
to the concessionary fares regime were in breach of State Aid
rules. I made clear I would look into this if evidence were provided
to her by the Committee members raising the issue. [Q184]
— The Committee raised the question of whether bus
operators could unfairly generate higher levels of reimbursement
by raising fares. The suggestion was that, if so, this would effectively
force a Travel Concession Authority (TCA) to breach state aids
rules.
— The principle underpinning the reimbursement of
operators is that they should be left "no better and no worse
off" than if the concession were in place. This requirement
is enshrined in legislation and complies with state aids requirements,
in that operators are only compensated for their actual costs
in providing the concessionary journeys. As such, TCAs are required
to base reimbursement calculations on a consideration of likely
fares and patronage in the absence of the concession.
— We have recently issued revised guidance to TCAs
reinforcing this point, and have provided them with a more assessable
toolkit to use when considering appropriate levels of reimbursement.
— If members are aware of any circumstances where
TCAs are not successfully applying this principle would be happy
to investigate.
5 OVERSEAS EXPENDITURE
The Committee asked for detail to be provided on the references
at p209 footnote 7 and p210 footnote 10 to overseas expenditure,
providing detail of what this consists of. [Q207]
— The Committee requested clarification related
to the items included under the section "Current grants and
subsidies to the private sector and abroad" in table A2,
p210.
— Most of the costs included in this part of table
A2 relate to payments to the private sector such as Bus Service
Operators Grants, rail franchise payments, Crossrail grants, Channel
Tunnel Rail Link revenue grant payments and rail pension
provision utilisation costs. There are some payments classed as
payments to overseas, the majority of which relate to Eurocontrol.
6 GALILEO
The Committee requested a note providing the latest information
on what has changed in terms of the position on costs for Galileo,
to provide an update as to what has become more certain since
the previous session had been held. [Q226]
— Developments on Galileo have been moving quickly
over the last few months. Robert Devereux aired his suspicions
to the Committee that there could have been a misunderstanding
between us regarding the chronology of events, and he subsequently
appears to have been right. In the interests of clarity, I thought
it would be helpful to include a timeline setting out the order
of recent select committee hearings on Galileo and decisions/publications
relating to its financing:
— 10 October 07—TSC hearing
— 12 November 07—TSC report published
— 23 November 07—Economic &
Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Budget Council
— 26 November 07—European Standing
Committee debate
— 29/30 November 07—Transport Council
— 22 January 08—ESYS GNSS benefits
report published on DfT website
— 28 January 08—Government response
to TSC report published
— 31 January 08—TSC hearing on DfT
Annual Report
— As this shows, the Government's response to the
TSC was published on 28 January, just a few days before the most
recent hearing on 31 January. As a result, it was unclear whether
the Committee had had a chance to consider the Government's response
beforehand. This may help to explain the misunderstanding about
whether new financial information was available.
— For the avoidance of doubt, the Government's response[1]
sets out our latest understanding of costs and benefits associated
with Galileo. No significant new information on financing has
become available since the response was published on 28 January.
7 PROGRESS REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Committee asked for confirmation that this was published (p.24,
Para 2.17): [Q240]
— We can confirm that the report has been published
and is available on the Sustainable Development Commission website,
on the following link: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/sdap—progress.html
8 KINGS CROSS RE-MODELLING
The Committee asked for confirmation of whether this would be
ready in time for the 2012 Olympics. [Q261]
— All the work proposed for Kings Cross is expected
to be completed in time for the Olympics except for that at the
southern square, which entails demolishing the existing concourse.
That work is due for completion by August 2013.
— The present intention is to avoid disruption while
the Games are in progress. Therefore work will not begin unless
it can be finished before the start of the Games.
9 FURTHER CLARIFICATION
SHARED SERVICES
— In answer to Question 264, the negotiations with
IBM on rates for shared services work are still ongoing. These
negotiations are expected to conclude, with new rates agreed,
by the end of March.
— In answer to Question 276, the estimated £120
million benefit over ten years accounted for all agencies' finance,
HR and payroll functions joining the shared service. At the present
time, the Department is focusing on an HR and payroll implementation
for Highways Agency; and payroll-only for VOSA. Consequently,
a reduced assessment of benefits from for these agencies' move
to shared services will be included in their respective business
cases. A more accurate picture should be available in March 2008.
LONDON TO BIRMINGHAM RAIL LINK
— I would like to take this opportunity to clarify
my comments to the Committee regarding the possibility of using
disused railway alignments for a new line between London and Birmingham.
There is in fact no disused line that would provide the whole
of a route from London to Birmingham and therefore none that is
currently safeguarded in the statutory sense. However, disused
alignments do exist that could potentially be used to provide
parts of any new line.
Department for Transport Spring Supplementary Estimate,
2007-08
1
House of Commons Transport Committee; Galileo: Recent Developments:
Government Response to the Committee's First Report of Session
2007-08. Published 28 January 2008. This is available on the Parliament
website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/283/283.pdf Back
|
