Written evidence from the Transport Committee (SCE0006)

  1. In this memorandum we assess our activities and effectiveness since the beginning of the 2012-13 Parliamentary session. We have also undertaken an analysis of how we have met the revised core tasks for departmental select committees (endorsed on 31 January 2013). This is published as an annex to this note.

Where we have made a difference

  1. Following on from our memo on effectiveness to the Liaison Committee in 2012, we are looking again at:

 

  1. In addition to these areas we have also looked at:

Influencing Government policy

  1. We carried out our Rail 2020 inquiry on the future funding of the rail network in the wake of the publication of the McNulty report into rail value for money in 2011. We supported our study with a comprehensive analysis produced by our specialist advisers on the increase in government support to the rail industry since the British Rail era and the reasons behind it. This gave our report added credence and many of our recommendations were accepted and implemented. These included our recommendation that the DfT publish its assumptions underpinning its analysis of the ratio of taxpayer to farepayer funding on the different types of rail service, to enable scrutiny of the McNulty report analysis of subsidy of regional and inter-city services. Our report was debated in a well-attended Estimates Day debate in the Chamber on 3 July.

 

  1. Following the Government’s publication of its policy “A Green Light for Better Buses” in March 2012, we investigated competition in the local bus market in England. We were impressed by successful examples of partnership working between several local authorities and operators and recommended that Government support such schemes, while ensuring that they do not fall foul of the Office of Fair Trading. Where partnerships had not succeeded in enabling voluntary and viable private sector measures such as a multi-operator ticketing scheme, we recommended that the local authority be given the power to introduce such a scheme. Both of these key recommendations were accepted by Government.

 

  1. We have monitored how the Government treats all our recommendations and how many are accepted and implemented. In our previous note to the Liaison Committee, we explained that we have used the methodology devised by the Constitution Unit for measuring the effectiveness of select committees. This is based on the proportion of recommendations accepted by the Government. The table below compares the proportion of our recommendations which have been fully accepted since the start of the 2012-13 parliamentary session with the proportion in the previous session and with that identified for committees in the Constitution Unit study.

 

 

Constitution Unit study

Transport Committee 2010-12 session

Transport Committee 2012-13 session

Fully accepted recommendations

12%

25%

36%

 

  1. Our view is that a quantitative approach of this sort can only capture one element of the effectiveness of committees, but using this methodology our scrutiny work continues to be particularly effective. We intend to continue monitoring how the Government treats our recommendations and how many go on to be implemented.

Putting issues on the agenda

  1. We published an inquiry into the UK’s aviation strategy in May 2013. In this we assessed the options put forward for additional runway capacity in England. We commissioned research from the economic consultants Oxera to assess the conditions under which a new hub airport in the south-east of England could be commercially viable. This concluded that a new hub is unlikely to be feasible without substantial public funding for supporting infrastructure, plus further funding for closing Heathrow and compensating its owners. This report has been widely used by others in debates on aviation capacity, for example in an article and opinion piece in “The Economist”. Our report concluded that expansion of Heathrow was the best option and therefore provided a major counterbalance to the arguments in favour of a new airport east of London.

 

  1. In 2011, we produced a critical report on the Government’s proposals to modernise the Coastguard Service, which we raised in our last memorandum to the Liaison Committee. Following the implementation of revised proposals in response to our report published later that year, we have kept the pressure on the Government and carried out a follow-up inquiry looking at issues raised since the implementation. We heard that, while there is a degree of consensus that the Coastguard Service has to be reformed, there was a loss of morale in the service and a fear that important local knowledge was being lost. We called on the Government to set out its strategy for retaining experienced coastguards. Our inquiry kept this important issue on the agenda and we arranged a Westminster Hall debate following the publication of the Government’s response.

 

  1. During the spring of 2013 we heard evidence about the work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). Our inquiry put the performance of this agency on the public agenda and generated significant discussion on our Twitter feed. Our report’s publication sadly coincided with the inquest into the coach crash in September 2012 on the A3, which heard evidence that the tyre that blew-out was abnormally old. We received media interest in our work on VOSA and its relationship with Traffic Commissioners as a result of that. We shall continue to monitor the performance of VOSA.

Raising awareness of Parliament

  1. We launched a web forum in May 2013 to seek views on aspects of our inquiry into access to transport for disabled people, to add to our body of evidence and encourage different people to submit views. We publicised the forum through the Parliamentary Outreach team, via a media release and through regular Twitter posts, which were then retweeted by many of our followers. The forum ran for one month, in the run-up to the appearance of the Minister in front of the Committee. We received over 300 posts from disabled people, their carers and other interested parties. The views expressed in the forum were used in developing questions for the Minister. They were also referenced in support of points in the final report.

 

  1. The oral evidence sessions of our inquiry into UK maritime strategy coincided with London International Shipping Week. We took the opportunity to work with the organisers of London International Shipping Week and include our Ministerial evidence session as part of the week’s events. This enabled our hearing (and hence our broader inquiry) to be included in the Shipping Week publicity. We held the event at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich during September 2013. This was a fitting venue and before the evidence session we held a well-attended networking reception with leading figures in the shipping industry.

 

  1. As part of the “Parliament Talks” programme developed by the Parliamentary Outreach team, we worked with Coventry University to arrange a conference on the future requirements from England’s roads policy. Holding it on Coventry’s campus was particularly appropriate given the specialisms that the University is developing around the motor industry. Our Chair facilitated the debate, which was well attended by local businesses, local politicians and postgraduate students.

Providing a forum for the discussion of Government policy

  1. We held a short inquiry into the conduct of the Department for Transport in the wake of the collapse of the West Coast rail franchise in September 2012. We took evidence from parties including rail operators and the DfT. We uncovered worrying evidence about the poor preparedness of the Department for assessing rail franchise tenders and later took evidence on the Brown review of franchising. In our Rail 2020 report, we recommended that franchises should be let by a DfT agency or arms-length body, employing staff with appropriate specialist, commercial skills. The DfT initially rejected this proposal, setting up a new, in-house franchising team. The Government has subsequently said that it will look at our proposal, by setting up the cross-Governmental review of infrastructure delivery by Lord Deighton for the Treasury.

 

  1. Our inquiry into whiplash claims was a follow-up to our previous inquiry into the cost of motor insurance. It gave us an opportunity to scrutinise Government proposals to bring down premiums by reducing whiplash claims. This was an inquiry that generated substantial interest from the media, with the report receiving an excellent reception on social media. Following our report raising a number of concerns which the Ministry of Justice accepted had substance, the Government subsequently dropped its proposal to put whiplash claims into the small claims court.

 

  1. We published a report on the Government’s road safety policies in July 2012. We arranged a Westminster Hall debate on this in the wake of the Government’s response, which was well-attended and gave MPs the opportunity to question the Minister about the increase in road users killed or seriously injured (KSIs) in 2010-11.

 

  1. The preparedness of the UK for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics was of major national concern in the run up to the Games, as were the plans for the delivery of a transport legacy post-Games. In May 2012 we invited some key stakeholders in the implementation of the Games to give oral evidence, including BAA, Network Rail, Transport for London, the Olympic authorities and the Secretary of State. We were able publicly to scrutinise the plans made by the organisers in detail.

Scrutiny of European issues

  1. Many of the laws and guidelines affecting UK transport are passed at European Union level. We take a close interest in these and in the impacts they have on UK transport. To this end, we visited Brussels in May 2013 and held meetings with the Vice-President of the European Commission, other Commission officials and Members of the European Parliament. Areas of policy dealt with at a European level that we have scrutinised recently include:

 

  1. Our work on flight-time limitations during 2012 gained a great deal of attention within the industry and we were regarded as a key channel of influence over the Government in its negotiations on early drafts of the Regulation. In July 2013, the European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) asked us for an opinion on the Commission’s proposed Regulation. We produced a follow-up report which repeated our concerns although it recognised that the proposed Regulation represented an improvement on earlier versions. In the light of this the subject was debated further in a European Committee and the ESC wrote to the European Commission asking it to address the matters raised in our report, including ensuring effective monitoring of the new flight time Regulation; and asking for an assessment of the Regulation two years after its implementation.

Innovative working methods and transparency

  1. We actively seek to engage the public in our work and promote transparency in our decision-making. As part of this, for the last two years we have asked the public for suggestions for inquiries and published a report outlining the topics we have selected, with an explanation for our decision.

 

  1. We are looking to involve stakeholders in the scoping of inquiries. This summer, we arranged a well-attended forum with members and officials from local authorities to discuss the potential scope of our forthcoming inquiry into local decision making on transport expenditure. We have taken all the feedback into account and shall be publishing our terms of reference shortly

 

  1. As part of our inquiry into access to transport for disabled people, we arranged for individual Members to make journeys with disabled people in their own constituencies, to enable them to experience a person’s transport experience while raising awareness of the Transport Committee in their individual constituencies. We shall develop this way of giving Members an insight into transport user experiences and look to use it again.

 

  1. We are using our Twitter account to provide regular updates on Committee activity and reports, gaining over 1000 followers since the launch of our feed in November 2012.

 

  1. We continue our commitment to commissioning research to support our inquiries where relevant. Following the work undertaken for us during our inquiries into the funding of the rail network and aviation strategy, we have recently commissioned an assessment of the differing academic viewpoints over future traffic growth from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). We continue to work closely with the House of Commons Library and the Scrutiny Unit during all our inquiries.

Implementation of the Liaison Committee recommendations on effectiveness

  1. Much of the work that we outline above addresses the recommendations of the Liaison Committee report, for example in asking the public for suggestions for inquiries and in following up on which of our report recommendations have been accepted and implemented by the Government.

 

  1. In addition, we clearly differentiate between conclusions and recommendations in reports and specify more clearly to whom recommendations are directed. We also produce a paper at the start of an inquiry to clarify our objectives and where possible this paper identifies witnesses, potential visits and specialist advisers.

 

  1. We have recently moved to electronic working, using iPads to distribute papers for Committee sessions.

Future plans

  1. We aim to continue our public outreach work, both through events and using social media. During Parliament Week, which this year celebrates women’s contribution to the UK’s democracy, we plan to hold an event in London to discuss the role of women in transport.

 

  1. The number of followers of our Twitter feed continues to grow and we shall continue to use social media to raise attention to Committee inquiries and other activities.

 

1 November 2013

 

Annex: Analysis of Committee activity and the revised core tasks