Financial Scrutiny Of The Department For Transport

This report details a new approach to scrutinising the financial performance of the Department for Transport during the life of this parliament. The strategy rests on innovations agreed with the Department designed to make it easier for the Committee to compare information in the departmental annual review with that provided in the estimate of expenditure. These changes are to be welcomed as they will make it easier to hold the Government to account about the delivery of its transport policy pledges including those made in the recent comprehensive spending review. However, it is essential that in moving to a simplified structure for the annual estimate of expenditure, important detail about departmental spending is not hidden from public view. The Committee will be carefully monitoring the new arrangements to ensure that this is not the case

While this report welcomes the additional investment in road and rail infrastructure projects announced in the Autumn Statement, it expresses concern that the regions are not as well provided for as London and the south east. There are also real concerns about how those projects were chosen. Ministers need to provide much more information about how the department's funding of the Regional Growth and Growing Places Funds has been used. While the presentation of financial information is in a clearer, simpler format than previous years, the key performance indicators fail to show whether the DfT's policies are effective and, overall, the DfT's 2010-11 annual report gives a very thin account of the department's performance during the year. The Department must publish much more information about changes made to its budget within any given year. MPs noted that the DfT underspent on its budget in 2010-11 by more than the budget cuts made during the year. They recommend that the new rail schemes announced in the autumn statement be regarded as additional to those which the Government will agree to fund as part of planning for the 2014-19 rail spending period. Finally, the Committee repeats its call for the Department to publish a national transport strategy to explain what the Government aims to achieve by spending money on transport and how its policies support these aims.

Whiplash injuries can have debilitating consequences for those who suffer them. However, some of the increase in whiplash claims will have been due to fraud or exaggeration. The Government must tighten up the requirements for motor insurance claims and ensure that insurers honour their commitment to reduce premiums. The Government should consider requiring claimants to provide proof that they have either been seen by a doctor or attended A&E shortly after the accident. The MPs also note that their previous recommendation on making the links between insurers and other parties involved with claims more transparent has been ignored. The absence of comprehensive statistics about road traffic accidents means that it is impossible to relate the increasing number of personal injury claims in recent years to the number of accidents. Data collection about road accidents needs to be improved help to assist detection of fraudulent personal injury claims and help highways authorities improve road safety by targeting spending on accident black-spots. The Committee also supports the proposal for an accreditation scheme for medical practitioners who provide medical reports in relation to whiplash claims. Access to justice could also be impaired by Government proposals to switch whiplash claims between £1,000 and £5,000 to the small claims court, particularly for people who do not feel confident to represent themselves against insurers who will use legal professionals to contest claims. Ways in which use of the small claims track could be combined with the routine submission of expert evidence should be considered

In the UK some 11.5m people already live with a recognised disability and more than a fifth of them experience some difficulty when using transport networks. So it's essential that the Department for Transport delivers an ambitious Accessibility Action Plan. Changes made ahead of the 2012 Paralympic Games delivered access for disabled people to significantly more parts of the public transport network for the first time and highlighted the immense value of such improvements for all. Yet a year later, there is a risk that some of the momentum from London 2012 is being lost because further key accessibility improvements planned have been watered-down or abandoned. The Committee's recommendations include: imposing penalties on bus operators who claim to offer accessible routes but then fail to provide accessible buses; the phased introduction of audio-visual information systems on all buses over the next ten years; phasing out the need for disabled travellers having to book organised assistance in advance; financial incentives to encourage investment in fully accessible vehicles by taxi and private care hire vehicle operators; and a change to EU rules so that in future airlines are required to allow carers to travel free of charge when the airline judges a disabled person incapable of travelling independently. The Cabinet Office should convene a working group of ministers and officials to improve cross-government working on accessibility in order to secure the full benefits to be gained from widening disabled people's access to employment and training, healthcare and wider participation in all parts of society

Flight time limitations regulate the number of hours that pilots and crew work in order to prevent fatigue. Fatigue contributes 15-20% of fatal aviation incidents caused by human error. In July 2013, Member States of the European Union voted strongly in support of a draft proposal on flight time limitations by the European Commission. Overall, the Commission's draft regulation represents an improvement but concerns remain. Particularly about the apparent reluctance of the Commission when developing these regulations to set a lower limit for the flight duty period at night in accordance with the scientific evidence on this matter. It is disappointing that the UK Government has not pressed for a lower limit. It is also disappointing that a consensus has not been reached on the draft regulations with crew and pilot representatives. It is recommended that the European Scrutiny Committee requests the UK Government to press the Commission to ensure an effective monitoring regime is put in place to examine whether the 11 hour limit is at least as safe as the current regime and that they request the European Commission provide an assessment of the regulation two years after its implementation. The Committee also concluded that: the potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue must be properly recognised if it is to be effectively tackled; information should be regularly published on the use of Commander's discretion to extend their crew's flight duty period if unforeseen circumstances arise; and scientists must have a more central role in the development and assessment of flight time limitation proposals

This report reviews the Government's plans to tackle fraudulent and exaggerated motor insurance claims, particularly for whiplash injuries. It is the Transport Committee's fourth report on the cost of motor insurance and, while premiums are now falling, aspects of the market remain dysfunctional and have encouraged criminality to take root. Further action is still required to tackle fraud whilst protecting genuine claimants. The Government must prohibit insurers from settling whiplash claims before the claimant has undergone a medical examination. On issues of court procedure and medical panels the Committee endorses the Government's intention to require courts to strike out 'dishonest' insurance claims (e.g. those involving gross exaggeration), but cautions against hasty legislation due to the complex legal implications. The report calls for data sharing about potentially fraudulent claims between insurers and claimant solicitors to be made compulsory rather than voluntary (as currently proposed). The Government should oversee funding arrangements for the police Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department, to make sure that this unit, currently funded directly by the insurance industry, has a long-term future. Government proposals for independent medical assessments are welcomed but more work is required on implementation. The Government should press the Solicitors Regulation Authority to stop some solicitors from playing the system to maximise their income by commissioning unnecessary psychological evaluations.

Transport infrastructure in some parts of the UK may get left behind under the new system to be used from next year (2015) to share out central government money for local major transport schemes. The Government has again changed the system for distributing money to local areas for major transport projects, with much more emphasis now on competition for funding. This will not necessarily help regions get a fairer share of transport funding and could make the situation worse. The Government's focus on using competition to bring in private sector funding for projects could disadvantage the regions, where there tends to be less private sector money available compared with London. Those Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) which are well organised and resourced will have an advantage in bidding for funds. Other areas may lose out as a result. In addition, with greater reliance on competitive bidding for funds, there will see more money wasted on failed bids. Strategically significant schemes such as access to ports must not get overlooked. The changes are set against a backdrop where far less money is spent on transport projects outside London than in the capital. Transport infrastructure spending is £2,500 per head in London compared with £5 per head in the north east. This inequality must change. The Committee calls for the new funding arrangements to be reviewed by the end of the next Parliament to ensure that they are efficient and effective in providing funding for the most urgent transport priorities.

Last year the European Commission published a staff working document that was principally concerned with extending the Commission's involvement in transport security matters. Land transport security measures seek to prevent acts of unlawful interference against passengers, freight or transport infrastructure in the road and rail sectors. Unlawful interference, as referred to in the Commission's document, includes anything from terrorism to relatively minor crime against passengers and transport operators. The conflation of such wide-ranging security issues is not helpful and the Government is urged to ensure that any future EU land security transport proposals are more focussed. Overall, the current risk-based approach to land transport security in the UK are working well and security measures deployed across UK transport modes are proportionate to the current threats that any given sector is exposed to. However, some weaknesses in the UK's current land transport security regime were identified, including, for example, procedures for dealing with multi-modal transport hubs at which different threat levels are applied to different modes; ensuring that staff had a consistent level of training and an understanding of potential threats, risks and preventative measures; and the difficulty of maintaining a high level of both staff and public vigilance. The principal recommendation is that the Government should participate actively in EU discussions to ensure that any detailed proposals are focussed and appropriate to the UK. Parliament should be keep abreast of developments so that we can continue to contribute to the shaping of policy in this area