DOCSLIB.ORG

Letter from Department for Transport in Response to Committee's Letter Re the Spending Review, Dated 4 December 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Letter from Department for Transport in Response to Committee's Letter Re the Spending Review, Dated 4 December 2020 From the Secretary of State The Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Tel: 0300 330 3000 E-Mail: [email protected] Huw Merriman MP Web site: www.gov.uk/dft Chair of the Committee Transport Select Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA 4 December 2020 Dear Huw, I am writing in response to your letter of 3 November 2020. This sought further information on my Department’s Spending Review plans, following a decision by HM Treasury to postpone the multi-year approach in order to enable focus on responding to the immediate public health and economic emergency we face in light of the continued spread of COVID-19. The material set out in Annex A provides a comprehensive response, in turn, to the original and further questions which you posed. I hope you will find your questions more fully answered because of the Spending Review having taken place last week and the Department now having confirmed budgets to work on various aspects of delivery for next year. Yours ever, Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT Annex A – Responses to questions in turn 1. What your policy priorities are for the Spending Review period, including how these differ from those published in last year’s Single Departmental Plan, including those commitments made by the Government during the election DfT has taken steps to evolve our objectives from last year’s Single Departmental Plan, in order to reflect the government’s priorities (including those outlined in the 2019 Manifesto) and take account of the impacts of Covid-19 and EU Transition. We will continue to develop these as part of post-Spending Review business planning and into 2021. We are focusing our work around the following areas: • Improving Transport for the User: Build confidence in the transport network as the country recovers from Covid-19 and improve transport users’ experience, ensuring that the network is safe, reliable, and inclusive. • Decarbonising transport: Tackle climate change and improve air quality by decarbonising transport. • Levelling-up the economy: Improve connectivity across the United Kingdom and grow the economy by enhancing the transport network. • Increasing our global impact: Boost our influence and maximise trade by having an outward-facing approach and being a world leader in the future of transport. • An excellent department: Be a well-run department that focuses on delivery, drives value for money and embodies our values in all that we do. The first three bullets above have been set as key priority outcomes as part of Spending Review 2020 (SR20) (as set out in the Spending Review document1). 2. Details of spending commitments already made for the Spending Review period, by year, and by amount SR20 allocates multi-year funding envelopes to several of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) major capital programmes. Profiles for each of these are detailed in the Spending Review document (Table 6.18) (and as below): Department for Transport multi-year capital programmes: £ billion 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- Total 22 23 24 25 High Speed 2 capital DEL 5.2 5.7 5.8 5.9 22.6 Road Investment Strategy 2 capital 3.8 4.4 4.8 5 18 DEL Network Rail's Control Period 6 5.8 5.8 5.8 - 17.5 capital DEL Intra-city settlements capital DEL - 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.5 Electric vehicle charging and 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.9 grants capital DEL 1https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/938052/S R20_Web_Accessible.pdf#page=81 2 The Spending Review also allocates one-year (2021-22) Resource (RDEL) and Capital (CDEL) settlements for DfT programmes that are not in scope of multi-year funding envelopes. These will be reflected in DfT’s Main Estimate. Policy commitments and the associated funding implications are described later in this response (see question 6). The settlement also provides Covid-19 funding for Rail for the first quarter of 2021-22 intended to specifically address the fare income shortfalls DfT is experiencing as a direct result of the pandemic. The settlement further includes wider provision for budget pressures that DfT may experience as a result of Covid-19, particularly through a reduction in income. 3. How your Department has analysed its priorities and work for this Spending Round, including how it identified areas of cost saving, programmes and projects that can be brought to an end and the total resources dedicated to the Spending Round Following the announcement of SR20 in July, a central Spending Review team was created with representatives from the finance and strategy teams to coordinate the department’s overall response (a core team of 10-15 people working flexibly on the Spending Review and related departmental planning work over a period of approximately six months). Central governance structures were created, including a Fiscal Events Programme Board to bring together Finance, Strategy and representatives from policy teams across the department. A Spending Review Analytical Board was created to assess funding bids. The central strategy and finance team commissioned the whole department to forecast financial requirements for the SR. As part of this, information was requested to support the prioritisation of these requirements and to identify opportunities for cost savings. This information included the level of commitment (e.g. legal or contractual) associated with each forecast, alignment with strategic objectives, value for money, deliverability and robustness to the impacts of Covid-19. Initial findings from this exercise were then stress-tested with teams and later via challenge panels with members of the department’s Executive Committee. Summaries of these financial requirements and associated information were presented to ministers to inform decision making on which programmes should be prioritised or de-prioritised from the department’s Spending Review bid. 4. How you intend to engage those outside the Department, such as civil society, in formulating ideas for savings and priorities The department’s central SR and policy teams have engaged closely with key stakeholders throughout the SR process both to support the development of departmental priority outcomes and effective packages of proposals to support these outcomes as well as the government’s wider priorities. These stakeholders include industry representatives within specific modes and the transport sector more widely, both at the local and national level. They also include the department’s Arms Length Bodies (ALBs), Devolved Administrations, Mayoral Combined Authorities, and Local Authorities. Engagement with key stakeholders has continued in the immediate aftermath of the SR announcement, to brief them on the settlement, answer questions, and gather feedback. 5. What policy areas you have identified that require assistance from other departments, and how you have liaised with them; 3 DfT works with other government departments across policy areas on an ongoing basis (for example, on issues such as EU Transition and security). Key areas of collaboration to deliver on our strategic priorities have included: • BEIS and Defra on Decarbonising Transport • MHCLG, BEIS and DfE for Levelling-up. Broader cross-cutting areas for the SR have included: • Defra – Working towards the 25 Year Environment Plan – including policy on managing green estate alongside railways and strategic roads; and reducing air pollution from transport • BEIS – Net Zero by 2050: DfT will work alongside other departments including MHCLG, Defra and HMT to deliver policy, legislation and infrastructure. • DCMS - Increasing economic growth and productivity through improved digital connectivity and data infrastructure: Working with DCMS and MHCLG to support DCSM to make it easier and cheaper to deploy digital infrastructure. • MHCLG - Raising productivity and empowering places so that everyone across the country can benefit from levelling up: In coordination with BEIS, DWP, DfE and MHCLG 6. Policy commitments (including those in legislation) made which may have a significant spending impact, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, over the Spending Review period, with likely costs Significant areas of spend to deliver on policy commitments include: • Covid-19 response - supporting public transport services to ensure that people can make the journeys they need to safely and reliably: o Over £2 billion of confirmed funding in the first quarter of 2021-22 for rail services, building on the estimated £12.8 billion of support for transport services that the government has already committed to provide in 2020-21 • Levelling-up local and national infrastructure o Road Investment Strategy 2 (RIS2) and local roads and rail. Over £58 billion of investment for road and rail transport between 2021-22 and 2024-25, delivering some of government’s largest capital programmes. o £1.7 billion in 2021-22 for local roads maintenance and upgrades to tackle potholes, relieve congestion and boost connectivity – to help deliver against the government’s 2019 manifesto pledge to launch the biggest ever pothole-filling programme. o Local transport improvements - £850m for the Transforming Cities Fund and a multi-year settlement for the Intra-City Transport Fund, maintaining the government’s commitment of £4.2 billion for five-year, consolidated settlements. o £4bn national ‘Levelling-up Fund’ to invest in local infrastructure (joint between HMT, MHCLG and DfT) • Decarbonising Transport to support the Government’s commitment to Net Zero by 2050 o A one year capital settlement which includes additional funding for zero emission buses and measures to support the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. o Multi-year settlements for Plug in Vehicle Grants (£582m) and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (£1.3bn) 4 • Transformation of bus services and active travel (in line with the PM’s public £5bn ambition) o £257m in 2021-22 for cycling and walking o £120m for zero emission buses and £300m to drive transformation of bus services in 2021-22.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy Discussion Paper [Or Working Paper, Etc.]
    Patrick Dunleavy, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the risk landscape in UK Public Policy Discussion paper [or working paper, etc.] Original citation: Dunleavy, Patrick, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler (2009): The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the risk landscape in UK public policy. URN 09/1423. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, London, UK. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25785/ Originally available from LSE Public Policy Group Available in LSE Research Online: November 2009 © 2009 the authors LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy Patrick Dunleavy, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler October 2009 The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council This report was produced in July 2009 for the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council is an independent advisory group which aims to improve the understanding of public risk and how to respond to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Access Pricing in the Water Sector a Discussion Paper
    Water today, water tomorrow Future access pricing in the water sector A discussion paper www.ofwat.gov.uk Future access pricing in the water sector 2 Water today, water tomorrow About this document This document introduces some of the terminology, concepts and issues we will need to consider in developing a new charging rules framework for access pricing for the water sector in England and Wales. It describes: • what access pricing is and why it matters; • some of the key issues we will need to consider around access pricing; • which costs could be considered in setting access prices; and • the lessons that we can learn from other sectors. The UK Government’s Water Bill, published in June 2013, will extend the role of competition in the sector in England. This will mean new companies will have access to the systems and services provided by monopoly water and sewerage and water only companies. The Water Bill also requires us to prepare rules that monopoly companies will need to follow in setting the prices they will charge for providing access. Contents 1. Why does access pricing matter? 4 2. What are the main issues? 8 3. Which costs should we consider? 12 4. What lessons can we learn from other sectors? 15 5. Next steps 26 6. Further information 27 3 Future access pricing in the water sector 1. Why does access pricing matter? Most people in England and And in June 2013, the UK Together these reforms will Wales receive their water Government published draft encourage: services from one of 19 licensed legislation (the Water Bill) to regional monopoly companies achieve this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Office Preparedness for COVID-19 (Coronavirus): Management of the Borders: Government Response to the Committee’S Fifth Report
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report Sixth Special Report of Session 2019–21 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 11 November 2020 HC 974 Published on 13 November 2020 by authority of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Yvette Cooper MP (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Chair Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington) Dehenna Davison MP (Conservative, Bishop Auckland) Ruth Edwards MP (Conservative, Rushcliffe) Laura Farris MP (Conservative, Newbury) Simon Fell MP (Conservative, Barrow and Furness) Andrew Gwynne MP (Labour, Denton and Reddish) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Dame Diana Johnson MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Stuart C McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/. Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom and in print by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities
    Home to school travel and transport guidance Statutory guidance for local authorities July 2014 Contents Summary 5 Review date 5 What legislation (including statutory instruments) does this guidance refer to? 5 Who is this guidance for? 5 Main points 6 Local authorities’ statutory duties 6 Part 1 - Statutory duties 7 1.1 Sustainable school travel 7 Assessing the travel and transport needs of children and young people 7 Audit of infrastructure to support sustainable school travel 8 Strategy to develop infrastructure to support travel needs of pupils 8 Promoting sustainable travel and transport to and from school 9 Publication of Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 9 1.2 Provision of travel arrangements 9 1.3 Provision of travel arrangements: Eligible children 10 Statutory walking distances eligibility 10 Special educational needs, a disability or mobility problems eligibility 10 Unsafe route eligibility 11 Extended rights eligibility 11 Accompaniment 11 Assessing route safety 12 Measurement of routes 12 Timing of assessment of eligibility 12 Qualifying school 13 Travel arrangements made by the local authority or other bodies/persons 13 Suitability of arrangements 14 Part 2 - Discretionary Arrangements 16 Travel arrangements for other children 16 Religion or belief 16 Part 3 - Transport Considerations 18 2 Safeguarding requirements 18 Training and Equalities 18 Bus safety considerations 18 Poor behaviour on school buses/other modes of transport 19 Partnership 19 Part 4 – Policy Changes 20 Publication of general arrangements and policies
    [Show full text]
  • THE GREEN BOOK Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government
    THE GREEN BOOK Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government Treasury Guidance LONDON:TSO CONTENTS Page Page Contents iv Annex 1 Government intervention 51 Introduction 51 Preface v Economic efficiency 51 Chapter 1 Introduction and background 1 Equity 52 Introduction 1 Additionality 52 When to use the Green Book 2 Regeneration 54 Chapter 2 Overview of appraisal and Annex 2 Valuing non-market impacts 57 evaluation 3 Introduction 57 Introduction 3 Valuing non-market impacts 57 The appraisal and evaluation cycle 3 Current research/plausible estimates 59 The role of appraisal 3 Valuing environmental impacts 63 Process for appraisal and evaluation 4 Annex 3 Land and buildings 69 Presenting the results 6 Introduction 69 Managing appraisals and evaluations 7 Acquisition and use of property 69 Frameworks 8 Leases and rents 71 Issues relevant to appraisal and evaluation 9 Disposal of property 72 Chapter 3 Justifying action 11 Cost effective land use 72 Introduction 11 Annex 4 Risk and uncertainty 79 Reasons for government intervention 11 Introduction 79 Carrying out research 11 Risk management 79 Chapter 4 Setting objectives 13 Transferring risk 82 Introduction 13 Optimism bias 85 Objectives, outcomes, outputs and targets 13 Monte Carlo analysis 87 Irreversible risk 88 Chapter 5 Appraising the options 17 The cost of variability in outcomes 88 Introduction 17 Creating options 17 Annex 5 Distributional impacts 91 Valuing the costs and benefits of options 19 Introduction 91 Adjustments to values of costs and benefits 24 Distributional analysis 91
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Green Book to Achieve Better Outcomes from Infrastructure Investment: ICE Discussion Paper
    Reforming the Green Book to achieve better outcomes from infrastructure investment: ICE discussion paper Executive summary If infrastructure is to play a key role in ‘levelling up’ the UK and creating better outcomes for society and the environment, it stands to reason that the appraisal and evaluation processes used to assess projects and programmes should be positioned to enable this to happen. The UK, through HM Treasury’s Green Book, is widely viewed as having among the most mature frameworks for assessing, appraising and prioritising infrastructure investment.1 However, concerns over unequal investment levels throughout the country have resulted in the government conducting a review of the Green Book, potentially leading to a re- evaluation of the methodology and guidance that determines what gets built where, who benefits and how they benefit. With £600 billion earmarked for spend on infrastructure by the end of the decade,2 the infrastructure sector is well placed to leverage investment to create additional social and environmental value and help rebuild local economies affected by Covid-19. As outlined in ICE’s report Covid-19 and the New Normal for Infrastructure Systems, society will expect to get more from infrastructure to support societal resilience and ensure the whole-life benefits of infrastructure investment are spread as widely as possible.3 This shift will drive a requirement for infrastructure to be recognised as a system, rather than as a collection of projects. The same report found strong support for the economic recovery from Covid-19 being a green one and for projects, programmes and investments across the infrastructure sector to be evaluated and prioritised on this basis.
    [Show full text]
  • HM Revenues and Customs (148KB Pdf)
    FINANCE COMMITTEE CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE LAND AND BUILDINGS TRANSACTION TAX (SCOTLAND) BILL SUBMISSION FROM HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS 1. This submission is in response to the Committee’s invitation of 25 January 2013 to submit written evidence on the following specific issues: The transitional arrangements being made by HMRC with regards the operation of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and the switch over in Scotland to Land and Buildings Transactions Tax (LBTT); Liaison with Scottish Government (SG), Registers of Scotland (RoS) and Revenue Scotland over these arrangements; Costs associated with this ‘switch over’; and Outline of the present relationship with RoS in gathering SDLT in Scotland. 2. HMRC is responsible for the collection and management of UK taxes (other than those collected by local authorities). As such, it is responsible for SDLT, which currently applies to land transactions in the United Kingdom. Under provisions of the Scotland Act 2012, SDLT will be “switched off” in Scotland and replaced by a devolved tax, the LBTT. This is expected to apply from April 2015. The transitional arrangements being made by HMRC with regards the operation of SDLT and the switch over in Scotland to LBTT 3. Section 80J(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (inserted by section 28 of the Scotland Act 2012) has the effect that LBTT cannot be charged on a land transaction if SDLT applies to it. Broadly this means that, if the effective date of a Scottish transaction (for SDLT purposes) is before the date on which SDLT is switched off in Scotland (the switch-off date) it will be subject to SDLT and if that date is on or after the switch-off date it will be subject to LBTT.
    [Show full text]
  • Llwybr Newydd a New Wales Transport Strategy
    Llwybr Newydd The Wales Transport Strategy 2021 Contents From the Ministers 3 5. Holding ourselves and our partners to account 47 Introduction 5 5.1 Transport performance 1. Vision 11 board 48 5.2 A new evaluation 2. Our priorities 13 framework 48 3. Well-being ambitions 22 5.3 Modal shift 48 Good for people and 5.4 Well-being measures 49 communities 23 5.5 Data on modes and sectors 50 Good for the environment 27 6. The five ways of Good for the economy working 48 and places in Wales 31 6.1 Involvement 52 Good for culture and the Welsh language 34 6.2 Collaboration 52 6.3 Prevention 52 4. How we will deliver 38 6.4 Integration 52 4.1 Investing responsibly 40 6.5 Long-term 52 4.2 Delivery and action plans 41 4.3 Cross-cutting delivery 7. Mini-plans 53 pathways 42 7.1 Active travel 56 4.4 Working in partnership 45 7.2 Bus 60 4.5 Updating our policies 7.3 Rail 64 and governance 46 7.4 Roads, streets and parking 68 4.6 Skills and capacity 46 7.5 Third sector 72 7.6 Taxis and private hire vehicles (PHV) 76 7.7 Freight and logistics 80 7.8 Ports and maritime 84 7.9 Aviation 88 Llwybr Newydd - The Wales Transport Strategy 2021 2 But we won’t achieve that level of physical and digital connectivity change unless we take people with to support access to more local Croeso us, listening to users and involving services, more home and remote from the Ministers people in designing a transport working.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement by Chief Minister Re Meeting with HM Treasury
    STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Bailiff: Very well, we now come to statements. The first statement of which I have notice is a statement to be made by the Chief Minister regarding a meeting with Her Majesty’s Treasury on 27th November. 6. Statement by Chief Minister regarding a meeting with H.M. Treasury on 27th November 2008. 6.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister): Members will be aware that in his pre-budget report delivered last week the U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review of the long term opportunities and challenges facing the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories as financial centres which have been brought into focus by recent financial and economic events. We in Jersey have, of course, been here before with the Edwards Review in 1998. However, to some extent this time it is different. We are now experienced in the review process. We have already been fully reviewed by the I.M.F. in 2003 and at that time were found to be almost fully compliant with the then international standards of regulation. More recently we have engaged with a review of the Treasury Select Committee in their work on offshore centres. Even more recently we have just concluded a further review by I.M.F. teams looking into our compliance firstly with international standards of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism; and secondly with prudential regulation under an I.M.F. review which includes matters of financial stability. We await their reports in due course.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Government and Frontline Performance Improvement
    CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FRONTLINE PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT: THE CASE OF “TARGETS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Steven Kelman, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government For over a decade, there has been a dramatic expansion in use of non-financial performance measures for government organizations. (Talbot 2005) Often, governments have limited themselves to what may be called “performance measurement” -- choosing measures and reporting performance against them. This has frequently, though not always, been the case in the United States, when performance measures have been developed at federal, state, and local levels; it is, for example, all the Government Performance and Results Act of l993 requires. In this situation, the words typically associated with the effort are “accountability” and “transparency.” Agency overseers, and the public, are made aware of whether performance is good or bad, and may then react accordingly (for instance, as with the Performance Assessment Review Team activities of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, by increasing or decreasing agency budgets). Other times, government organizations have gone beyond performance measurement to “performance management” – using measures as a tool to improve performance along dimensions measured, not just record performance levels assumed to be unchanging.1 The ability of performance management actually to improve performance is important for anyone interested in government working better. A particularly ambitious example of public-sector performance management has been the United Kingdom under the Labour government since l997, and especially after Labour’s first re- election in 200l. Starting in l998, departments negotiated “public service agreements” with the Treasury (the budget ministry) in conjunction with budget settlements.
    [Show full text]
  • Home to School Travel and Transport for Children of Compulsory School Age Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities Consultation Draft
    Home to school travel and transport for children of compulsory school age Statutory guidance for local authorities Consultation draft July 2019 Contents Summary 4 About this guidance 4 Review date 4 What legislation does this guidance refer to? 4 Who is this guidance for? 4 Main points 5 Part 1: local authorities’ statutory duty in relation to eligible children 6 Categories of eligible children 7 Ways in which free home to school travel may be provided 10 What is a suitable school? 11 Qualifying schools 12 Free home to school travel to schools which are not qualifying schools 14 Children registered at more than one qualifying school 14 Assessing eligibility 15 Measurement of routes 15 Children with special educational needs, a disability or mobility problems 15 Route safety 15 Accompaniment 16 Other benefits or allowances 16 Part 2: local authorities’ discretionary power 18 Examples of ways in which local authorities might use their discretionary power 18 Part 3: suitability of transport arrangements 20 Journey times 20 Children with special educational needs, a disability or mobility problems 20 Children with medical needs 21 Safeguarding 21 Training 22 Poor behaviour on school transport 23 Part 4: local home to school travel policies 24 2 Elements of an effective travel policy 24 Policy changes 25 Part 5: appeals 27 Stage one: review by a senior officer 27 Stage two: review by an independent appeal panel 28 Flowchart of the suggested appeals process 30 Part 6: sustainable school travel 31 Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 31 Further
    [Show full text]
  • A Short Guide to the Department for Transport July 2015 Overview Rail Roads Local Transport Aviation, Maritime and Other
    A Short Guide to the Department for Transport July 2015 Overview Rail Roads Local transport Aviation, maritime and other | About this guide This Short Guide summarises what the | Contact details Department for Transport (DfT) does, how much it costs, recent and planned changes and what to look out for across its main business areas and services. If you would like to know more about the NAO’s work on the Department for Transport, please contact: Rebecca Sheeran Director, Value for Money [email protected] 020 7798 7815 Matt Kay Director, Financial Audit [email protected] 020 7798 7916 If you are interested in the NAO’s work and support The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and for Parliament more widely, please contact: is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Sir Amyas Morse KCB, is an Officer of the House of Commons Adrian Jenner and leads the NAO, which employs some 810 people. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other Director of Parliamentary Relations public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report [email protected] to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have 020 7798 7461 used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice For full iPad interactivity, please view this PDF help government improve public services, and our work led to Interactive in iBooks or GoodReader audited savings of £1.15 billion in 2014.
    [Show full text]