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.

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.

In the 2007 green paper "The governance of Britain" (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021) the Government made a commitment to simplify financial reporting to Parliament, ensuring that it reports in a more consistent, transparent and straightforward fashion at all three stages in the process - budgets, estimates and expenditure outcomes. The Govenrment uses budgets to plan what it will spend, presents estimates to Parliament for approval and then, after the year end, publishes resource accounts. This document sets out the Government's proposals for achieving better alignment between budgets, estimates and accounts. It follows much consultation with the Public Accounts, Treasury, Liaison, Procedure and Modernisation committees of the House of Commons and the National Audit Office and internal and external stakeholders.

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