House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Fifteenth Report

THE ROAD HAULAGE INDUSTRY

OTHER MATTERS

93. Since 1994 lorries of up to 44 tonnes gross weight, running on six axles, have been permitted for combined road-rail transport: that is, for transporting goods to and from a railhead. The road haulage industry has for a number of years pressed the Government to permit such lorries for general use. It is claimed that by permitting some lorries to be more fully laden, fewer journeys would be required for the same distribution tasks, allowing greater efficiency particularly in the movement of bulk products, such as petroleum and other liquids, chemicals, metals and aggregates.[304] Because the lorry operates on six axles, it imposes no more wear and tear on the road than a 40 tonne, 5-axle lorry, and is no bigger, meets the same minimum braking standards, and is no noisier.[305] Finally, although the heavier lorry will burn more fuel than currently permitted lorries, it is argued that its introduction would lead to a reduction in the total number of lorry movements, and in the fuel burnt per tonne kilometre transported. The Government has estimated that the introduction of a 44 tonne general limit would result in between 2,000 and 5,000 lorries being "taken off our roads".[306] The Freight Transport Association has said that the measure would "cut the total vehicle fleet by between 6,000 and 9,000 vehicles and save about 500 million lorry miles every year".[307]

94. However, there is serious concern about the impact that generally allowing 44 tonne lorries would have on the currently successful development of the rail freight industry.[308] The Government has argued that "it is important to give industry a realistic and increasingly attractive alternative to road haulage [through the rail freight industry] ... an immediate move to 44-tonne lorries could prejudice that objective".[309] Similar concerns have frequently been voiced by the rail industry: for example, the Railways Development Society told us that "road haulage interests will claim that allowing 44 tonne lorries is environmentally friendly ... [but] every previous increase in lorry weights has resulted in traffic losses from rail to road, which more than make up for the increased weight of each lorry".[310] It is a matter about which we have often heard evidence in the past.[311] In order to develop a policy to meet the demands of the road haulage industry, and the concerns of the rail freight industry, the Government asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to examine the matter.[312]

95. The Commission's interim report into the matter was published in March 2000, during the course of our inquiry.[313] It said that the introduction of 44 tonne lorries for general use would bring some efficiency savings, which would cut traffic levels by approximately 100 million vehicle-kilometres per year, remove 1,000 lorries from the road, and result in carbon dioxide emissions being cut by between 80,000 and 100,000 tonnes. It said that the possible drawbacks of the measure would include lorries travelling increased distances, and the diversion of freight from road to rail, although it concluded that these disadvantages would be outweighed by the benefits of decreased overall lorry mileage and reduced emissions. The Commission concluded that although it recommended that the maximum permitted weight for lorries should be raised to 44 tonnes, the increase should be conditional on all 44 tonne lorries meeting Euro II emissions standards, more enforcement activity and better resourcing of enforcement, and measures to strengthen rail freight, about which it had asked the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to make proposals within six months. The Commission's final report on the matter would take account of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's recommendations, and, it said, "the Government should not permit 44 tonne lorries to be introduced before it has been able to act upon the recommendations in our final report".[314]

96. The reaction of the road haulage industry and the rail freight industry to the Commission's interim report was predictably mixed. English Welsh and Scottish Railways, the largest rail freight company, said that it was "extremely disappointed ... [with] the Commission's conclusions which, if implemented, would harm the renaissance of freight on rail and put nearly 20 per cent of existing rail traffic under threat".[315] The Rail Freight Group said that the interim report showed that "the case for 44 tonne lorries is not proven ... [and was] surprised that the decision on 44 tonne lorries is based on such poor evidence".[316] The Freight Transport Association, by contrast, said that "the recommendation from the Commission for Integrated Transport that the Government should raise maximum lorry weights to 44 tonnes for general operations is common sense and beneficial to industry, the economy and the environment".[317]

97. In the press notices accompanying the Budget it was announced that, notwithstanding the concerns of the rail freight industry, nor the Commission for Integrated Transport's stricture that the Government should not raise the weight limit to 44 tonnes until it had acted on the recommendations in the Commission's final report, 44 tonne lorries would be allowed for general use from a 'target date' of 1 January 2001.[318] When we asked Lord Whitty why the Government had not waited for the Commission's final report, which would have included measures to protect the rail freight industry proposed by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, he said that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was "already engaged in constructive discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority ... [the Commission] suggested that we should wait until those discussions were complete but we felt we have to make a decision now for introduction probably next year of the new 44 tonne regime".[319] Subsequently the Department told us that "the decisive factor in regard to this announcement was that a Vehicle Excise Duty rate was needed for the 44 tonne lorry, and this rate can be set only in the Budget and Finance Bill. That made an announcement as part of the Budget unavoidable".[320]

98. We are not against the use of 44 tonne lorries in principle: indeed, we support the introduction of the 44 tonne weight limit if it results in the removal of lorries from our roads, and a reduction in pollution. We are, however, extremely concerned about the impact that extending the 44 tonne limit from the transport of goods to and from railheads to general use might have on rail freight. We therefore recommend that 44 tonne lorries be permitted for general use only after the recommendations of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority relating to the protection and strengthening of rail freight have been implemented. The Government's objective should be to ensure that the introduction of the new 44 tonne limit does not result in the transfer of any freight from rail to road.

Access to rail freight grants

99. The Chairman of the Potter Group told us about a specific difficulty for smaller companies in obtaining freight facilities grants to help to transfer freight from road to rail. He said that "the current grant schemes in place for rail tend to benefit the larger customer with large volumes".[321] He cited the example of a company which might wish to move 20,000 tonnes of material from one point to another. The volumes involved mean that "it is very easy to identify what equipment you want and what the environmental benefit is [when applying for a grant]".[322] It is less easy to do so with smaller volumes: his example was a small operator, with perhaps 500 tonnes of freight each year, which "requires the logistic company or terminal operator to provide specialist handling equipment [to permit transfer from road to rail]. This is not viable due to the small tonnage".[323] In short, the grant available will not be substantial due to the volume of freight initially to be handled, and the terminal operator might be unwilling to invest the money itself because of the limited grant available.

100. Mr Potter thought that the solution lay in making the freight facilities grant regime responsive to growing businesses. He suggested that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions[324] should be willing to give a smaller grant initially but, as more customers used the equipment in question, and thus more freight was transferred from road to rail, that the grant should be increased.[325] This, he believed, would encourage operators transporting annual loads of 500 to 1,000 tonnes to switch to rail freight. We urge the Government to review the ways in which operators can be encouraged to transfer smaller freight loads from road to rail. We recommend that the Government amend the freight facilities grant regime to permit rail terminal operators to invest in new equipment to transfer certain cargoes onto rail despite low levels of existing demand for such a service, and to be able to claim additional grants as increasing volumes of freight are transferred onto rail using that equipment.

Shortages of Class 1 heavy goods vehicle drivers

101. A number of our witnesses said that the road haulage industry is currently suffering from a lack of qualified Class 1 heavy goods vehicle drivers. The Potter Group told us that "the industry is very short of HGV Class 1 drivers, all across the country but particularly in the south east [of England]".[326] The Managing Director of the Malcolm Group agreed, but added also that "the real problem is ... that the older generation of drivers are now coming up to retirement. Trying to get the same quality in the new breed we are actually encouraging into the industry is getting harder".[327] The Transport and General Workers' Union told us that the shortage of drivers "is starting to affect the industry in a massive way ... youngsters are no longer coming into the industry like they used to ... The tolerance factor is not the same, they do not see it as a career in front of them".[328] As a result, the Union said, pay rates were being forced upwards, which imposes further costs on haulage companies.

102. Lord Whitty said that although it was difficult to be certain of the degree to which there was a shortage of drivers, "probably more should be trained".[329] He pointed out that the Government had already taken steps to do so, through the driver training scheme for those aged from sixteen to nineteen, which "has been extended to 20 to encourage more people in to get their heavy goods vehicle licence at 21".[330] We welcome such measures, but remain concerned about reports of a shortage of trained heavy goods vehicle drivers, which threatens not only to undermine the competitiveness of the United Kingdom haulage industry, but which also, in the longer term, may jeopardise safety standards in the industry.[331] Accordingly, we recommend that the Government, in consultation with the industry and with trades unions, introduce further measures to increase the number of Class 1 heavy goods vehicle drivers, and set up a working group with the industry and unions to oversee the matter.

The Asylum and Immigration Act 1999

103. The Government has become increasingly concerned about the smuggling of immigrants and asylum-seekers into this country concealed within vehicles. It has said that "the number of clandestine entrants identified is currently running at about 2,000 each month".[332] Under the provisions of Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, a lorry driver is liable to a fine if he is found to have carried an immigrant into the United Kingdom even if, unknown to the driver, he has stowed away in his vehicle. The fine has been set at £2,000 for each illegal entrant.[333] The Act also permits the detention of the lorry in certain circumstances pending the payment of the penalty.[334] To make clear what is expected of drivers, the Government has issued a Code of Practice for road haulage and private vehicles, buses and coaches which says that drivers should repair large tears in any canvas, check the vehicle when full loading takes place to ensure that no one is hidden inside, make sure that the vehicle, trailer and any luggage or storage areas are secured against unauthorised entry, and carry out further checks throughout the journey, and particularly before finally boarding a ferry or shuttle train to the UK.[335]

104. The Road Haulage Industry has said that "the Government's decision to fine lorry drivers £2,000 for every illegal stowaway discovered on their vehicles is unfair, unrealistic and impractical ... the Code [of Practice] ignores the on-the-ground practicality of checking the entire contents of a large vehicle, with a full load, possibly sealed, probably at the roadside and at night in poor weather conditions ... The impracticality of much of the Code of Practice [also] will not help drivers already doing their best in the face of organised crime and physical threats to their own safety".[336] It argues that the Government risks losing the cooperation of drivers in combating illegal immigration. The Freight Transport Association told us that "hauliers are being unfairly treated ... confiscation of vehicles and automatic fines ... will do little to encourage hauliers to come forward upon discovering the presence of illegal immigrants in their vehicles".[337] Moreover, the Association said, acting according to the Code of Practice might prove dangerous to the driver.[338]

105. We recognise that hauliers have real concerns about the possibility that innocent drivers may face fines, or even the confiscation of their vehicles, simply because immigrants and asylum-seekers have stowed away on board, and have gone undetected until the lorry reaches the United Kingdom. We note the call of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, for example, that "enforcement [under the Act] should not be introduced before security arrangements at European ports of embarkation have been very considerably improved".[339] Nevertheless, we are broadly supportive of the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 as they relate to preventing illegal entrance to this country by stowing away on lorries. We believe that it is not unreasonable to expect drivers to examine their loads properly. It is also not unreasonable to seek to deter those few drivers who may accept money to smuggle illegal immigrants into the country. We note that there is some evidence that the new measures have proved effective: since the introduction of the new penalties on 3 April attempts at clandestine entry detected at Dover have fallen by 26 per cent,[340] and more than 560 illegal immigrants detected, leading to fines of more than £1 million.[341] We are concerned, however, that situations may arise in which drivers pick up ostensibly sealed loads which are later found to contain illegal stowaways. Under those specific circumstances, we recommend that the Government make clear that neither the driver nor the haulage company involved will be liable to punishment under the Asylum and Immigration Act. Moreover, we recommend that the Government take action to reduce the problem of illegal immigration in addition to fining drivers under the Act, such as seeking to ensure that security arrangements at ports of embarkation to the United Kingdom are considerably improved, and re-investing money raised through fining hauliers into new security equipment to detect stowaways.