Annex E
44 TONNE LORRIES,
CFIT AND
RAILFREIGHT
The core of the report is CfIT's thorough assessment
of the environmental and economic assessment of the advantages
and disadvantages of 44 tonne lorries—the best study of
the issue in 20 years. Ministers entirely accept CfIT's analysis
and their conclusions that allowing 44 tonne lorries with Euro
II engines for general use would have net environmental benefits,
as well as economic benefits and a reduction in road damage.
Ministers had asked CfIT to report early this
year, in time for their report to be considered in the run-up
to the Budget. They were unable to consider rail freight in the
detail they had wanted in the time available. Their report is
interim only in that they intend a final report on rail freight.
Given the clear net advantages of 44 tonne lorries as set out
in their report, there is no logical reason why they should want
to revisit their conclusions in relation to lorries.
This Government has been clear from the outset
that our aim is to encourage an integrated, sustainable freight
distribution system to support economic growth and to bring social
and environmental benefits. To that end Ministers are keen to
support rail freight where it is practicable and good value for
money. We are pleased to report that volume of freight moved by
rail rose by some 15 per cent in the two years since the 1997
election. Latest figures show that this rise is continuing, albeit
more slowly.
The Government's record speaks for itself. We
have set up the Shadow Strategic Rail authority (sSRA) with a
specific freight remit. The Transport Bill will formally establish
the SRA. We have asked the sSRA to include proposals for supporting
rail freight in their strategy. Those proposals will inform our
Transport 10 year plan, which is due for publication in July.
Subsequently, CfIT also asked the sSRA to report to them on the
same subject by early autumn, so they might make further recommendations
to Government.
There are several difficulties here. The first
is that if we delayed our consideration of the sSRA's proposals
on rail freight until we received CfIT's views, we could not include
railfreight in our 10 year plan—a serious omission which
might well disadvantage rail freight in the long term. The second
is that it is difficult to see how the sSRA's advice to CfIT could
materially differ from that which they are already committed to
giving to us, and thus what the delay would achieve: though as
we have made clear to CfIT, our policy towards rail freight will
no doubt evolve and we will of course take their views into account
in that process. The third is that we have difficulties in principle
in making improvements in one mode consequent on support for another
mode. This is particularly so when, as in this case, our ultimate
environmental and efficiency gains are supported by allowing 44
tonners just as much as they are by supporting rail freight.
We had also to consider the international competitiveness
of the UK road haulage industry. As the Red Book explains (paragraphs
6.70 and 6.71), the advent of the more environmentally friendly
and road friendly 44 tonner reduces the attractiveness of the
40 tonne, five axle lorry to domestic hauliers. This enables us
to reduce VED for the 40 tonner, which will benefit international
hauliers for whom there is no alternative.
Given all these difficulties, the sequence we
have agreed is to set a target date for implementation of 44 tonners
of 1 January 2001. We have also set a VED rate. This allows the
industry to plan ahead, and of course allows time for Regulations
to be drafted and so on. We have made it clear that the target
date is subject to confirmation in our 10 year transport plan,
after the Government has considered the sSRA's proposals on rail
freight. We will thus have fulfilled the spirit of the CfIT recommendation
by not deciding finally on the implementation date for 44 tonners
until after our strategy for rail freight has been largely determined.
Given the net benefits to the environment of allowing 44 tonners,
I believe this is a very reasonable approach.
| 
