House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Minutes of Evidence

MEMORANDUM BY PROFESSOR DAVID BEGG, CHAIRMAN (CFIT 01)

THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR INTEGRATED TRANSPORT

INTRODUCTION

CfIT is an advisory non-statutory body providing independent advice to Government on the implementation of integrated transport policy. This role entails monitoring developments across transport, environment, health and other sectors; and reviewing progress in meeting the Government's objectives for transport.

The Government announced its commitment to establishing the Commission in its Integrated Transport White Paper published in July 1998. CfIT's role, according to the White Paper, is to provide independent advice to Government on the implementation of the integrated transport policy, to monitor developments across transport, environment, health and other sectors and to review progress towards meeting the objectives of the policy.

Professor David Begg and Sir Trevor Chinn were appointed as Chair and Vice-chair respectively in March 1999; the remaining 15 members were appointed in June 1999. Other than the four ex officio members, all appointments were made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Guidance on Appointments to Public Bodies. A list of members is at Annex A.

WORK OF THE COMMISSION

The Commission was launched on 20 July 1999, shortly after the Chair and Vice-chair gave evidence to a previous session of the Transport Sub-Committee. It has met a total of seven time in plenary, and seven working groups have been active over the past year:

Local transport plans:

Targets:

44 tonne lorries:

Pollution:

Physical integration:

Buses:

Rural transport:

Details of working group membership are in Annex B.

Aside from the working groups, CfIT has been active this year in two further main areas:

— 10 Year Plan: we have submitted advice to DETR Ministers and officials on several aspects of where transport policy should take us in 10 years time. These have included the scope for benchmarking against best practice in Europe, and the potential for e-commerce and other communications technology to reduce the need to travel.

— Public attitudes to transport: we commissioned MORI to survey a representative sample of over 2,000 people in England on perceptions and priorities in transport policy. The results will be published on 10 July.

CfIT has also overseen the establishment of the Motorists' Forum, launched by John Prescott in January. The Forum is operating under the auspices of CfIT, and the two bodies work closely together to ensure that the views of the responsible motorist are understood by Government, within the overall context of the integrated transport policy and sustainable development policy.

CfIT recognised from the outset that it had been impossible to give a direct voice within its membership to the full range of parties with a legitimate interest in the implementation of the integrated transport policy. We have therefore encouraged each member to build up relationships with a number of outside bodies: 25 meetings have already taken place between CfIT members and these organisations, and they are proving to be very useful opportunities both for CfIT to understand better the concerns of the wider transport community, and to explain most effectively how CfIT has been approaching its remit. The allocation of responsibility under this "contact programme" is at Annex C.

COMMISSION REPORTS

The following four reports have been issued by CfIT:

— National road traffic reduction targets—November 1999.

— Guidance on local transport plans—December 1999.

— Pollution from older vehicles—March 2000.

— Permitting 44 tonne lorries for general use in the UK (interim report)—March 2000.

Annex D provides the executive summaries of each of these reports.

CfIT will publish its first annual report this autumn.

FORWARD PLANS

CfIT published its work programme for the two years to summer 2001 at its launch last July. This set the scene for Year 2 reports on buses; rural transport; green transport plans; retail/leisure parking; and public expenditure priorities. The transport agenda has however evolved since then, particularly with the expected focus on investment in the forthcoming 10 Year Plan. We are in the process of revising this programme as a consequence, and our Annual Report will set out our firm plans for 2000-01.

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

CfIT is supported by a dedicated Secretariat of five DETR civil servants, located in Romney House, SW1. The post of Secretary has recently been upgraded to Grade 6. In addition a Senior Executive Officer, appointed in January as Secretary to the Motorists' Forum, also acts as Deputy Secretary to the CfIT. The CfIT and MF teams will be strengthened and made more separate by this summer, with the appointment of a further Senior Executive Officer to act as Deputy Secretary to CfIT, leading on relations with transport professionals, and through adding an extra officer to the MF team.

CfIT has supplemented its resources by bringing in outside expertise for all its reports, and commissioning consultancy advice as noted above. We also enjoy full access to the staff and information resources in DETR; senior DETR officials have acted as advisors to all our working groups.

RELATIONS WITH DETR

CfIT believes it is of paramount importance to act, and to be seen to act, independently of Government at all times. Its advice is devalued if it is seen as anything other than wholly independent. We therefore set up clear demarcation lines between DETR and CfIT; our relations with DETR are managed by a sponsorship branch within the Transport Delivery and Presentation Division. CfIT moved to new premises in Romney House, Marsham St, in February, separate from DETR.

Guidelines on operating methods for working with CfIT were established at the outset, and have functioned well. The interface with the work of CfIT is overseen by a CfIT Liaison Group, comprising senior officials from all parts of DETR having an interest in CfIT, and meeting at least quarterly. Amongst other things, this Group co-ordinates proposals from DETR to the work programme for CfIT. However, both in 1999 and this year it is clear the responsibility for the formulation of the final CfIT programme rests with CfIT alone.

As noted above, DETR observers are often invited to meetings, and that advice is sought on specific points wherever appropriate. CfIT's conclusions however, remain its own.

We enjoy good relations with DETR Ministers, CfIT reports to the Minister for Transport, and David Begg and Trevor Chinn have regular meetings with Lord Macdonald, and Helen Liddell beforehand, accompanied as appropriate by junior Ministerial colleagues. DETR Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, have attended parts of CfIT and MF meetings.

CfIT Secretariat

July 2000

Annex A

COMMISSION FOR INTEGRATED TRANSPORT

LIST OF MEMBERS

Lord Bradshaw, Chairman of the Bus Appeals Body at the Confederation of Passenger Transport and member of the Liberal Democrat transport team in the House of Lords.

Lawrence Christensen, Logistics Director and Board member of Safeway Stores plc, and President of the Freight Transport Association.

Sir Malcolm Field, Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority.

Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor of London and Chair of the Local Government Association's Planning Committee.

Stephen Joseph, Executive Director of Transport 2000.

David Leeder. Marketing Director of National Express Group plc.

Lilli Matson, Head of Transport and Natural Resources at the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

Bill Morris, General Secretary of the TGWU, and Chair of the TUC's Transport Committee.

Sir Alastair Morton. Chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority.

Peter Nutt, Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency.

John O'Brien. Property Director, Railtrack plc.

Veronica Palmer, Director General of the Confederation of Passenger Transport.

Mike Parker, Director General at Nexus, the Passenger Transport Executive for Tyne and Wear.

Nick Reilly, Chairman and Managing Director of Vauxhall and Vice President of General Motors.

Jane Wilmot, Chair of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

Sir Malcolm Field, Sir Alastair Morton, Peter Nutt and Jane Wilmot are appointed on an ex officio basis. Peter Nutt will be succeeded shortly by the new Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews. Peter Agar, the outgoing Deputy Director of the CBI has acted as advisor to CfIT over the past year. An announcement on his successor will be made shortly.

Annex B

WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP

TARGETS WORKING GROUP

CfIT Members:

Professor David Begg—Chair

Sir Trevor Chinn

Peter Agar

Bill Bradshaw

Lawrence Christensen

Sir Malcolm Field

Nicky Gavron

Stephen Joseph

Lilli Matson

Peter Nutt

Mike Parker

Nick Reilly

Alan Nichols—Strategic Rail Authority (joined for Strategy Working Group)

Mike Ashley—Local Government Authority (joined for Strategy Working Group)

Bronwyn Hill—DETR

PHYSICAL INTEGRATION WORKING GROUP

CfIT Members:

Sir Trevor Chinn—Chair

David Leeder

Peter Nutt

John O'Brien

Veronica Palmer

Derek Bateman—Local Government Authority

Alastair Duff—BAA plc

David Dodd—Strategic Rail Authority

Scott Hellewell—Consultant

John Dawson—AA

Sue Stokes—Journey Solutions

Kevin Lloyd—DETR

Michelle Banks—DETR

BUSES WORKING GROUP

CfIT Members:

Sir Trevor Chinn—Chair

David Leeder

Lilli Matson

Veronica Palmer

Mike Parker

Jane Wilmot

Tony Grayling—IPPR

Joyce Mamode—TUC

Stephen Glaister—Imperial College

Tony Page—LGA

Edward Neve—DETR

Steve Grayson—DETR

RURAL WORKING GROUP

CfIT Members:

Bill Bradshaw

David Leeder

Lilli Matson

John O'Brien

Jane Wilmot

Consultants:

Claire Spink—Countryside Agency

Martin Doughty—Derbyshire CC and Countryside Agency

David Gray—Robert Gordon University

Catherine Mack—Somerset CC

Michelle Banks—DETR

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLANS WORKING GROUP

CfIT Members:

Professor David Begg—Chair

Bill Bradshaw

Nicky Gavron

David Leeder

Lilli Matson

Nick Reilly

Jane Wilmot

Consultants:

Professor George Hazel—Robert Gordon University

Professor Peter Jones—University of Westminster

Lynn Sloman—Transport 2000

Mike Jackson—DETR

44 TONNE LORRIES WORKING GROUP

CfIT Members:

Professor David Begg—Chair

Bill Bradshaw

Sir Trevor Chinn

Lawrence Christensen

Stephen Joseph

Bill Morris

Consultants:

Professor Alan McKinnon—Heriot-Watt University

Michael Roberts—CBI

Julia Clarke—Shadow Strategic Rail Authority

John Grieveson—British Shippers Council

Angela Moss—DETR

Aidan Grisewood—DETR

Annex C

CONTACT PROGRAMME

Arrangements in Place

Name	Contact
David Begg	Confederation of British Industry
Trevor Chinn	Local Government Association English Tourism Council Regional Development Agencies
Bill Bradshaw	Road Haulage Association National Consumers Council Transport Planning Society
Lawrence Christensen	Friends of the Earth Airports Operators Association National Travelwise Association Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
Stephen Joseph	Journey Solutions Institution of Highways & Transportation
David Leeder	Cyclist's Touring Club British Air Transport Association Transport Policy Round Table Sustainable Development Commission
Lilli Matson	Railway Forum British Motorcyclist's Federation Institute of Civil Engineers
Bill Morris	Chamber of Shipping Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
John O'Brien	RAC Foundation Civil Trust Sustrans Advisory Committee on Business & the Environment
Veronica Palmer	AA British Road Federation Women's Institute Countryside Agency
Mike Parker	TUC British Ports Associations Transport and Health Study Group Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
Nick Reilly	Institute of Logistics & Transport Pedestrian's Association Welsh Assembly

Annex D

SUMMARIES OF REPORTS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR INTEGRATED TRANSPORT

NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC TARGETS—NOVEMBER 1999

Whilst much work remains to be done, CfIT is highlighting its initial findings to ensure the scale of the challenge on traffic levels is recognised, and to inform and intensify the debate.

The issue is increasingly urgent: CfIT welcomes the fact that legislation to bring in the key policy tools is now being introduced, but the momentum must not now be lost. The UK otherwise faces unacceptable consequences, in traffic and particularly congestion levels.

By 2010, it should be possible to bring the total amount of vehicle time lost to congestion back down to 1996 levels nationally, and to achieve further reductions in the main urban areas. The underlying traffic levels will be more difficult to influence, given the link with economic growth, but it should be possible to seriously weaken that link and approach zero growth by 2010. Debate with the various stakeholders needs to establish what might be achievable beyond that point.

For both congestion and traffic this entails maximum realistic implementation of the White Paper, based on thorough, comprehensive and transparent analysis of the economic welfare costs and benefits of alternative policy packages. This will clearly not be easy. But CfIT believes the alternative, base case option will be even more painful, to business and to the country at large.

Implementation cannot be a single, centrally led programme, and so a top-down national target for road traffic will not be the most effective tool, given its limitations. Instead, those tasked with implementation at the local level should be guided by benchmark profiles for congestion and traffic levels, acting as yardsticks for the progress that could be made under the various options for implementation.

Government should prepare a matrix of these benchmark profiles and seek to obtain maximum buy-in from local authorities, transport operators and the business community. The process could usefully be driven further forward if, in addition, Government were to recognise national benchmarks derived from these local profiles.

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLANS—DECEMBER 1999

The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) was asked by Ministers to consider the provisional local transport plans (LTPs) submitted in July 1999. LTPs are five-year transport strategies prepared by English local authorities outside London (working with local districts and, in metropolitan areas, the PTAs), and they are the key tool for delivering integrated transport locally. Full plans running through to 2005-6 will be prepared by local authorities across England in early 2000, but this work will be influenced by experience with the first round of provisional plans.

CfIT was asked to offer advice on whether changes need to be made to the DETR Guidance note, which provides comprehensive advice on developing LTPs, before the production of full plans. A CfIT working group reviewed a representative sample of 15 LTPs to assess the extent to which they met the aims of the Government's integrated transport strategy.

CfIT fully endorses the Government's decision to implement local transport plans in the place of the Transport Policies and Programme (TPP). The move to five-year plans requires a coherent vision that integrates transport into all core policy areas, links local and regional policies with national and international priorities, and ensures that public and private sectors work efficiently together.

We consider that DETR's Guidance note is a comprehensive guide to producing an LTP. Our main concern is the inconsistency in quality and scope of the plans submitted, which demonstrates that many local authorities have yet to follow the Guidance in detail. We recognise that local authorities have been presented with a major challenge in producing LTPs in a short space of time. It is clear from the LTPs sampled that much hard work has gone into the production of plans.

In this report, we argue that the Guidance should be altered in two main ways. First, the structure should be changed to include a new introductory section that sets out the reasons for the establishment of the LTPs process and what plans should deliver. Many plans fail to grasp the need to present a unified vision, tending rather to bring together a collection of proposals with little coherence.

The second set of changes that CfIT recommends relate to a number of key aspects within LTPs which are particularly challenging. These include joint working with other stakeholders, public participation, the development of targets and performance indicators, and consideration of rural issues.

However, one of the strongest factors in encouraging local authorities to adopt a new approach will be the decisions made by central Government on funding LTPs. We would urge DETR to be rigorous in matching funding to fulfilment of the criteria set out in Annex D of the Guidance. A clear LTP-linked justification of levels of funding should be given to local authorities with an explanation where improvements are needed for the future.

POLLUTION FROM OLDER VEHICLES—MARCH 2000

Lorries:

FTA and RHA should encourage fleet operators to take advantage of the available incentives and help bring down the cost of retrofitting (para 13).

Government should increase the incentive for retrofitting to £1,500, such that it would be sufficient to pay back cost within three-year period, with offer open to qualifying operators only over a period of two years (para 13).

Buses:

CPT should work with manufacturers to bring down cost of fitting particulate traps (para 15).

CfIT will report by September this year on ways in which Fuel Duty Rebate might be amended to favour greener vehicles (para 16).

Taxis:

DETR should encourage support for the Central London Partnership planned pilot scheme and should consider options for funding roll-out across London—these could include a total VED rebate for the two to three years necessary to achieve payback for owners, or by direct funding through some reallocation of London transport expenditure (para 20). DETR should at the same time explore the pros and cons of extending scheme beyond London (para 21).

Cars:

Government should act on advice from CVTF and assess what incentives could be provided for motorists opting to retrofit (para 25).

DETR should pilot a targeted retrofitting scheme working through local authorities covering Low Emissions Zones/Air Quality Management Areas (para 27).

DETR should also carry out an early assessment of the practicalities of a targeted scrappage scheme. CPT should advise on how to maximise operator interest in offering, through local authorities, public transport vouchers as alternative to cash (para 35, 33).

General:

All Government bodies and local authorities should work to match the best practice in the private sector and minimise the pollution impact of their fleets (para 37).

DETR should press its agencies to increase the effectiveness of their enforcement activity (para 38).

DETR should set timetables for taking forward the recommendations of CVTF (para 3).

Follow-through:

CfIT will report on progress on this agenda in it July 2000 annual report.

44 TONNE LORRIES—MARCH 2000

The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) was asked by the Government to advise on whether maximum lorry weights should be increased to 44 tonnes. We took our remit from the Integrated Transport White Paper.

Our recommendations

A decision affecting a highly competitive and dynamic industry such as freight transport cannot be taken in isolation, and we have sought to put our recommendations on lorry weights in context by developing a package of measures to promote sustainable distribution.

This interim report states that, according to work undertaken for CfIT, the introduction of 44 tonne lorries will generate efficiency savings, leading to a small net reduction in lorry mileage, and produce environmental benefits. These conclusions are supported by wide consultation conducted by the Commission including hearings with key witnesses.

— Traffic levels could be cut by around 100 million vehicle-kilometres per year.

— Approximately 1,000 fewer lorries on the roads than would otherwise be the case.

— Annual savings of 80,000—100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

The possible drawbacks of 44 tonne lorries include vehicles travelling increased distances and the diversion of freight from rail to road. While we have been unable to examine possible longer-term changes in logistics patterns, our study shows that the savings in mileage and environmental benefits are likely to outweigh effects from increased lorry mileage and the loss of some rail freight. This is even before the effects of other elements of our sustainable distribution package.

As a result of these findings, we are prepared to recommend that the maximum permitted lorry weight be increased to 44 tonnes, though on a number of conditions. 44 tonne lorries should not be introduced before the Government has acted upon our recommendations.

— All 44 tonne lorries should meet Euro II emissions standards.

— There should be more enforcement activity and better resourcing of enforcement.

— Measures are needed to strengthen rail freight. We have asked the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) to examine this and make proposals to us within six months.

We will produce a final report once account can be taken of the sSRA's recommendations. 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.

What are 44 tonne lorries?

44 tonne lorries are the same size and shape as existing articulated lorries with six axles; they are simply permitted to carry heavier loads. Lorries carrying dense goods such as metals or liquids will tend to reach the current weight limit before they are full. At the moment, such lorries travel about a quarter of their loaded distance at the weight limit but with some unfilled space inside.

Permitting lorries to operate up to 44 tonnes allows the space inside to be used more efficiently and ultimately will mean fewer lorry trips to carry the same weight of goods. This will have benefits for the environment, congestion and economic efficiency. The safety features and minimum braking distance of such lorries are unaffected by operating at 44 tonnes.



© Parliamentary copyright 2000	Prepared 8 November 2000