Memorandum by Railfuture (EU 10)
We do not propose to submit a full response
to this inquiry. Our view is primarily that the influence of the
European Union on transport policy in the UK has generally been
a positive one, although there are areas where the EU has not
got it right, or where more should be done to assist the role
of the railways in improving transport provision across the European
Union.
The Committee's Press Notice, however, refers
to three subjects to which they intend making particular reference.
We would like to submit observations on two of these.
1. THE "EURO-VIGNETTE"
PROPOSALS FOR
ROAD USER
CHARGING
We welcome these plans in principle. Any move
to charging for road use on an as-you-go rather than flat-rate
basis, has to be a move in the right direction. We support the
distance-based option, and recognise the need to make compensating
changes in other aspects of taxation of goods vehicles. We would
hope that in due course this system can provide a pilot for a
charging system for all road vehicles.
We are aware of a recent Dept for Transport
consultation on a Commission Directive on (inter alia)
Interoperability of Electronic Road Charging systems. Whilst there
are clearly long-term advantages of Europe-wide interoperability,
we trust that pursuit of this aim will not be allowed to delay
introduction of such systems in member countries. In particular
there seems no reason to delay introduction of paper-based schemes
on the model of the London congestion charge in the interim, whilst
allowing the possibility of their replacement with more sophisticated
technology in due course. In this connection, the Commission's
reported stipulation that environmental and congestion costs cannot
be charged is unacceptable and contrary to their policy of fully
internalising social and environmental costs. These costs must
be charged.
Two further aspects of the proposals (as recently
revealed) give us cause for concern. First, it is reported that
the Commission envisages charges applying only on Trans-European
Network roads. This would be disastrous, and we understand HMG
are objecting—rightly so. Not only would this be far more
difficult to arrange, requiring separate technology instead of
a simple add-on to the tachograph, but more seriously, it will
inevitably result in an unwelcome diversion of heavy vehicles
onto unsuitable secondary roads. This objection will apply equally
if charging were applied to motorways or any other specific category.
The new M6-toll may well demonstrate this. Any charging system
must be area-wide.
The second area of concern is the reported stipulation
that the funds raised be earmarked for road improvement. In
our view such hypothecation should not be to roads alone, but
to transport in general. Otherwise it risks distorting policy
choices between modes simply because of the availability of hypothecated
funds. It is right that the money should be ploughed back into
transport improvements—indeed this may be essential for
public acceptability, but the priorities of individual states—or
regions should be allowed for in deciding how and on which modes
to spend the funds raised. To do otherwise would seem to go against
the EU's own environmental and sustainable transport policies
post Kyoto, and also the principles of subsidiarity.
We would remind EU member states of their stated
support for the Kyoto Agreement and their commitment to reductions
in pollution levels by 2010. It would be more sustainable if such
funds were used primarily for railway infrastructure and other
surface public transport improvements.
2. AVIATION AGREEMENTS
The Press Notice refers specifically to negotiations
with the US. In our view, high on the agenda of any EU-US aviation
negotiations ought to be the need to end the present overgenerous
taxation regime enjoyed by the aviation industry, especially in
relation to fuel tax. This would of course require a common
EU position to be agreed in advance of any Transatlantic negotiations.
The Select Committee conducted a full inquiry
into Aviation in the UK in 2002, to which we submitted a copy
of our earlier submission to the Department on the same subject.
Sadly we found the Report on that inquiry extremely disappointing.
Nor does the White Paper on Aviation (just out) give sufficient
weight to the need to rein in the headlong growth of air travel
through taxation or other means.
First, the Committee took as given that "demand
(for aviation) must be met". We disagree. It is not
clear how this differs from "predict and provide", which
their report rejects. Second, the proposal to break up the "BAA
monopoly" and allow London's airports to compete, suggests
that none of the lessons of earlier transport legislation (Bus
deregulation 1985-86, Rail fragmentation 1993-94) have been learnt,
and the same mistakes are about to be made in aviation. Any hope
of a rational, planned solution would be totally lost. Equally
appalling is the suggestion of reinstating the Heathrow-Gatwick
helicopter link. This was accepted specifically as a stopgap measure
pending the opening of the M25, and its reinstatement would cause
uproar across Surrey. The option of a direct rail link (eg via
Olympia) was not even considered.
Even more perversely, it appears that European
regulations permit the protection of slots for feeder flights
to/from regional centres which could perfectly well be served
by rail alternatives (as other member states do), but not for
offshore locations such as the Isle of Man or Channel Isles which
cannot be so served, but which happen to be outside the EU. If
we have understood this correctly, then this last point is one
which HMG needs to raise in Brussels, as it is self-evidently
the reverse of a logical situation! This at least is relevant
to the present inquiry.
If further evidence were needed of the need
to rein in the demands of the aviation industry, it was provided
by recent statements from BA and others to the effect that expansion
of Stansted would not satisfy their requirements anyway. Only
demolishing yet another swathe of West London to accommodate a
further runway at Heathrow (a horrifying prospect) will do, it
seems. Regrettably the White Paper has not ruled this out, although
it does give some encouragement to the need to shift emphasis
away from the South East towards the regions. How much better
it would have been to give more encouragement to developing high-speed
rail as an alternative to domestic air routes—for example
by redressing the imbalance between high rail fares and low air
fares. We believe that the scope for high-speed railways to reduce
demand for short-haul flights has been overlooked in the UK, while
elsewhere in mainland Europe these new railways are at least keeping
down demand for more air transport provision and reducing it on
short journeys. We urge a rethink in the UK.
19 December 2003
| 
