Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 1 April 2005