The
Chairman: I call Stephen Hammond—provided that the
questions are
linked.
Stephen
Hammond: Absolutely, Mr. Benton. The Minister
gave figures of £3,833 and £2,100 that represent the
initial capital costs of fitting the cleaner engines and exhaust per
vehicle. However, other estimates in papers have suggested that it
might cost as much as £6,000. Was any advice offered on
that?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I can only confirm that those are the figures
contained in my briefing—£3,833 and
£2,100. Kelvin
Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I apologise for arriving a
minute or so late, Mr. Benton, but I was in another
meeting.
My hon.
Friend the Minister spoke about improving the engines of lorries, of
which we are all in favour. Of course, it is easy to do that with
one’s own domestic hauliers, but a high proportion of the
traffic through Britain, and across the continent in general, consists
of hauliers from other countries. Many of those lorries entering
Britain are known to be unsafe—they have undergone roadside
checks and been found to be unsafe. Is it not likely that they will
also have a high level of emissions that will not be policed
automatically by this
Government?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. There
is concern across the country about vehicles on international journeys
not conforming to basic regulations, whether on the hours that drivers
work, construction and use, the overloading of vehicles or
non-compliance with emissions standards. He will be aware that the
Government recently provided additional funding to bolster the
enforcement agency—the Vehicle and Operator Services
Agency—and to focus on those hauliers. Furthermore, some two
months ago we announced an additional £24 million to provide two
new checking stations, two-way motion sensors, 97 new members of staff,
24/7 working at two different points in the country and additional
electronic and IT kits and vehicles, which
will allow us to stop a further 30,000 vehicles. At the recent meeting
of Transport Ministers, the Minister of State, Department for
Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms
Winterton) raised with European partners the point about the exchange
of data on, and index numbers for, such vehicles so that we can spot
and focus even more on regular offenders. I can give my hon. Friend a
very strong reassurance that the Department takes very seriously the
enforcement of regulations across the board and has invested in it
considerably recently.
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I would like, if
may, to ask a couple of questions about the discrepancy between the
Government’s figures and the Commission’s. The Minister
said that as far as the Government were concerned, the worst-case
scenario was 8 per cent. Did the Commission consider its figure of 2
per cent. to 3 per cent. to be the worst-case scenario or the best-case
scenario?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that the
Commission’s figures are based on 2014, when the regulations
will be implemented. Our worst-case scenario figures are our estimate
of the position at the moment, although, as I said, we expect that the
improvement that we have seen over the years in heavy goods vehicles
will continue and that the gap will close. That is why we believe that
there will be an improvement in our worst-case scenario figures, which
leads us to believe that the cost-benefit analysis is
appropriate.
Mr.
Leech: So, to clarify, does the Commission’s figure
of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. take into consideration the general
year-on-year improvements that it expects between now and
2014?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: That is my understanding. Because we are
dealing with the figures and calculations provided by our consultants
today, we believe that there will be a reduction in the penalty between
now and 2014. That means that the situation and the cost-benefit
analysis will improve between now and
then.
Mr.
Leech: One final question, if I may. The Commission
refused to give some information about how it had made the
calculations. Have the Government been able to get any further
information about how it came to its
conclusion?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: We do not have any more information now than
we had when the Commission originally published its
figures. Dr.
Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet) (Lab): May I, too, ask a
couple of questions? The category V standard could be achieved either
by a better emission control system or by using a fuel additive. Is it
intended that category VI will be achievable by either solution, or is
it a technically neutral
proposal?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that it is
both.
Dr.
Ladyman: In that case, if someone does not add the
additive, which some operators tend not to do because it saves them
money, and their emissions therefore increase, would their
vehicle be immobilised under category
VI?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I can only presume that if a vehicle emits a
level of pollutants that is in breach of the regulations, that vehicle
would have to be
stopped.
Dr.
Ladyman: In that case, has the Department had any
discussions with the Commission about whether it will be possible, in
the time scale proposed for the introduction of the standard, for
vehicle manufacturers to develop systems to ensure that a vehicle will
not operate unless category VI standards are achieved? In other words,
might it be better to delay the introduction of the standard by a year
or two and end up with a failsafe standard, rather than introduce it on
the current time scale, which might allow vehicles to be produced in
which people could cheat the
system?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend has extensive experience,
probably more than I, of dealing with the introduction of category V. I
am not in a position to respond directly to his question at the moment,
although I might be able to return to it in my concluding remarks.
However, the Commission believes that the introductory date that we
have settled on is achievable, and, having put down markers about our
concerns, we are comfortable with it. We believe that by 2014, the
improvements that will have occurred in engine technology will mean
that, as the cost-benefit analysis shows, we will want to
proceed.
Stephen
Hammond: May I return to the line of questioning that was
started by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington? If the
Government were to base their estimate of the worst case on 2014, would
that estimate be 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., or would it be
significantly different from what the EU
suggests?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: We do not have a figure that we can point at
with any certainty as to exactly what the reduction will be. As I said
in my opening remarks, we have seen a reduction over recent years, the
manufacturers believe that that improvement will continue, and
therefore the gap between 8 per cent. and 3 per cent. will be
narrowed.
Stephen
Hammond: In the interest of transparency and so that a
judgment can be made, is the Minister willing to publish the
guidelines, advice and calculations that were done by Ricardo, so that
they are available for people to
see?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I think that we will be able to do that. I
will confirm that in my closing remarks if I may, but there ought not
to be a problem with that.
Kelvin
Hopkins: May I first welcome my hon. Friend’s
answer to my earlier question about the additional resources for VOSA?
Will it test specifically for emissions, as well as other aspects of
vehicle safety? If not, will that not mean that there will be unfair
competition with British hauliers, who live under a much stricter
regime?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: VOSA’s job is to ensure that vehicles
that ply their trade on our roads are safe and comply with the
regulations. It is the Department for Transport’s objective to
ensure that British hauliers are not disadvantaged to the benefit of
non-British hauliers. That is why we have given the extra investment to
VOSA, to ensure that it does an even more effective job than it is
doing at present.
Mr.
Leech: May I draw the Minister’s attention to the
supplementary explanatory memorandum on European Community legislation,
dated 26 June? He did not make reference to this in his opening
remarks, but paragraph 13 mentions penalties. The penalty would be the
possible withdrawal of the type approval certificate, which in
practical terms would result in certain vehicles not being able to be
sold in the future. The memorandum goes on to suggest that in certain
circumstances, there may be a criminal offence. Will he explain what
would be the benefit of making non-compliance a criminal offence,
rather than a civil offence? In the event of it being classed as a
criminal offence, would civil action be taken at the same
time?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I am not in a position to answer that, I will
try to come back to it in my closing
remarks.
Dr.
Ladyman: The categorisation that we are discussing has had
huge benefit in driving down particulates, but it applies only to
people buying new vehicles. There comes a point where the old vehicles
on the road are pumping out the particulates for as long as they are
running. Has my hon. Friend yet had any discussions with the Commission
to suggest that, either as part of category VI or in
parallel with it, we should start to introduce measures to allow older
vehicles that are more polluting to be taken off the road or forbidden
from European
roads?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I have not had any discussions with the
Commission regarding what will happen as vehicles get older and
dirtier. My understanding is that the number of heavy goods vehicles
being withdrawn from service on UK roads every year is about 40,000. I
have looked at the problem of seatbelts on heavy goods vehicles,
because of the deaths caused by vehicles before 1991, when there was no
requirement to have seatbelts. In that regard, there is a degree of
responsibility on the owners of the vehicles to ensure that they are
safe and roadworthy, but I have not had discussion with the Commission
on whether older vehicles, which will become dirtier, should be
withdrawn from
service.
Stephen
Hammond: May I draw the Minister’s attention to the
UK briefing for MEPs, dated July 2008? It states that the Government
support the implementation date, but not any earlier implementation
dates. May I assume that that is because they calculated that the fuel
penalty of earlier implementation would be greater, and if so, what
would that penalty be?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We do not
support an earlier introductory date, because we believe that the gap
between us will narrow. If there
were an earlier introductory date, there would be less time for the gap
to narrow and so the cost-benefit analysis would
change.
Stephen
Hammond: May I ask the Minister the second part of that
question? Have the Government calculated what the fuel penalty will be?
Presumably, it will be greater than 8 per
cent.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: We have said that the worst-case scenario
today is 8 per cent., so it would not be greater than 8 per cent., but
would reduce towards 3 per cent. We have strongly argued and made our
case to the Commission, as have other member states, that 2014 is the
appropriate introductory date, and we would not support an earlier
one.
Stephen
Hammond: The Minister will be aware that there are
amendments before the European Parliament for a zero NOx limit and for
Euro VI to be introduced one year earlier for new vehicle types and 18
months earlier for new registration. May I take it that the Minister
does not support those
amendments?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: We have clearly stated our case today and to
the Commission that 2014 is the earliest implementation date that we
would
support.
Stephen
Hammond: I have one final question on this issue. Does
that mean that Labour Members of the European Parliament will be
instructed not to vote for the
amendments?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: The Government will make their feelings on
this matter absolutely clear to all British MEPs. I hope that we can
count on the Opposition to support us on that and to relay the message
to their MEPs. We will certainly convey the message as strongly as
possible to Government supporters on the European parliamentary
Benches.
Kelvin
Hopkins: I have a question linked to that of my hon.
Friend the Member for South Thanet about older vehicles. Heavy goods
vehicles have a long working life and can be resold. Is it possible
that a large number of older vehicles from outside the EU, some of
which might be second-hand from British or other European hauliers,
travel across the EU and Britain and have much higher emissions? Is it
possible that a large number of vehicles, perhaps from some of the
poorer eastern European countries, are travelling through Britain with
much higher emissions than the newer, relatively more modern and
efficient vehicles that British hauliers tend to
buy?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend raises a similar point to that
raised before. Cost-benefit analyses of schemes that encourage people
to scrap older vehicles by offering grants have always suggested that
the cost of scrappage schemes would exceed the benefits. However, I
know that he is not asking directly about such encouragement. The
regulations will apply to new vehicles and there will be a scaling down
of vehicles through
their withdrawal from service by virtue of age. In countries where the
infrastructure is not so good and the economic position is not so
strong, companies might not be able to afford to replace vehicles as
frequently as UK haulage firms, but once the regulations are in place,
they must be adhered
to.
Mr.
Leech: Does the Minister have any figures on the number of
vehicles that are likely still to fail Euro V standards by the time the
Euro VI standards are introduced?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: No,
Sir.
Stephen
Hammond: Different manufacturers are at different stages
of technological development. The Minister will know that Scania
believes that it has Euro VI sorted, to use its language. MAN has asked
for access to Scania technology, Renault has called for a sharing of
knowledge and Volvo is urging progress on fuel alternatives. What
discussions have the Government had with
manufacturers?
| 
