International gateways
27. The Eddington Transport Study identified
the UK's 'international gateways' as critical to competitiveness
and productivity, estimating that 28% of the UK's national income
was generated through international trade in goods and services.
The UK imports 750,000 tonnes of goods each day, worth over £750
million.[44] Almost 80%
of the total tonnage enters or leaves the country through just
15 ports.[45] In its
October 2007 transport strategy, the Government set out "the
challenge" as it pertains to international networks:
[it] is essentially the same as for local and national
networks, i.e. it is about improving the predictable end-to-end
journey-time. The key differences are the criticality of international
links to a trade-dependent island and the fact that the demand-growth
forecasts (particularly for business travel and container traffic)
are particularly high.[46]
[…] Eddington concludes that our survival in
an increasingly competitive global market will turn on our success
in exporting services and high-value manufactures to pay for imports
of raw materials and lower-value goods. The international gateways
through which we import and export are therefore vital. No amount
of effort to improve our local or national networks will preserve
our competitive position if our international networks let us
down. […] Poor international networks add to the cost of
doing business, and are a powerful disincentive to inward investment."[47]
28. However, the Government, which considers
its role to be "[creating] the conditions in which investment
is encouraged",[48]
maintains that the question of whether and how to develop facilities
at international terminals is one on which the owners should take
the lead, responding to customer demand.[49]
29. In July 2007 the Government published its
Ports policy review interim report.[50]
The report followed a year-long review of ports policy and consultation
with stakeholders. It was intended to prepare the ground for a
further statement focussing on inland connections and a final
report by the end of 2007.[51]
A new National Policy Statement for the ports sector is expected
to be made under the Planning Bill currently before the House,
which could extend to inland freight distribution infrastructure
where this is connected to ports. The interim report states that
the UK's success in globalised markets depends, in part, upon
the ability of ports to "adapt and operate efficiently as
gateways to international trade"[52]
and reaffirms the Government's support for a market-oriented
approach.
30. The British Ports Association described the
ports industry as "strategically and financially independent",
but has detected signs that the Government is becoming more interested
in its "overall direction of travel" and future capacity
requirements. The UK Major Ports Group believes that the Government's
policy for freight transport is essentially correct. The industry
should be allowed to operate commercially and be
able to respond quickly to changing market signals[…] regulation
and subsidy should be kept to a minimum and only used where this
is justified by wider policy objectives (e.g. safety and the environment).[53]
31. However, it believes that a failure to address
"acute pressure" caused by congestion bottlenecks on
parts of the road and rail networks is the main weakness in the
Government's approach.[54]
Ports are often liable for the costs of improvements to surface
access which, we were told, puts UK ports at a disadvantage compared
to their Continental competitors, which do not have to meet such
costs; and that it could result in investment being diverted away
from the UK to high-return schemes elsewhere.[55]
The Institute of Highways and Transportation told us that Government
investment in road and rail connections to ports could ensure
that the national and regional economies benefit from private
sector investment at ports,[56]
and the British Ports Association pointed to Eddington's estimate
of benefit:cost ratios of between 3 and 15 for investment in surface
access to ports.[57]
Professor McKinnon and others argued that it should be the role
of Government to provide inland road and rail infrastructure.[58]
32. The Government accepts that for freight arriving
by sea, while the maritime leg of the journey will be the longest
in terms of duration, congestion at the port or on the surface
access routes serving it can sometimes have the greatest impact
on final arrival times. It concedes that, as growth in container
traffic continues, these issues are likely to be exacerbated,
particularly at peak times for retail businesses, such as at Christmas.[59]
The interim report of its ports policy review promised a "further
substantive statement" on inland connections alongside the
Department's response to Eddington and Stern.[60]
However, although the Government published its response to the
reports of Eddington and Stern in October 2007, there has not
yet been a substantive statement regarding inland access to ports.
This is unsatisfactory.
33. Growth in the UK economy and changes in the
structure of the global economy are resulting in a change to the
structure of the freight transport sector: an ever larger proportion
of freight is arriving at ports and being moved in containers
and it is important that the development of crucial infrastructure,
such as for surface access, does not lag behind. We
commend the Government for committing to investments in freight-orientated
infrastructure enhancements through the Transport Innovation Fund
and urge it to continue to do so. It should seriously consider
the scale of potential benefits that could accrue as a result
of further investment in inland connections to ports. As well
as looking to relieve the delays that result from bottlenecks,
the Government must be mindful of the ability of UK ports to compete
with their European neighbours, many of which are afforded a significant
advantage through the state provision of inland connections.
34. The Government claims to
recognise a growing need to improve inland connections to ports
so we are disappointed that the related "substantive statement"
has not yet materialised. We urge the Government to make a public
statement on this as soon as possible. The criteria whereby decisions
on funding will be made and the likely balance between public
and private contributions should be explicit in order to give
potential investors as much certainty as possible.
18 
