List of recommendations
The Government's approach to freight transport
1. The
transport of freight has wide-ranging effects on individual businesses,
the national economy, the transport network, and the environment.
We are not persuaded that the Department for Transport's "hands-off"
approach is the right one. There are significant economic and
transport benefits that could be gained from a more active Government
freight strategy. The Government must not shirk this responsibility.
(Paragraph 11)
2. We
have previously recommended that the Department should produce
a national freight plan, which would be valuable in setting out
the Government's vision for the future of the freight transport
sector. Important choices involving trade-offs between interested
parties need to be made by the Government; its approach to such
choices, as well as a description of the kind of freight transport
industry that the Government would like to see in the future,
should be brought together in a strategy document which should
reflect regional and national needs. We recommend that the Government
set out its aspirations for freight transport, including its potential
contribution to reductions in congestion and transport emissions,
likely requirements for and location of freight infrastructure
and jobs, and the kinds of technology of which the freight sector
might make use in the future. This information would also increase
the confidence of those considering investing in freight infrastructure.
(Paragraph 12)
The Government's contribution to investment in
infrastructure
3. Given
the growing imperative for sustainable distribution, we recommend
that the Department does not reduce its funding to support it,
especially given the relatively small amount in question and the
Fund's apparent success. In fact, we believe that there are good
arguments in favour of increasing the scale of public money available
for freight transport infrastructure given the importance of the
sector to the national economy.
(Paragraph
21)
4. Rail
and water freight must be able to compete on an equal footing.
Through discussions with the European Commission on its interpretation
of the State Aid rules, the Government should seek to resolve
the current inconsistencies in access to the Sustainable Development
Fund between rail and water freight operators. If objective of
the Fund is to reduce the number of lorry miles then each of the
non-road modes should be treated on the same basis.
(Paragraph 23)
5. 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. (Paragraph
33)
6. 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.
(Paragraph 34)
Capturing the costs of freight transport and facilitating
modal shift
7. The
Government should publish a strategy setting out its approach
in relation to capturing the external costs of transport. It should
also look to reduce transport's environmental cost by investing
more in environmentally beneficial technologies across all modes.
(Paragraph 40)
8. The
Government should also identify how it will address current anomalies
in the costs incurred by UK and Continental hauliers.
(Paragraph 41)
9. We
welcome the publication of the long-awaited report in relation
to the introduction of longer, heavier vehicles and are pleased
that the Government has chosen not to pursue their introduction.
Options to bring about enhanced efficiency in the road haulage
industry should continue to be explored.
(Paragraph 48)
10. We
support the Government's efforts to secure the inclusion of aviation
in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, although we are concerned
that progress towards finalising a detailed proposal appears to
be slow. As well as continuing in its attempts with Member States
to achieve a conclusion to this progress, we call on the Government
to publish a clear timetable showing when it is anticipated. The
Government must have regard for the need for UK airports to remain
competitive with European air freight hubs, such as Brussels and
Paris. (Paragraph
52)
11. We
are pleased that the Government is working with the rail freight
industry to develop a blueprint for its Strategic Freight Network,
but concerned that the money identified so far will not be enough
to achieve the kind of improvements that will be required. We
shall be interested to examine the finalised list of proposed
improvements to be paid for with the £200 million that has
so far been committed. We urge the Government to ensure that the
Strategic Freight Network provides the impetus and a strategic
justification for decisions to be taken in the long term interest
of the railway network, such as safeguarding potentially valuable
disused routes (Paragraph
62)
12. While
Network Rail might aspire to improve the service it offers to
its freight customers, it does not appear to have much of an idea
of how to go about doing so. We recommend that Network Rail, following
its discussions with freight operators, publish a strategy for
improving performance for freight. This should be given the same
urgency as proposals relating to passengers.
(Paragraph 66)
13. The
Department itself, and not just the ORR, must make an effort to
hold Network Rail to account for poor performance and use its
influence and expertise in an attempt to improve the situation.
We hope that Track Access Charges in Control Period 4 are towards
to the lower end of the Office of Rail Regulation's anticipated
range of £41 to 99 million. Prohibitive Track Access Charges
could seriously hamper the move to shift freight off the roads
and onto rail. (Paragraph
67)
14. We
are pleased that the Government intends to include a coastal shipping
target in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Statement on
ports. But we believe that it could do more to encourage waterborne
freight transport, particularly by offering strategic direction
similar to that which is developing for rail freight. We are wholly
unconvinced by British Waterways' argument that it simply does
not matter which Department has responsibility for the inland
waterway network; if the inland waterways are to be taken seriously
as part of the strategic transport network, then the DfT should
have responsibility for them. (Paragraph
75)
15. The
Government should adopt more urgency in its discussions with the
Commission on coastal shipping so that it will be able to offer
funding to the short sea operators where there is an environmental
benefit as a result of reductions in lorry miles.
(Paragraph 76)
Balancing the needs of the freight industry and
wishes of the wider public
16. We
are pleased that Network Rail are talking to the industry about
the respective priorities of passengers and freight, and that
a reasonable working relationship appears to exist. Network Rail
must progress its thinking in relation to providing reliable capacity
for freight, even in the event of network disruption. Network
Rail must recognise the importance of freight instead of treating
it as the poor relation of passenger services. Operators should
he able to see a clear link between the Track Access Charges that
they pay and the service that they receive.
(Paragraph 82)
17. Freight
must not be undervalued. The need for high profile and much needed
improvements for passengers must not sideline the importance of
schemes designed to improve the efficiency of freight transport.
Upgrades that will benefit freight must not disappear from consideration.
Studies into the possibility of high speed and upgraded rail must
include an assessment of the benefits of freeing up existing capacity
for freight. Similarly, the potential for increased capacity for
passenger services should be given due consideration in relation
to proposals for a dedicated freight line.
(Paragraph 83)
18. While
out of hours deliveries must not be allowed to cause unacceptable
disturbance to residents, best practice and an increasing imperative
to reduce peak congestion in urban areas mean that relaxations
of blanket delivery bans should now be seriously considered, where
appropriate. The Government has been praised for its Freight Best
Practice scheme, which is encouraging among other things the development
of quieter equipment, and Freight Quality Partnerships are increasingly
facilitating productive communication between freight operators,
businesses and local residents. But we are concerned that instances
where local agreements have been successfully negotiated are still
relatively rare and progress towards wider adoption of noise restrictions,
rather than delivery bans, appears to be slow. (Paragraph
90)
19. It
is clear that the UK's geography will encourage growth in demand
for ports capacity in the Greater South East area. But the Government
must be careful not to intensify that tendency by distorting the
market with its decisions relating to inland access and planning.
It should realise that supporting port infrastructure in the regions
assists regional regeneration as well as the national interest.
We are not convinced, for instance, that in allocating a large
proportion of the Productivity Transport Innovation Fund to schemes
in the South the Government has taken the full range of costs
and benefits—including regeneration, employment and potential
environmental gains from modal shift—into account. It is
worrying that the Department does not seem willing to consider
the implications of its decisions for regeneration.
(Paragraph 98)
20. The
policy of making an ever-greater investment in infrastructure
to cope with demand in the South East, although it might temporarily
mitigate the congestion caused by an insatiable demand for new
capacity, is not sustainable. In fact, it looks remarkably like
the old "predict and provide" policy for road capacity.
Without directly intervening in the market, the Government has
the ability to effect changes to the relative viability of operators'
options. It has embraced the idea that, if the freight industry
is left entirely to the market, a system resulting in the perfect,
most efficient transportation of freight will emerge. However,
that approach ignores other priorities, such as regeneration,
employment, the wealth gap or the environment. The Government
should not be a helpless bystander. (Paragraph
99)
21. The
Government must engage with European schemes to ensure that UK
business is not disadvantaged. It must do all it can to help the
UK freight industry take full advantage of such initiatives.
(Paragraph 104)
22. The
Government should recognise the problems that are created for
UK ports by its failure to engage. Like the other European freight
initiatives, the UK Government must do what it can to help UK
ports attract European money in order that our industry can compete
with the big Continental ports. Efforts should also continue to
be made in attempting to reduce the subsidy of ports where it
is against free-market regulations. (Paragraph
107)
23. We
urge the Minister to highlight the importance of UK air freight
operators' competitiveness with Continental operators.
(Paragraph 111)
24. It
is patently unfair that UK hauliers continue to subsidise their
Continental competitors through high levels of taxation on fuel,
eight years after the Government announced proposals to address
this problem. The rising cost of oil and the threat of the liberalisation
of European cabotage legislation mean that the problem
is set to get significantly worse. We are astonished that work
on a vignette scheme has been abandoned with no recognition of
the need for an alternative. We note that potential problems connected
with European directives or state aid rules seem to have been
overcome by other Member States including Germany, Austria, the
Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, all of which have implemented
or are implementing lorry road user charging schemes. The Government
should discuss a way forward with the industry.
(Paragraph 116)
25. Although
the announcement of £24 million to assist VOSA with enforcement
is welcome, it does not address this distortion of fair competition
between European freight operators. (Paragraph
117)
26. We
are pleased that the Government recognises the lack of successful
enforcement against sometimes unsafe foreign registered vehicles
as a problem. The Graduated Fixed Penalty and Deposit Scheme and
enhanced enforcement by officers from VOSA and the Police should
eventually improve the situation. The delay to the introduction
of the Scheme is, however, lamentable and we see no evidence that
there will not be further set backs. The Government must be seen
to be making progress and the Committee urges the Government to
publish a detailed timetable of the necessary steps to implementation
in 2009. (Paragraph
122)
Conclusion
27. The
effects of freight transport are wide-ranging and ever-present;
with rising levels of congestion and environmental concern, the
imperative to reduce them, and the potential benefit of doing
so, has never been greater. But, with the exception of its notably
successful involvement in road haulage best practice, the Government
believes the market will provide all the solutions. This is not
acceptable. We believe that Government should be more proactive:
it should provide strategic direction, it should develop an aspiration
for the future of the freight sector, and it should use the tools
it has available to bring that about. A renewed freight strategy
is overdue. (Paragraph 123)
28. The
Government's attitude to freight transport is characterised by
an apparent recognition of the issues but an unwillingness or
an inability to address them. Network Rail's continuing poor service
to rail freight operators and the long-standing difficulties faced
by UK road hauliers in competing with Continental firms are two
examples of this. (Paragraph 124)
29. It
is now urgent for the Government to produce a environmentally
aware and business friendly freight strategy that assists the
national and regional economies. (Paragraph
125)
| 
