Memorandum from the United Kingdom Major
Ports Group (UKMPG) (FT 16)
The UKMPG is the association which represents
most of the major commercial ports in the UK. Our 9 members operate
41 ports which account for some 70% of the cargo passing through
UK ports. The UK port sector as a whole handles 95% of UK international
trade by volume.
UKMPG welcomes the Transport Committee's inquiry
into freight transport. Freight transport is an important component
of the country's distribution system and should play a vital role
in ensuring that goods are delivered quickly and efficiently,
at minimum cost and with as little adverse effect as possible
on the environment.
Overall our view is that freight transport in
the UK operates well and that the direction of Government policy
for freight transport is correct. In particular it is right that
freight transport 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 (eg safety and the environment).
However UKMPG considers that policy could be
strengthened in two respects as set out below.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION
The main weakness of current freight policy
is the acute pressure on parts of the national road and rail infrastructure
network. Congestion bottlenecks have an adverse effect on reliability
and can hamper efficient operation at ports and other distribution
terminals. The Eddington Transport Study published in December
2006 has recognised that key international gateways which are
a strategic economic priority for the UK are showing signs of
increasing congestion and unreliability. It is essential that
the Department for Transport's response to the Eddington Review
promised shortly addresses this aspect. UKMPG hopes that the Transport
Committee will cover this important area in its review of freight
transport.
A related issue is how transport infrastructure
improvements should be financed. Over the last few years an expectation
has been developing that ports with expansion proposals should
pay all or most of the costs of improvements to inland transport
links. This is inconsistent and unreasonable. Ports should only
have to finance links within the port area. They should not have
to pay for upgrades to main road and rail networks many miles
from the port from which many other users will benefit; this should
remain a public financing responsibility. Current practice puts
UK ports at a financial disadvantage to continental ports which
do not have to meet such costs. Some deep sea could desert the
UK as a result and increase our dependence on transhipment traffic
from ports such as Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg. It could also
result in port schemes not going ahead in the UK because international
investment is redirected to high return schemes elsewhere.
MODAL SHIFT
UKMPG ports make extensive use of rail freight
which can account for over 30% of traffic into and out of a port.
Coal and container traffic are particularly well suited to transport
by rail. Rail can also offer significant environmental benefits.
UKMPG therefore welcomes the availability of grants under the
sustainable distribution fund to switch traffic away from road
where it would otherwise be uneconomic to do so and where real
environmental benefits would be achieved. However it is important
that such grants are short term, tightly controlled and closely
monitored so that they do not become general operating subsidies
which distort market competition. There would also be logic in
extending the coverage of the sustainable development fund to
coastal shipping from one UK port to another though again it will
be important to ensure that there would be genuine and quantifiable
benefits to the environment and no distortion of the market. The
total amount of sustainable development fund support would also
need to be increased so that there is no adverse effect on existing
grant levels for rail and inland waterways.
INTEGRATED FREIGHT
PLAN
UKMPG sees no particular benefit and some danger
in the concept of a national integrated freight plan. This implies
the Government second guessing the market and possibly also seeking
to direct traffic. This risks creating inflexibilities and interfering
with the commercial judgement of freight operators and others
in the distribution chain and with operators' ability to respond
quickly to market changes. On the other hand there would be benefit
in setting out clearly and in one place the range of Government
policies towards freight. Another important component would be
the freight infrastructure aspects of the Government's forthcoming
response to the priorities set out in the Eddington Review. The
section on rail freight in the recent White Paper "Delivering
a Sustainable Railway" is also relevant.
October 2007
| 
