Examination of Witnesses (Questions 480-499)
JIM FITZPATRICK
MP AND MR
STEPHEN FIDLER
27 FEBRUARY 2008
Q480 Chairman: As an industry, the
market does not capture all the cost to society of road freight,
does it? What is the Government going to do to ensure the industry
is accountable for more of the impacts that it has at every level
on the environment and on society in general?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Again, we are
investing heavily across the board in terms of environment and
climate change both in terms of vehicle manufacturers in reducing
emissions and in terms of freight transport, addressing the contribution
they are making to climate change. We have programmes that we
are operating in conjunction with major operators to make sure
that their drivers are trained to a standard whereby they can
drive more sensibly and reduce emissions and be more effective
in terms of the deliveries they are operating. In that sense there
are big savings for the operators, which makes sense for them,
but there are big savings for the rest of society because they
get free-flowing movement because they have less accidents, but
also because they are taught to drive more sensibly and then there
are less emissions. In that instance they are making a contribution
towards the challenge of climate change.
Q481 Mr Hollobone: Is it fair for
UK hauliers to continue to pay to maintain the UK's freight infrastructure
whilst foreign operators often do not contribute? I believe Her
Majesty's Government first floated the idea of a vignette for
foreign hauliers in November 2000 and yet almost eight years on
nothing seems to have materialised?
Jim Fitzpatrick: You are right,
Mr Hollobone, in that it has not materialised. We have been working
closely with the industry and with Treasury because the vignette
scheme was very much seen as a possible solution to make sure
that foreign hauliers made their contribution. There are constraints
within European regulations in terms of what can be levied and
how much can be levied, and where it will be effective. We have
been carrying out a considerable amount of work researching this
and that analysis is almost complete. Once we have the evidence,
then we will be able to draw some conclusions and then determine
whether we actually want to go forward with the vignette scheme
and how it would then operate.
Q482 Mr Hollobone: So having waited
almost eight years, do you have any indication you can give the
Committee about when firm proposals might be brought forward?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I cannot say
for definite exactly when the proposals will be coming forward.
I can only say, as I have just mentioned, that we are close to
the end of the evidence-gathering we needed to do in our discussions
with Treasury, and therefore we do not think it will be too long
before we come forward with our conclusions.
Q483 Mr Hollobone: The Freight Transport
Association is concerned at the condition of foreign vehicles,
and their drivers' non-compliance with driving hours rules is
a "significant road safety risk," in their words. The
Road Haulage Association commends efforts by the police to enforce
against foreign hauliers, but says that such enforcement "remains
fundamentally weak" and is localised and far from widespread.
Your colleague, Lord Bassam in the House of Lords revealed that
VOSA had detected more than 16,000 offences by foreign trucks
in the past 12 months, but that there are very few prosecutions
for specific offences because it is not possible to require non-UK
residents to return to the UK to attend court on such matters.
Her Majesty's Government has floated the idea of a Graduated Fixed
Penalty and Deposit Scheme, which would overcome some of these
difficulties and first went to public consultation on this in
July 2004, some four years ago. Can you give the Committee any
indication of when such a scheme might be likely to be introduced?
Jim Fitzpatrick: You are right,
Mr Hollobone, in terms of the time it is taking to introduce the
Graduated Fixed Penalty and Deposit Scheme. There are considerable
legal obstacles to overcome or address in terms of the ability
to introduce the scheme onto our highways. There is the question
of the ability of VOSA and the police to take deposits at the
roadside, the Court Service to support the scheme and recognise
and repay deposits if it is not necessary.
Committee suspended from 4.15 pm to 4.35 pm for
divisions in the House
Mr Hollobone: Minister, you are a very
nice chap and I have got a high personal regard for you.
Chairman: Hear, hear!
Q484 Mr Hollobone: I put it to you
with regard to foreign lorries in particular that this is a very
real issue of public concern, especially given the very large
number of lorries which now come onto our roads from Eastern Europe,
and the public are worried about the safety implications for them
when they drive along major roads in this country. It may well
be that in your former career you had experience of dealing with
some of the crashes which are caused with HGVs on our roads. I
think a large number of people will be very concerned indeed that
the Government has taken an interest in addressing these issues
but actually has not done really very much about it at all. I
am sure this Committee would welcome some greater assurance from
yourself that (a) the Government does recognise that this is a
very serious issue, and (b) it is prepared to give an undertaking
that it will bring forward some sensible and coherent proposals
fairly soon to ensure that it is tackled.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Mr Hollobone,
thank you very much for the opportunity to address this, because
you are right, it is an important question and is causing considerable
public concern. We are approaching this in three different ways.
The simplest way to demonstrate that we are addressing that which
we see as a particular problem is the fact that on 1 October there
was the announcement of an extra £2 million per year for
enforcement for VOSA. So in terms of the revenue to be able to
pay for additional enforcement activity, officers, equipment,
et cetera, that money has been provided to the service for the
people at the sharp end who are actually stopping potential road
vehicles which are offending against our Road Traffic Regulations.
That is underway. Secondly, we are working in Europe as hard as
we can to help improve the access to information. In the UK, for
example, VOSA examiners have information about an operator's compliance
risk score, where they can actually identify a vehicle from a
particular fleet and the officers will be able to track that fleet,
how many offences it has had, what its profile is like, whether
it is a good company or perhaps a company which is trying to cut
corners. We do not have that same level of intelligence and information
for vehicles coming from outside the UK, but we are hoping to
build up that database. However, we do have weigh-in-motion sensors
in the road at key points. We have got four at the moment and
there are six more under consideration, and they assist the enforcement
operators, so that in addition to their own skill and expertise
in identifying that which looks like a vehicle which may not be
in compliance with regulations, or whatever, there is technology
available to be able to identify whether or not in fact it may
very well be in breach. The third element, which I was starting
to refer to in respect of the discussion we were having just before
the votes, is the delay, perceived delay, in bringing forward
fixed penalties and deposit scheme penalties for vehicles from
outside the UK. As I was explaining, the ability to put in place
the legal powers for the police and VOSA to take deposits at the
roadside and for the Court Service to support the scheme and for
the DVLA to support the Court Service on offences which carry
driving licence endorsements for non-UK offenders, these are quite
complex issues and they are taking time to feed through. We are
hoping to consult on the statutory instruments during the course
of this year and have these powers in play for early 2009, so
although it has taken some time it is not a matter of the issues
not being processed as expeditiously as possible. We are trying
to do that, so that then we will have the powers on the roadside,
we will have increased resources to actually carry out the enforcement,
and we are working in Europe to try and make sure the enforcement
networks there are even more effective than they are at present.
Q485 Chairman: Is the Home Office
working closely with you on that, because Mr Hollobone is right,
people do not understand why there is apparently a different set
of standards for foreign drivers? Certainly, I think the Home
Office statistics show—it may not be a disastrous difference
in terms of percentages between the effects of accidents and HGVs
and those driven by foreign drivers, but the perception is there
that there is a real road safety problem and that in fact this
has now run so long we are not producing any urgent action at
all.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I hope, Chairman,
that I went a little way to offering the Committee some reassurance
and the extra enforcement activity has already been announced
and that money is coming through. The powers themselves will not
be through until next spring. We do work closely with the Home
Office because this is a giant enforcement operation between VOSA
(which is the Department for Transport, as you know) and the police
under the Home Office. I had a meeting yesterday with Chief Constable
Vane, the head of policing for ACPO, and his team, including Deputy
Chief Constable Briggs, and I have meetings with my counterpart
at the Home Office and officials between the Home Office and the
Department for Transport are working closely on various road safety
issues, and this is very much one of them. So there is joined-up
activity behind the scenes in government and we are trying to
move the legislation and lay the instruments as quickly as we
possibly can.
Q486 Chairman: Has anyone asked the
Chief Constables, when you are dealing with ACPO, whether they
are prepared to accept that the policing and the enforcing of
traffic laws is just as important as some other aspects of their
work? Because it is not in their core responsibilities, many Chief
Constables have actually taken skilled police officers off the
work in traffic divisions and put them on something else.
Jim Fitzpatrick: There does seem
to be the emergence of a stronger culture within the Police Service.
Certainly recently the conferences and meetings I have attended
since becoming Road Safety Minister last year have all very strongly
given the message out, from the Home Office, ourselves, ACPO and
from the Police Federation that roads policing is not stand-alone
activity. The people who are most likely to be flouting the regulations
of the roads, whether it is driving without a licence or without
insurance, or being disqualified or being under the influence
of drugs or drink, are those who are equally likely to be breaking
other rules which we set in place in society, and it has been
demonstrated that people who have been pulled over for what ostensibly
was a minor traffic offence have subsequently been found to have
drugs or firearms in the back of the car and other offences have
been uncovered. That has been recognised more and more by police
forces. There is a lot of people, obviously, who are not in that
category, but there is a hard core minority who, if they are flouting
our road safety laws, are going to be flouting other laws as well.
There is evidence clearly from the last two years from our drink-drive
Christmas campaign, a 5% increase the year before, a 6% increase
in the numbers of breathalysers this year, and the police are
working more closely. We have successfully discussed with the
Home Office the introduction of road traffic offences within their
assessments to ensure there is a reporting mechanism from police
forces, so that we reverse that perhaps perceived trend, that
there was a downgrading. That is certainly no longer the case
and there is a clear recognition, I think, from the Flanagan Report
where it says they have to identify where are the offences, what
are the ways we can deal with things. We are killing 3,000 people
on our roads every year, 25% because of alcohol, et cetera, others
because of speeding, others because they are not wearing seat
belts, breaching basic road safety rules of driving on roads,
and in that instance I think the police are recognising that the
Flanagan Report—and we will be submitting our own contribution
to the Home Office's review of the Flanagan Report to say that
we can demonstrate that results will be better for society if
the police do very much beef up and enhance road policing, because
apart from anything else it will lead to a reduction in the number
of people who are being tragically killed and seriously injured
on our roads.
Chairman: That is clear, I think, Minister.
Thank you.
Q487 Graham Stringer: Just following
up with a couple of questions on what Mr Hollobone asked. What
price of oil do you put in your projections on congestion in your
models? It might sound an obscure question, but obviously the
higher the price of oil gets the more the imbalance for British
hauliers against Continental hauliers, so I wondered what figure
you used for modelling?
Mr Fidler: I have not got the
figures to hand, but what I do know is that we look at a range
of scenarios for oil prices and feed that into a different range
of scenarios and our models, but we can look that range up and
write to you, if that is helpful.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Certainly, in
terms of the international oil price, the figures are relative
at the moment. The view the Treasury has is that the possibility
of the vignette scheme is certainly one which is worth considering.
The differential between ourselves and Europe in terms of fuel
types is one thing, but labour costs and other employer costs
here are cheaper, so there is a working out overall. So it is
very much relative in terms of the international oil price and
the one exchanged for fuel.
Q488 Graham Stringer: Yes, but it
is the taxation which goes up proportionately. That was an interesting
answer, because I would be interested in timetables. You indicated
then that the Government is reconsidering the use of lorry road
user charging, or did you not?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We have not discounted
the use of a vignette scheme. We have not said no to it.
Q489 Graham Stringer: When Alistair
Darling rejected it in 2005, he said he was waiting for the National
Road User Pricing Scheme. Is that still the policy, or if the
imbalance got higher would you consider bringing in either lorry
road user charging or some other scheme which would re-balance
the economics in favour of British hauliers?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We are sensitive
to the concerns being expressed by British hauliers, which is
why we have undertaken the work which we have to identify the
validity of the introduction of a vignette scheme. We know that
were there to be national road pricing, that would compromise
the introduction of such a scheme because it would not be allowed,
as I understand it, under EU rules. But given that that is clearly
not going to happen in the very near future and that local road
pricing schemes are being examined and possible trials to take
place, maybe not before 2011-12, we are some way off from a National
Road Pricing Scheme and it does mean there is a gap and therefore
the possibility of a vignette to fill that gap may well be appropriate.
But as I said in response to the Chairman, we have not got to
a position in terms of a definitive judgment as to whether or
not we want to proceed with that, but we are not far off.
Q490 Graham Stringer: You are not
far off. Does that mean three months, six months?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I would have
thought within three months.
Q491 Graham Stringer: That is very
interesting. Are there any other schemes apart from lorry road
charging which are being considered?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Not that I am
aware of.
Q492 Graham Stringer: Can I move
on to your opening remarks, where you said—and I paraphrase—that
basically freight, haulage, is the private sector and we do not
interfere, it is a free market out there. I understand that position,
but when it comes to air freight this country has lost its position
for hosting the world's measure integrators to Brussels and Charles
de Gaulle. Is the Government concerned about this? Would it want
those major hubs of integrators in this country?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We are not unduly
concerned about air freight volumes. Our forecasts were revised
last year as part of the Heathrow consultation. We think the demand
is expected to remain broadly similar between now and 2010 and
thereafter rise in line with GDP. In terms of our assessments
in respect of freight generally, we have, I certainly think, put
in the public domain our expectations of the increases in rail
freight and road freight, which are perhaps less than some were
predicting previously. So we do see increases in due course in
the years ahead.
Q493 Graham Stringer: Are you really
saying it is not important to have hubs for very high value air
cargo in this country as opposed to in another country, where
a lot of service industry as well as heavier industry and new
technologies require high value goods as and when they need them,
within 24 hours? Would it not be good to have these hubs in this
country?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Forgive me if
I gave the impression that this was not important. I apologise.
That is not the case. What I said was that we felt that which
was happening at the moment was consistent with our needs. We
do recognise—and we recognised it in the 2003 Air Transport
White Paper—that air freight does make a significant contribution
to the economy and we do understand, and we have argued the case
for aviation, that there are items which do need to be transported
by air because they are time-sensitive or because it is a component
part which is ultimately needed to get a factory back underway,
or whatever. So we are very committed to supporting air freight.
I had a meeting on Monday at Manchester Airport, where the Chief
Executive, Geoff Muirhead, was expressing some concern for Manchester
and East Midlands about plans to reform Air Passenger Duty and
the fact that if the new duty was introduced in a particular way
it could damage airport freight in the UK because it is such a
competitive market. He outlined to me just how price-sensitive
the market was. I may be doing him a disservice, but I do not
think he expressed any concern that the air freight dimension
was not functioning and was not profitable, et cetera, but he
did express concern that if we get APD wrong it could damage air
freight.
Q494 Graham Stringer: So what are
you doing to help air freight?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We will certainly
be in discussions with Treasury about the new aviation duty. We
will be listening to the aviation industry so that we can make
sure that their voice is heard at Treasury in terms of making
sure that we can support the industry, because there is no question,
as I say in the White Paper, we indicated a full acknowledgement
of the importance of air freight to the economy.
Q495 Graham Stringer: Do you still
stand by the projections in the White Paper on air freight tonnage?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Certainly, as
far as I am aware we do. I am not aware that we have revised those.
They are only three years old. I am sure that if the matter had
been revised in any way during the course of the Heathrow consultation
it would have been transferred, but perhaps Mr Fidler can speak
on that.
Mr Fidler: If I could add to that,
I think our latest forecasts, the ones which the Minister set
out earlier on, are remaining broadly steady until about 2010
and then growing in line with GDP for air freight. I think the
other relevant point here is that about two-thirds of air freight
is not in dedicated freight planes but is in the belly-hold of
other aircraft. So plans for expansion of capacity by airport
operators for passenger flights will, of course, benefit freight
as well.
Q496 Graham Stringer: Will the Government
continue to resist the calls from a number of Members of the House
for restrictions on night flights at East Midlands?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We have outlined
our position in terms of night flights, certainly for Heathrow,
for 2006-12. We have indicated that matters concerning noise pollution,
night flights particularly, would impact on this. It will be a
matter for airports to take up with their local authorities. The
European Noise Directive indicates that airports have to publish
their plans by later on this year, and on that aspect the question
of resisting, I am sure, will be a matter which will be taken
up strongly by those parliamentary representatives of the communities
around East Midlands Airport.
Q497 Graham Stringer: Can you explain
generally—and I am asking the questions coming from two
opposite directions, obviously, one about the contribution air
freight makes to the economy and then about the environmental
problems, noise in particular, associated with aviation. What
is your strategy for balancing those two competing issues?
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Heathrow
consultation, I suspect, probably demonstrates as clearly as any
other way I could describe how (given the sensitivities around
aviation and its impact upon the environment, its contribution
to climate change and its impact on local communities in respect
of noise), when we published the White Paper in 2003, we said
quite clearly we were in principle on policy in favour of a third
runway and the extension of Heathrow, but we laid down strict
environmental criteria which had to be demonstrated before we
would be in a position to give the green light for the third runway.
We have published the Heathrow consultation but the noise contour
above 57 decibels and within the 127 square kilometres planning
cap we have not increased, in fact over the next ten years we
have decreased it to a smaller square area, and that the European
levels on emissions and air quality would be met by 2010, and
that surface access would be very much part of the planning application
and subject to consideration before the green light would be given
for the go-ahead for the third runway, because that would be the
third element of the criteria. We think we have put the evidence
in the public domain, Mr Stringer, as to how we control noise
and air quality and surface access, and we have to meet those.
Q498 Graham Stringer: Are all cargo
flights likely to be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
as well as passenger flights?
Jim Fitzpatrick: To be honest,
off the top of my head I do not know. The Aviation Emissions Trading
Scheme is still agreed in principle, but it is not worked out
in detail yet.
Mr Fidler: I am not aware of the
full details. My expectation is, yes, but we will have to check
and come back to you.
Graham Stringer: Thank you.
Q499 Mrs Ellman: What is the Government
going to do to bring some more balance into investment in ports
outside the Greater South East?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I would not necessarily
fully agree that there is not investment in the North East. In
Liverpool there is planning consent given for the port extension
there. Last week we gave planning approval for Teesport and the
additional half a million to 1.5 million teu[1]
improvements there. We are working to support Tyneside and the
port there. Immingham and Hull are two of our biggest ports in
terms of operations. The market obviously will determine to a
certain extent where ships would want to berth. We want to make
sure that we provide a framework which makes it attractive to
berth in the UK and not berth in Continental ports and then ship
materials by road through into the UK, so we are pleased to see
investment in the North and we are certainly conscious that we
need to make sure that British ports are as attractive to international
shipping as possible.
1 TEU is the standardized unit for measuring container
capacity on ships, railcars etc. Commonly describes a 20-foot
container. Back
| 
