Appendix
Introduction
The Government welcomes the Transport Committee's
report on the Ports Industry in England and Wales, and is grateful
in particular for its clear recognition and support of the vital
role that the industry plays in sustaining UK trade.
Since the Committee published its report in January,
we have been progressing the Ports Policy Review, drawing together
our conclusions in light of the many responses to last summer's
consultation, the Eddington and Stern Reports, and the Committee's
report itself. This response to the Committee is submitted alongside
the first output from the review — an interim report that
sets out our initial conclusions about the direction of policy
for England and Wales. As well as making some specific proposals
on aspects of ports policy, the interim report also prepares the
ground for a further statement later this year, which will take
account of ongoing work to examine our high-priority international
links in the light of the recommendations of the Eddington Study.
This response considers each of the Committee's recommendations
in turn.
Scope of the Response
This document is the Government's formal response
to the Committee's report and, as with the ports policy review
itself, deals primarily with ports policy in England and Wales.[1]
1. We
welcome the Government's Ports Review. It is right to look to
the long term. We also welcome the Minister's commitment to consider
this Report when shaping the final policy that will come out of
the review. That said, we are adamant that the Department should
not accept unquestioningly the views of the vested interests.
The evidence does not indicate consensus on the main challenge
the industry faces. (Paragraph 21)
The Department for Transport has consulted a wide
range of interests and we have weighed objectively the views expressed
to us. In a complex market with many competing interests and locations,
it is not altogether surprising that there is a wide range of
views on both broad and detailed matters. However, we do detect
a strong consensus that the ports sector should continue to be
primarily market-led, and at the same time that there is a proper
role for Government in areas such as safety, security and inland
transport connections. The differences arise in the answers to
more detailed questions as to exactly how that role should be
discharged.
2. Alongside
the Ports Review, the Government commissioned some independent
forecasting work from MDS Transmodal. This is a welcome development,
one recommended by our predecessor Committee. These demand and
capacity forecasts should be revised on a regular basis if they
are to remain relevant and useful. It would also be helpful for
future forecasting for the Government to consider an updated origins
and destination survey. We recommend that the Government hold
discussions involving interested parties and experienced users
to discern whether such a project would be viable and if so, to
plan how to go about it. (Paragraph 30)
The Government accepts the case for regular revisions
of forecasts, in line with the recommendations for National Policy
Statements generally, as set out in the Government's recent White
Paper Planning for a Sustainable Future. It is our intention,
expressed in the interim report, that forecasts of port traffic
demand should be refreshed every five years, using such methodology
as is appropriate at the time.
The Department for Transport is currently undertaking
a review of Maritime Statistics, involving consultation with both
users and data providers. As part of this review, we shall be
assessing the feasibility (and regulatory impact) of collecting
further data on origins and destinations, particularly of unitised
traffic. The Department is grateful to those who supplied their
own information on this matter during the consultation process.
3. We
recommend that the Government develops and implements a flexible
but coherent national strategy that recognises the importance
of ports and the cargoes that come through them to our national
economy, as well as to regional development and growth. (Paragraph
33)
We agree, and believe that direction of policy, as
set out in the interim report, will satisfy these criteria. It
sets out how we expect ports to fit into the structure of regional
planning, and contribute to growth locally, regionally and nationally.
In the second stage later this year, DfT will set out further
policies in relation to inland infrastructure in the same spirit,
in the context of our response to Eddington.
4. There
is one straightforward way in which the Government can act now
to protect our vital port infrastructure from the depredations
of any investment companies: by issuing an order to safeguard
all of the country's most important wharves, as has been done
along the Thames. We recommend that it do so. (Paragraph 37)
The Government does not accept a general characterisation
of companies investing on port estates as 'depredations'. In order
to respond to changing patterns of market demand, it is necessary
for port operators to alter the use of operational land from time
to time and, in some instances, there may be better uses of such
land in the medium to long term than any form of port activity.
In a generally thriving sector, such instances are the exception
rather than the rule, but (irrespective of the merits of safeguarding
the Thames wharves) we do not judge it appropriate for Government,
at national level, to rule out alternative uses.
We have therefore concluded that the planning system
remains the best place to determine needs for safeguarding. However,
we have set out certain guidelines in the Interim Report for consideration
by planning authorities. These recommend a strong presumption
against safeguarding where there is little realistic likelihood
of the facility being brought back into significant port operational
use within a period of fifteen years or where the alternative
use being proposed can easily be terminated and the land reinstated
to port use within that time. Conversely, we recommend a strong
presumption in favour when there is at least a reasonable likelihood
of restitution to significant operational use within fifteen years
and where the alternative use in contemplation is one,
such as residential development, which will be difficult to reverse.
Between these margins we expect judgement to be based
on an appraisal of the costs and benefits, meaning that those
which really are most important for port operations will effectively
be safeguarded by a combination of strategic planning and commercial
decisions. We intend that the combined ports policy statements
will help cement a framework within which ports may confidently
plan for operations in the medium to longer term, without in most
cases the need to look for short-term gain by taking wharves out
of use.
5. We
are concerned that the ownership of UK ports by foreign companies,
particularly those with no prior experience of owning and managing
ports, may create instability within the industry. Ports companies
with foreign interests may decide on balance that investment and
development is best prioritised outside the UK; similarly investment
companies may see more profit in selling off ports for land. The
Government must recognise the risks and develop an action plan
to mitigate them. (Paragraph 38)
The Government sees no evidence of instability, nor
that owners with foreign interests are in general acquiring UK
ports for other than port purposes, nor that they are any more
prone than commercially active domestic operators to identify
and sell off surplus operational land. Recent ownership changes
backed by infrastructure investors and pension funds seeking robust
long-term returns are evidence of the attractions of the sector,
and reflect global trends towards investment in infrastructure
by investors seeking to build value by holding assets over the
longer term. In line with Sir Rod Eddington's recommendations
we will be looking to recognise and respond to these changes in
financial and infrastructure markets to make the most of the new
opportunities they offer, while remaining alert to any new risks
that might arise with changing market circumstances.
As noted above, the planning system already complements
market incentives in a profitable and growing sector to maintain
important assets in operational use.
6. Our
ports are too valuable to be exposed to the unregulated whims
of international capital. The Government must be clear about the
circumstances in which the threat to our national interest would
trigger intervention in the market. We hope that such a mechanism
would never have to be used, but it must be there. The industry
should be clear about its responsibilities not only to its employees,
but to the environment, to its region and to the nation as a whole,
and about what the consequences of a failure of stewardship would
be. (Paragraph 44)
The Government agrees that the ports industry has
important responsibilities in these areas, but our conclusion
from the Review is that existing general competition law and security
regulation are sufficient to enable intervention should that become
necessary. The Government does not, in any case, share the implied
perception of an industry under threat of consistently detrimental
decisions by port operators.
7. A
national framework for ports development will stand or fall on
the strength of its ability to bring port development and traffic
to the regions. Within the national policy, each individual area
should be allowed to develop those aspects of the industry that
are best fitting their unique geographical advantages and access
to markets. The Government must recognise that these are complementary
- not conflicting - aims. (Paragraph 57)
The Government agrees that the outcome of a successful
ports policy will be port development and the realisation of the
potential for overall growth in each region, and welcomes the
Committee's recognition that this should reflect the various comparative
strengths and weaknesses of the regions and of the individual
ports within them.
8. The
evidence we received about the extent to which port traffic could
be diverted to ports outside of the Greater South East was contradictory.
Each vested interest insisted that theirs was the only possible
approach. The market cannot be shaped by the interests of the
shipping companies, or by rigid central planning. It would clearly
be of benefit to the regions, in terms of employment, regeneration
and environmental impact, if there were a more even distribution
of port traffic across the country. This may be possible to achieve
with some incentives directed at making it easier to move freight
inland from northern or western ports, perhaps by the Government
matching developer investment in infrastructure, or by granting
favourable freight access on the railways. (Paragraph 58)
The Government agrees that ports policy should not
be determined by any vested interest, and that rigid central planning
would not be appropriate for this industry.
We have set out views on regional, employment, regeneration,
and environmental aspects in the interim report. A 'more even'
distribution of traffic may not be desirable in itself, given
the need (as the Committee has recognised) for ports to play to
their strengths, and the efficiencies that can be obtained by
some degree of concentration.
Rather, it is desirable that accurate incentives
should exist to reflect congestion, environmental and other externalities.
That should, in principle at least, result in an appropriate geographical
distribution of development.
Productivity TIF[2]
funding has already been announced as part of this process of
improving incentives. Schemes to improve freight access, in particular
by extending rail gauge clearance for 9'6" containers, are
prominent among the candidate schemes currently being taken forward
for the final stages of development.
9. It
is the job of the Government to ensure that commercial interests
sit within a strategic framework for national development and
regional growth. Government controls the inland freight infrastructure;
it provides tax and other financial incentives which shape commercial
decisions; it can choose to look favourably or not on planning
proposals. It cannot control the global market but nor can it
claim that the market is the only factor which determines where
ports develop. (Paragraph 59)
The Government has established a structure for regional
spatial planning that is intended to ensure that decisions taken
by planners and developers are done so at the most appropriate
levels.
In light of the Eddington and Barker reports, we
have recognised that more can and should be done to expedite the
planning processes, and to ensure that major infrastructure projects
in particular are dealt with in a more coordinated fashion, with
decisions to be taken by a new independent Infrastructure Planning
Commission.
In addition, the recent Marine Bill White Paper announced
the Government's intention to transfer handling of other applications
for harbour consents to the proposed Marine Management Organisation
(MMO). Both bodies should help maximise the coordination of landside
and marine spatial planning.
10. The
Government has a fundamental responsibility to the transport infrastructure
of the UK: its major roads, railways and rivers and canals. Its
responsibility lies not only in the renewal and, where required,
the expansion of this infrastructure, but also in ensuring that
the freight that moves on it can do so easily, quickly and sustainably.
To this end, the Government should develop an integrated freight
plan as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 62)
The Government accepts this broad responsibility
but does not agree that a single integrated freight plan is the
best way of fulfilling it. We recognise that there is a need to
be alert to the danger of marginalising freight, which should
be accorded its proper importance in strategic policy for each
mode.
Having said this, the Ports Policy Review has
taken a strongly cross-modal view on freight, and this will
be evident in our further exposition of policy in respect of surface
access in the context of the Department's response to Eddington.
11. The
Department should make an assessment of the inland connections
to all ports and publish a table that lists those that have good
inland transport links and those that do not. The Transport 10
Year Plan promised the upgrading of freight routes to major ports.
The Department should publish a summary of how it is achieving
this target. We believe that both of these measures will be of
use to the Government and the industry in planning for future
investment. (Paragraph 63)
The Department for Transport has already published
maps[3] illustrating overall
congestion on the strategic road network — including links
to or near ports — by reference to delays relative to standard
free-flow speeds. Further analysis has been done in considering
candidate schemes for the Productivity TIF and assessing the benefits
and costs of gauge enhancement schemes on rail, in particular.
The majority of short-listed candidates for the first
tranche of Productivity TIF funding are freight routes to major
ports, and the Department will set out further policy on inland
connections to ports later this year, in the context of the Department's
response to Eddington.
12. The
Committee is pleased that Network Rail is planning ahead for the
projected increase in demand for rail services for freight. We
will be keeping an eye on the promised improvements in its Initial
Strategic Business Plan to ensure that they remain on track. (Paragraph
65)
The Government welcomes the Committee's continued
interest in progress with meeting demand for railfreight. The
Committee will have noted Network Rail's publication of the Freight
Route Utilisation Strategy earlier this year in March.
13. The
commercial inland waterways are part of the country's strategic
transport network and they deserve better. We recommend that the
Department for Transport take over responsibility for them, giving
the waterways a higher priority in its freight strategy. (Paragraph
68)
The Government is keen to encourage greater use of
commercial inland waterways, particularly where this can bring
road decongestion benefits. The Department for Transport already
offers grant support for worthwhile investment to this end, and
has supported the establishment of 'Sea & Water' to help advise
on and promote the use of coastal and inland waterways. We do
not, however, consider that changing the balance of sponsorship
responsibilities between DfT and Defra or other bodies would of
itself make this encouragement any more effective, nor that the
present allocation of responsibilities is a real impediment to
worthwhile investment.
14. There
is only a finite amount of development that can take place in
the Greater South East before it becomes all but impossible to
move freight out of the region. The Government faces two options:
either goods will go to deep-sea container ports on the Continent,
to be transhipped to UK ports outside the Greater South East;
or the Government must produce a national plan for freight diversion
across the UK. A decision on this cannot be deferred. (Paragraph
70)
Surface access is without doubt a key determinant
of a successful UK supply network, and a successful port industry
within that network. We agree that congestion on the network has
the potential to put at risk the network's effective operation.
The Eddington study highlighted the importance of international
gateways as a strategic economic priority, and drew attention
to the economic penalties of increased congestion on the surface
access routes by which they are served.
However, we do not accept the Committee's characterisation
of future policy on inland congestion as involving a choice between
accepting greater inward transhipment on the one hand, and creating
a national freight diversion plan on the other.
Certainly, wherever port development takes place,
an additional burden would be placed on the inland transport infrastructure
if nothing were done to accommodate the traffic attracted there.
Yet, with appropriate enhancements to the network, the installation
of sensible demand management measures and appropriate pricing,
there are means by which that burden might be borne.
For example, recent approvals for substantial container
terminal development at Felixstowe South, Bathside Bay and London
Gateway, have been accompanied by s.106 and s.278 obligations
for the port developers to contribute substantially to the connecting
highway (and, at Felixstowe, rail) networks, and to instigate
traffic management measures.
These and other cases have pursued long-standing
objectives of wider policy in seeking to require developers to
meet the costs that they and their customers impose. But we are
aware that there is a widely-held desire for greater clarity on
how this general principle will be applied, and Sir Rod Eddington
has underlined the importance of this issue. DfT, in its second-stage
ports statement later this year, will set out specific policy
for the provision and funding of ports-related inland transport
infrastructure in the longer term.
15. UK
ports should be able to compete on an equal footing with their
direct rivals on the Continent, who are already differently subsidised
and funded. We look to the Government for reassurance that it
is doing all it can to ensure that our ports have a fighting chance
to secure EU funds in a fair competition. We also expect the Government
to fight for our ports on the international stage, to ensure that
any revised Market Access to Ports Directive recognises the unique
nature of the ports industry in the UK. (Paragraph 76)
The Government agrees that UK ports should, as far
as is possible, be able to compete on level terms with their counterparts
elsewhere in Europe, where such competition exists (which at present
is principally for direct call and transhipment container flows).
To this end we continue to press the Commission to issue persuasive
guidance on the application of State Aids for ports infrastructure.
The Government remains concerned that existing interpretation
of the rules across Europe could act, at the margin, to the detriment
of the UK sector. Nevertheless, we maintain our strong general
presumption against direct public funding for UK ports, on the
basis that such intervention would put the market at risk of distortion.
Similarly, we look to protect the market from distortion
when considering bids for European funding, but that is not to
say that UK ports should not apply for, nor that in the right
circumstances they cannot benefit from, EU grant funding.
With regards to European ports policy, we agree that
emerging policy in Europe should be crafted so as to accommodate
the unique features of the port industry in the UK, and more widely,
the economic and operational realities of the diverse European
ports sector. The Government acknowledges its responsibility in
this respect, and has played an active role in the Commission's
recently completed consultation, drawing together stakeholders
from across the UK industry to participate.
16. Of
paramount importance, however, is the fact that some of our continental
competitors appear still to be dragging their feet on implementing
EU directives and regulations as diligently as we do in this country.
We expect the Government to take this up with the Commission and
to ensure that those involved are properly censured and that pressure
is maintained on them to comply. If this is not achieved within
a reasonable timeframe, we expect the Government to press for
financial penalties. (Paragraph 77)
We agree that European legislation should carry the
same force in all Member States, and that the ability of ports
to compete on fair terms is threatened when this is not put into
practice. However, responsibility for ensuring legislation is
appropriately implemented and complied with lies with the Commission
and, while we continue to press them for greater consistency where
we have evidence to suggest that port-related EU legislation is
not being followed by other Member States, the inception of infraction
proceedings is ultimately a matter for the Commission.
17. The
right balance needs to be found between developing ports and preserving
our environment. Environmental concerns should not be allowed
to trump economic considerations when port planning decisions
are taken. (Paragraph 82)
The Government agrees and is committed to enabling
sustainable development within the ports industry. In DfT's interim
report, it is made clear that environmental considerations need
to be weighed alongside economic and social ones.
The industry's recent success in bringing forth environmentally
robust port expansion proposals and securing consents shows that
an appropriate balance can be struck between the expansion of
port capacity and the preservation of the environment; indeed
it shows that port development can actually bring gains for both
objectives.
18. We
commend the industry and the environmental lobby for finding a
way to work together to ameliorate the worst impacts of environmental
directives on industry whilst preserving our natural environment.
We are also pleased to see that the industry is acting on its
own by signing up to international environmental initiatives and
recognising its responsibilities to the local habitat. We recommend
that the Government recognise these efforts by individual ports
in some way through the tax system, as part of the Government's
broader 'green agenda'. (Paragraph 83)
We echo the Committee's commendation of the ports
industry and of environmental bodies, whose collaborative approach
is ensuring the commercial success of the industry, with the necessary
consideration for and protection of the environment. We are also
grateful to the Committee for highlighting the extent to which
port operators have been active in signing up to environmental
initiatives such as the ECOPORTS scheme.
Decisions on taxation are for the Chancellor, but
in making great strides to embrace environmental concerns, the
industry has recognised the environmental responsibilities incumbent
upon it.
19. At
the same time, however, it is clear that there are still some
who are unhappy with the burdens placed on the ports industry
by environmental directives. Therefore, we recommend that the
Government commission an independent cost-benefit analysis of
environmental directives so that all of the implications can be
understood and are available to inform debate. (Paragraph 84)
The Government recognises the concerns held by some
in the industry over the burden of environmental Directives, especially
among operators of smaller ports. We are committed to better regulation
and the use of impact assessment to inform policy making. A new
version of (Regulatory) Impact Assessment ({R}IA) was launched
in spring 2007. This aims to ensure that Impact Assessments present
cost benefit information in a more transparent way and are carried
out and updated throughout the policy making cycle. Where a Directive
is already in effect, we expect all ports to comply with its requirements.
The Commission has promised to give top priority
to simplifying and improving the EU regulatory environment. As
part of its 2005 'Better Regulation' programme, it established
a comprehensive system for assessing impacts — economic,
social and environmental — and for consulting stakeholders.
And in its November 2006 strategic review of better regulation,
the Commission announced the creation of a high-level Impact Assessment
Board, which will offer advice and support in developing a culture
of impact assessment within the institution. We note that the
Water Framework Directive, for example, has built into it the
provision for economic assessments.
Since compliance with Directives is not optional,
we are unconvinced that a retrospective cost-benefit analysis
of existing legislation would offer any tangible benefit. It is
better to focus resources, from an early stage, on regulatory
impact appraisal of legislative proposals yet to be enacted.
20. So
far as port developments in the UK are concerned, the planning
system in the UK is slow and too expensive. These inefficiencies
and costs threaten the continual competitiveness and viability
of a vital national industry. We cautiously welcome the changes
in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which will allow
for the parallel running of public inquiries and hope that this
will ease the process. We look to the Department for Transport
to make the case within Government for a faster planning process
for port development, following the pattern set for the energy
industry. (Paragraph 88)
Like the Committee, the Government received a number
of responses to the Ports Policy Review discussion document expressing
criticism of the planning system, and in particular the length
of time it took to progress applications, and the expense incurred
in doing so. The Government acknowledges that, in spite of the
improvements made by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004, there remains scope for enhancing the speed and efficiency
with which applications for consent are decided.
Both Sir Rod Eddington and Kate Barker, in their
respective reports on transport and land-use planning, identified
ways in which these failings could be addressed. In particular,
they recommended far-reaching reforms, building on recent improvements,
to provide for National Policy Statements setting out national
requirements in relevant sectors, rationalising the consent regimes
for infrastructure projects, and creating a new Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) to manage inquiries and determine individual
applications for major schemes. The Government has considered
these recommendations in detail, and has brought forth proposals
along these lines in the White Paper Planning for a Sustainable
Future.
21. We
also recommend that the Government should make time for the next
Private Member's Bill that makes provision to simplify the Harbour
Revision Order process to ensure that it becomes law. (Paragraph
89)
We agree that some reform of the Harbour Revision
Order process is needed. We continue to look for a suitable opportunity
to bring forward legislation, but this issue must take its place
alongside many others competing for Parliamentary time.
The Government intends that, in due course, the creation
of the MMO and IPC will also help simplify the process, partly
by reducing its overall procedural complexity.
22. Port
Skills and Safety Ltd. appears to be a professional organisation
that is working hard to improve safety in the ports industry.
Similarly, the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) appears to be working
well. But we are concerned that both PSSL and the PMSC are voluntary.
We recommend that the Government establish a statutory safety
inspectorate for the ports, and make the PMSC compulsory as soon
as is practicable. Both of these measures will reassure port workers
that they are valued by the Government and by their employers
and that safety is paramount. (Paragraph 96)
We are committed to promoting agreed national standards
and good practice for port safety management, without detracting
from the existing legal responsibilities of harbour authorities.
The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for
enforcing the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and its supporting
regulations, in ports in Great Britain. The legislation applies
to all dock operations, on shore and aboard ship, when shore-based
workers are involved. It does not apply to dock operations carried
out solely by the ship's crew under the direction of the master,
which is covered by merchant shipping legislation regulated by
the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
We are not persuaded of the need for a separate ports
safety inspectorate, nor for making the Port Marine Safety Code
(PMSC) compulsory. We believe the voluntary approach to be the
right way, given the need to ensure the onus to manage harbours
safely rests with the harbour authorities.
The MCA has completed this year its latest review
of the extent to which harbour authorities are complying with
the PMSC. It confirms that all Competent Harbour Authorities with
significant marine activity have declared their compliance with
the Code. Our support for the PMSC includes initiating a new programme
of PMSC Verification Visits, focussing on the small number of
ports where there might be evidence that the safety management
system and its supporting risk assessments are not operating to
the required standard.
We will also expand and develop the existing guidance
on how harbour authorities undertake Formal Risk Assessment. The
combination of Verification Visits and the further development
of best practice on Formal Risk Assessment will, we believe, provide
the necessary assurance that the national standard introduced
by the PMSC is being implemented.
23. It
is impossible to evaluate any improvements in safety for port
workers without reliable figures, and our evidence suggests that
the employment and accident figures used by the Government are
inaccurate. Our predecessor Committee was assured in 2004 that
'things were getting better' but our evidence suggests that confusion
still reigns. Confidence needs to be restored; to this end, port
workers should have a separate SIC and an independent audit of
ports safety should be carried out. Quite simply, port workers
deserve better. (Paragraph 97)
We stand by the statistics published in Port Employment
and Accident Rates in 2005. This study also concluded that
similar benchmark surveys should be carried out every five years
or so, and that it was feasible to track trends between surveys
by exploiting other data sources. We intend to take forward these
recommendations in consultation with stakeholders.
The Standard Industrial Classification 2007 published
earlier this year now includes separate classifications for port
workers, and will be adopted by HSE in its accident recording
in due course. The revision of SIC codes is a major task, which
began in 2002 and concluded only recently. The new codes will
start to be introduced operationally from the beginning of 2008.
24. The
Government's Ports Review is timely and welcome. It is an opportunity
for the Department to emphasise the integrated nature of the ports
industry with a multi-modal freight transport infrastructure.
Without this infrastructure, provided by the Government, funded
by the taxpayer, ports simply could not function. The market is
not an island, entire of itself. (Paragraph 99)
The Government agrees it is essential to treat ports
as part of an integrated supply network, and accepts that the
strength of the ports industry depends in part upon the strength
and resilience of the wider infrastructure within which ports
are located.
For that reason the Department of Transport intends
to set out more fully its policy regarding inland connections
to ports alongside its response to Eddington, which itself will
encompass all modes and take a strategic view of freight infrastructure.
25. The
ports industry needs a national strategy that recognises the regional
context and looks to balance national trade requirements with
the local imperatives of regeneration, employment and environmental
protection. This strategy must encompass a comprehensive freight
distribution plan that will ensure sustainable, nationwide infrastructure
for the long term. If it does not, it makes no difference where
'the market' decides to develop port terminals, as goods will
remain stuck on congested roads or blocked by dilapidated canals
and railways. This is the challenge the Government faces over
the next quarter century to secure the British ports industry
for the future. (Paragraph 100)
The Government agrees that national strategy should
reflect the regional context in which ports operate, and also
strive for an appropriate balance between national trade requirements
and local concerns, where these interests happen to diverge. We
also agree that ensuring the provision of necessary infrastructure
is, across much of the network, a key responsibility for the Government.
The Productivity TIF programme, mentioned earlier, is evidence
of the Government's acceptance of that responsibility. However,
we would not be convinced that a freight distribution plan would
offer the most appropriate way of discharging this responsibility,
if that term were to be taken to imply some form of rigid central
planning.
As the Committee itself has recognised, the market
does not exist in isolation. Port expansion will take place only
where the industry considers it viable to do so, and good surface
access is a crucial factor in enabling that viability. The Government
sees its challenge over the next quarter of a century as being
to establish the conditions in which viable port capacity
can be created, with due regard to social and environmental considerations.
1 The Scottish Executive has devolved responsibilities
for ports, and following a review in 2006 has developed its own
ports policy priorities for action through its Freight Action
Plan and within the wider strategic framework of Scotland's National
Transport Strategy. At the outset, Northern Ireland was involved
in the ports policy review and included in the consultation. Since
8 May 2007 there has been a devolved administration in Northern
Ireland. It now wishes to consider how to take forward policy
in relation to its ports responsibilities. Back
2
Transport Innovation Fund Back
3
which can be found at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstraffic/speedscongestion/congestiononthestrategicroad5359 Back
| 
