§ 12.1 am
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6882/88 on the dimensions of articulated vehicles; and endorses the Government's objective of resisting this proposed directive on the grounds that longer articulated vehicles would present significant environmental disadvantages to the United Kingdom.The Commission proposes to amend directive 85/3 EEC by increasing the maximum length of articulated vehicles from 15.5 m to 16.5 m. The Government oppose that for significant reasons: it is environmentally more intrusive; it will increase the risk of road accidents; and it will disadvantage British hauliers. The Commission was correct to identify the problem, but its proposed solution is wrong.I often wish that when we talk about social space, others in the Community would spend more time listening to those who have been run over by articulated lorries, which cut in, destroy cyclists, damage pedestrians and do other things with which we in Britain cope rather better. If the rest of the Community had our road safety record, 40 per cent. fewer people would be injured, whether by long articulated lorries or in other ways. We have much to teach the Community. It might spend some time examining the minibus driving directive, too, because we have more welfare journeys in small minibuses than they have in other European countries.
The directive is not accompanied by a limit on the minimum dimensions of the cab or coupling mechanism, or the maximum dimensions of the semi-trailer. Consequently, some continental operators—mainly French, Belgian and Dutch—have sought to maximise the length of the semi-trailer within the international limit of 15.5 m. They increase loading space at the expense of the coupling mechanism and the driver's cab. They have exploited a loophole in the directive, with the result that the safety and ergonomic conditions of the driver have been reduced.
To maintain articulation of the vehicle, novel and potentially unsafe coupling mechanisms have been introduced. The semi-trailers that have been built are about 13.6 m long—more than 1 m longer than those used in the United Kingdom for domestic transportation. The directive allows for that type of configuration for international transport. The United Kingdom, as well as adopting an overall length of 15.5 m, also restricts the size of the loading space of the semi-trailer to 12.2 m. That allows adequate cab and coupling dimensions within the 15.5 m and the transportation of the popular ISO standard 40 ft container.
The technical developments by continental operators to maximise the semi-trailer length improve the economic use of commercial road vehicles. They allow the transportation of more pallets or, in the extreme, the longer 45 ft container. According to the Commission's proposal, those developments have negative effects on the health, safety and comfort of the driver and the quality of transport. The United Kingdom agrees with those observations.
Let us turn now to the Commission's misplaced solution. It should have plugged the loophole by setting a semi-trailer length dimension on the lines of United Kingdom legislation. Instead, within the 15.5 m envelope, 870 the Commission has chosen to allow the longer semi-trailer to continue in operation. It has attempted to provide for adequate cab and coupling dimensions by increasing the overall length of the combination by 1 m to 16.5 m. The ISO standard No. 1726 for the dimensions forward of the semi-trailer kingpin is given prominence in the proposed directive to ensure that the overall turning circle of the combination is not increased over and above that of the 15.5 m articulated units that predominate at present.
This proposal allowing the extra metre would present extra difficulties in overtaking or being overtaken by these vehicles, not just on motorways, but on every sort of road. On crowded roads it would cause more congestion, and there would be an added safety risk to vulnerable users of the road, such as pedestrians and cyclists, due to the added tendency for the longer semi-trailer to cut in on the pavement when the vehicle turns a corner. I do not want to load all the blame for injuries to pedestrians and cyclists on articulated vehicles, but I remind the House that, in Britain, 60,000 pedestrians and 30,000 cyclists were injured last year. Those are underestimates, because the information is that roughly three times as many cyclists are injured as are reported in our accident figures.
The United Kingdom is opposed to any increase in the length of articulated vehicles because of the effect on traffic movement and the additional risk that it poses for road safety. Another reason for United Kingdom opposition to the proposal is that, as currently drafted, it would have the effect of prejudicing the use in international transport of vehicles built to current British standards. The proposed directive would require all new articulated vehicles entering into circulation after 1 July next year to comply with the technical provisions of the directive. This does not mean that the vehicle would have to be used at 16.5 m, but it means that the tractor and semi-trailer would have to be built to the ISO standard before they could be allowed to run at over 15.5 m on international transport.
The United Kingdom-type tractors and semi-trailers are incompatible with the proposed construction requirements for tractors and semi-trailers. The nose of the United Kingdom trailer is shorter, and less space is allowed for it behind the tractor cab. An ISO trailer has a longer nose and will not fit on a United Kingdom tractor. The semi-trailers built to meet the proposed directive would not be able to be towed by British-type two-axle tractor units because the semi-trailer would foul the back of the cab. This would place United Kingdom operators at a disadvantage against their European counterparts. To meet the turning circle requirements of the directive, a three-axle unit could not be used in conjunction with a two-axle semi-trailer at an overall length of 16.5 m. This is recognised in the proposed directive, which allows only the two-axle tractor unit with the three-axle semi-trailers, or the more expensive three-axle tractors with three-axle semi-trailers to run at 16.5 m.
The Commission's proposal, in favouring the two-axle tractor unit, ignores the fact that heavy loads are better carried by a three-axle tractor than a two-axle tractor. It makes no sense to introduce a regulation that has a bias against the less damaging three-axle tractor unit.
We benefit from the services of the lorry. It plays a vital role in our economy. The haulage industry should be able to function within necessary controls. Much has been done to reduce the unpleasant effects of lorries and to improve safety. The heavy lorries' record on accident reduction 871 over the past decade is far better than that for cars. There needs to be the right balance between the needs of freight movement and those of other road users. The proposal does not strike that balance. There is a technical solution to the squat cab problem, and the United Kingdom has already adopted it. Those member states that have exploited the loophole in the directive should not be allowed to use this to gain yet longer lorries. The United Kingdom's line is strongly against this type of vehicle combination being increased in length any further. The House should endorse the motion.
§ 12.3 am
§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)Once again, the Minister and I are playing to a packed gallery on this fascinating subject, which has important consequences. The Minister has read his speech well, and I have some sympathy with his argument. There is no doubt that we would face problems if the EC directive were to be adopted.
I shall ask the Minister a straightforward question, and it will not surprise him to learn that I already know the answer to it. Will he confirm that this directive is subject to the qualified majority voting system? I see the Minister nodding to confirm that. Could he also confirm that the Government accepted that that is an acceptable way for things to be done? We now depend on other countries to support the case put forward by the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will tell us which EC countries are prepared to reject the directive. It is important that we know from where our support will come. We need a combination of other nations to build the 23 votes that are required to overturn that qualified majority. That can come only from one of the larger Community nations with one of the medium sized ones, or by a combination of small ones.
It is pointless pretending that the House of Commons has a scrutiny role when it is in fact powerless in this respect. The presence tonight of the Government Chief Whip, the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), is interesting, but I doubt whether he has hundreds of troops rallied outside for fear that the Opposition will seek to press the House to a Division on the issue—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that I might be surprised, but I am never surprised at anything that goes on in this place. I can assure him that I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, because I am not sure what would be the effect if we did not take note of the document. I do not believe that that would advance the case in Europe one jot.
We are now in the hands of people who have an incentive to force the directive on to the freight industry and on to those in this country who depend on that industry. It is a peculiar state of affairs that other nations should have an incentive to adopt a directive to our disadvantage, yet we have to persuade the Council of Ministers to support us, on the basis either of good nature or of horse trading.
One of the legitimate reasons for opposing the directive is that our roads and bridges are not capable of taking the impact that would result from its implementation. The directive would allow gross axle weights to be increased from the present maximum of 10.5 tonnes to 11.5 tonnes. Will the Minister confirm that there are about 11,000 sub-standard bridges in Great Britain and that it will cost about £750 million to strengthen them so that they can 872 take the 40-tonne limit that I have Government have chosen to adopt instead of the 38-tonne limit that we presently operate?
The Minister looks a little puzzled about that, but that was the evidence of his Department's officials to the. Public Accounts Committee some time ago. Those officials said that it was the Department's policy to raise the standard of those bridges to the 40-tonne limit. I shall be happy to show the Minister his officials' evidence later, if he wishes.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThe bridges are being strengthened, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that the British derogation is based on what we put forward as a 15-year programme. I do not think that we should echo his comments because they might be heard outside the House and people might then misinterpret the Labour party's position on the issue. I hope that we shall have a blocking minority on this draft directive and that we shall retain the Labour party's support against such ideas as the hon. Gentleman was putting forward—which, on reflection, he might regret tomorrow morning.
§ Mr. LloydI should be a little surprised if the European Commission or the Council of Ministers took greater note of my comments than of those of senior officials of the Department of Transport.
One of the problems with the 15-year programme mentioned by the Minister is that, at present levels of spending, the Government will not achieve the upgrading of those bridges over that period. It is a matter of simple mathematics. The Minister might wish to tell the House that the bridge-strengthening programme is to be greatly increased. That would be in the interests of the travelling public of Britain, but I do not believe that the Minister can say that, because such expenditure was not mentioned in the Government's spending plans earlier this year. In any case, the Government are not able to ratify the directive.
If the directive is adopted and forced through by the majority in the Council of Ministers, against the will of the British Government, what will be the consequences for the exemption that will apply to all freight that was on the roads before 1989, given that the trailers to which the Minister referred measure 13.6 m? Under the cabotage arrangements, they would be free to ply their trade on the roads of this country. That would pose a serious threat to our roads and bridges; and it is important that the public should be aware of that fact.
Yet again, the unsatisfactory way in which we scrutinise European legislation is underlined. The directive is unacceptable and runs counter to the needs of the travelling public in Britain, yet we are in no position to do anything unless we are prepared to go cap in hand to other members of the Community.
I am used to the Minister telling me that I am not a good European every time I say that European legislation is not satisfactory, although I am not sure whether simply resisting European legislation is being a bad European. The Minister tells us that we should be maximising the advantages of the European Community process, so perhaps he will reflect on my question. Earlier, he told us that Europe had a lot to learn from us. If the Council of Ministers forces the directive through against Britain's interests, how shall we have maximised the advantages of the European process, given that we know that the: provision will be severely to the disadvantage of the British freight industry, consumer and road user? 873 For those reasons, I support the motion. There is no ambiguity about that. Nevertheless, I must add that many of the problems that have arisen have been invoked by the Government.
§ Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings and Rye)I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Minister in his opposition to the directive. I also understand why the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) finds it difficult to make his way through the tangle. I understand, too, that Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, who speaks on behalf of the European Commission on these matters, may shortly be standing as a candidate with a view to joining the hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches, where he has been before.
The question that really concerns me is how the proposal arose at all. The EEC is after one more metre to solve a problem; but where did the problem come from in the first place? My hon. Friend will know that I have communicated with him over a number of years about the length of vehicles because our own Department of Transport takes no account of that factor when considering traffic loads on roads—for example, in determining whether a by-pass should be built.
The United Kingdom solution should be promoted by the House and there should be all-party agreement on the matter. The explanatory memorandum put forward by the Commission reeks of problems—problems identified in part by my hon. Friend the Minister—concerning the general safety of the promotion of yet one more metre. It is rather like the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
What about the road requirements? No one in the Commission seems to have taken any account of the problems of the roads in Greece and southern Ireland.
One wonders how those in Brussels have got themselves into this tangle, which is recorded inadequately in the explanatory memorandum. Apparently the directive which has already been adopted
implicates that a number of vehicles which were built according to that motion will be prohibited.Legally, we are told, it will be difficult to make this correct in retrospect. It is simply not acceptable that we should endorse a mistake, especially as it would mean that some old semi-trailers on the road would be more competitive than new types. That is wholly unacceptable. The Commission has made a mistake, and it cannot expect us, or any other Government in the Community, to make right that which it has got wrong. This is an occasion when the House must unite. There are only a few of us in the Chamber, but I am sure that we speak for all those who would wish to be present.The documentation includes phrases such as
proposal for a Council directive … Having regard to the proposal from the Commission … Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament … Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee",but we are not told who is in favour of the proposal. We have bureaucratic propaganda trying to cover up a substantial mistake of the past. Of course we all make mistakes, and I am the first to acknowledge that I am among those who have made many mistakes. I only hope that I have not made too many in the House.874 We have before us a proposal that includes a reduction in the space for the driver and a consequent deterioration in the comfort and safety of the driver's working area. Surely all hon. Members would agree that it is vital that the driver should give correct conduct to his vehicle. He must ensure the safety of his vehicle and therefore of all other vehicles on the road.
The proposal illustrates one of the many problems of the Commission, which is that it often separates its legalistic intentions and ambitions from what life is like, for example, on British roads and those of the other countries of the Community. What is the main reason for introducing the measure? The answer is to make right a wrong decision of the past. Safety standards must come first and last, and we should endorse that which the Government propose.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)I find myself in the strange position of endorsing a Government proposition. It is not one in which I often find myself. They are right, however, to resist the proposal. I shall spend a few minutes explaining how the proposal came about.
There was a legislative loophole and the Commission, with its usual flexibility towards some member states, decided to extend all the limits by 1 m. That is extremely unfair, and, as a general harmonisation proposal, it should be resisted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, majority voting applies and we may find ourselves in a minority that is unable effectively to resist the proposal. The Government are being consistent with the Armitage proposals, which were debated by the House in 1973. Assurances were given by the then Minister that the increase of overall vehicle weight to 38 tonnes, with the accompanying dimensions, would be the limit to which the Government and successive Governments would go. It is unusual to find the Government being consistent and adhering to the assurances that were given when the Armitage proposals were debated.
Unfortunately, we are no longer our own masters. The Commission will be pressing for further harmonisation. As the Minister must know, there is a draft directive in the hands of the Commission that proposes an increase in dimensions and overall gross vehicle weight to 44 tonnes, with derogations for the United Kingdom and Ireland, but with limited time for them to operate. The United Kingdom and Ireland will be required to bring the derogrations to an end in a phasing-in period.
The draft directive, which we support the Government in resisting, is part of a process to harmonise road transport throughout the 12 EEC states. Our roads are already over-burdened. The cost of strengthening bridges and widening roads will be at least £1.5 billion. That will be spread over a number of years, because of the work involved.
In spite of that work, more expenditure would be required on a number of bypasses because many of our towns and villages cannot cope easily with the present size of juggernauts, let alone juggernauts that are 1 m longer. Far from making the driver's job easier, an extra metre will make the already difficult job of driving those vehicles even more difficult and a greater strain. Therefore, the Commission's proposal will not ease the task for drivers in 875 the United Kingdom: they will make the strain so much greater. That is another reason why we should resist the proposal.
Since the Armitage report was debated in Session 1982–83, the number of new registrations of lorries in the heaviest category—between 33 and 38 tonnes—increased 3,000 in 1983 and 8,400 in 1987. Over that period, there were 30,000 new registrations in the heaviest categories, and almost 800,000 new commercial vehicle registrations between 1983 and 1987. That means that there are nearly 1 million vehicles on our roads in the various categories ranging from 3.5 tonnes to 38 tonnes—the maximum vehicle capacity. Those figures are based on a reply that the Minister gave me on 13 May 1988.
Our roads are becoming choked with commercial and car traffic. To allow large vehicles would not necessarily produce fewer vehicles. The Armitage report stated that, with bigger vehicles, fewer vehicles would carry loads around. More miles would be covered by fewer vehicles. That simply has not happened, as the figures show.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)Do those figures represent net gains, or do they take account of the amount of scrapping that has occurred over the past few years?
§ Mr. CryerThey do not take account of the amount of scrapping since 1983, although there would obviously have been some scrapping. My figures represent the number of new registrations since 1983 and they do not take account of a reduction because of scrapping. On our roads we see a fair range of age of commercial vehicles, which, by and large, seem to have a longer life than motor cars. Therefore, the commercial vehicle population seems to be more stable. No doubt the Minister will provide some background statistics if he has them to hand when he replies.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyI do not have the figures to hand, because I thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House were opposing the draft directive. Also, I would have thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), with his usual skill, would have another of my parliamentary replies, which showed that the number of miles travelled had been reduced with the increase to 38 tonnes. We are not particularly concerned about the weight tonight. We are rightly concerned about dimensions. We should try to give a clear message to the Commission and to other member states that it is environmentally wrong, and in safety terms worse, to allow the proposed increases.
§ Mr. CryerI could not disagree with the Minister. However, I stress that the pressure for an extra metre on this type of vehicle is part of a general pattern. There is a move by the Commission to increase the overall weights of vehicles, so we must watch the proposals very carefully.
If we want to keep our roads reasonably free and accessible to other road vehicles and pedestrians, and give people who live along side roads in towns and villages some kind of a half-reasonable life, free from the pollution of road vehicle traffic, we must have some limit on the number and size of vehicles. Therefore, I endorse the Minister's view that we should not allow the vehicle size to be increased.
876 I have a brief from the Freight Transport Association. Why it should send one to me I have no idea, but it concludes by saying that the FTA
believes strongly that on questions of vehicle weights and dimensions it is essential for a harmonised regime to apply throughout the EC and would not want to see any exceptions made for the UK on articulated vehicle length.I hope that there is not a powerful lobby within the Department of Transport wanting to accept a development in legislation that has occurred because of a breach and a warping of legislation.I hope also that the Minister will resist the pressure that exists. When he says that both sides of the House are prepared to resist, he is right. However, I warn him that there are invidious influences pressing ahead.
§ Mr. Tony LloydHow does my hon. Friend interpret the evidence of Sir Alan Bailey, the Department of Transport's permanent secretary? He told the Public Accounts Committee that it was in the ministerial view most cost-effective to allow for the possibility of upgrading to 40 tonnes in setting the standards for reinforcement. Does my hon. Friend smell a rat on the Government's side?
§ Mr. CryerYes, and my hon. Friend vividly and graphically illustrates a point of concern.
Many people regard the Minister's Department as the "Department of Road Transport", with railways playing a secondary role. It is true that many people have bought cars, that commercial vehicles provide a service, and that there have been changes over the past quarter of a century. Nevertheless, things are changing again. Nothing stays the same. Because of overcrowded roads, some road journeys are taking the time to complete that they did before motorways were introduced in the 1960s.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThat is rubbish.
§ Mr. CryerThe Minister says that I am speaking absolute rubbish. That is not the case. In my own area of Bradford, some journeys take longer at peak times than they did a quarter of a century ago. I can tell the House from my own experience that that is the case. We know from our knowledge of the M25—as another example—that at certain times of the day journeys are taking longer than they did five or 10 years ago.
People are moving off the roads, which is very welcome, and on to the railways. In west Yorkshire, trains generally are crowded, so much so that British Rail is increasing fares to put people off travelling by rail. That is a generally accepted policy.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not having a general debate on transport, but discussing a directive. Perhaps he will return to that subject.
§ Mr. CryerYou are right, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I conclude by emphasising that we should resist the proposed extention in commercial vehicle lengths. We want to keep our environment as decent as burgeoning road traffic allows, but in pressing our case against the Commission's proposals we must not forget that we have an excellent railway system. If we are to safeguard our environment, we must seek ways of transferring traffic from the roads to rail. The Minister is nodding, and I hope that he will carry on nodding as I say that that also means keeping the 72 miles of railway from Settle to Carlisle.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)After that last comment, I shall keep my contribution very brief. I join the consensus by supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) in resisting the directive, because it constitutes a back-door method of extending lorry lengths.
I cannot understand the EC's thinking. It says that it is necessary to stop the trend towards short cabs, small trailer wheels and strange dimensions within those trailers, so that the negative effects on health, safety, comfort and quality of transport can be reduced—whatever that means.
I cannot speak for European truck manufacturers, many of whose trucks are built in this country under licence as part of partnership arrangements, but looking at the directive's main objective—to improve safety and comfort of lorry cabs—one notes a strange platitude at the end of the explanatory memorandum:
The dimensions of the cabin are not fixed but incentives for the construction of short cabins are taken away since this would not result in an increase of loading space.That will not make a difference. One of the most important aspects of lorry construction is vehicle weight. Designers and manufacturers will not put in a bigger cabin simply because there is a larger space, because that would add to the gross vehicle weight. Having acquired the expertise of building fairly small and ergonomically satisfactory cabs, manufacturers will not build bigger ones for the sake of piling sheet metal on to a vehicle. The directive's objective is misplaced. It asks designers to put the clock back and return to a bigger cab, which means more weight on the vehicle and a smaller payload.The explanatory memorandum refers to
smaller wheels of trailers in order to gain loading space in height".What is the problem with small wheels if they will stand up to the punishment of travelling along a motorway at fairly high speed? There seems to be no reason why a large truck with small wheels should not be filled with shredded wheat, which has an enormous volume. This recommendation is a pathetic example of trying unnecessarily to restrict operators' flexibility.On internal dimensions, the explanatory memorandum refers to
thin wall equipment for refrigerated vehicles in order to gain loading space in width.Why not, if the technology exists to use new materials and to put a bigger load on a semi-trailer? Of course, it must not go over the maximum permissible weight. However, what is to stop manufacturers from using space-age materials to provide better facilities? Why must we have legislation to prevent us from developing road transport systems? It is like putting the clock back.I say, more power to my hon. Friend's elbow. There is nothing in the directive that improves safety or affects health or the comfort and quality of transport. Those aspects are in the designers' hands. Any trip to a commercial motor show, such as the one a few weeks ago, shows that the modern truck is a highly sophisticated piece of equipment, capable of providing comfort and quality of environment for the driver.
If we are to talk about extra lengths for lorries and semi-trailers and about higher gross vehicle weights, let us do so. Let us not ensure, by allowing the legislation to be passed unchallenged, that we get there by the back door, to the disadvantage of our road system.
§ Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)In view of the lateness of the hour relative to the early sitting of the House tomorrow, I shall confine myself to supporting my hon. Friend the Minister in his opposition to this disgraceful directive.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyI thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) for his support. I wish that more colleagues on both sides of the House were as clear.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for their comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) spoke with the greatest expertise. He said that the Community was not solving the problem that it set out to face. Perhaps we should copy the provision that the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) managed to put into the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. In trying to improve safety, we should not do something that makes the position worse.
Clearly we want an ergonomically designed cab for drivers. One reason why road safety for drivers of heavy goods vehicles has improved is that they are more often treated like human beings. They are getting better cabs, but their provision is not always supported. Les Huckfield spoke against the provision of sleeper cabs, but for many drivers that is an advantage.
I emphasise that, in our view, what is being put forward in the draft directive is less safe and more environmentally damaging.
§ Mr. Tony LloydThe Minister is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and he has always had the interests of the truck drivers at heart, but can he explain the difference between the way in which the European Community wants to tackle the size of cab and the way in which the British Government want to do it? In fact, it is identical. It is done by specifying a maximum trailer length and a maximum usable trailer length. The difference is the maximum possible cab length. If the Minister believes that that is unsatisfactory—that was the clear implication—I shall agree with him. If he introduces legislation that provides guaranteed minimum standards for cab drivers in terms of size of cabs, the Opposition will support it. Is that the way that the Government intend to go?
§ Mr. BottomleyYes. I suspect that other hon. Members will think that that was a planted question. I shall illustrate what I am about to say with my little lorry. We control the length of the semi-trailer. That allows, within the overall length, the cab size to be a proper length. I do not want to play with too many of my toys. I have a collection of them here, but I do not think that I ought to use too many of them. If, however, there are more axles on the prime mover, we reduce the damage to the road and make sure that there is greater safety. There is braking on both the drive axles, rather than on just one.
If the hon. Member for Stretford reads my opening speech, he will find that that is spelt out very clearly. We went further than the directive and made sure that there were no loopholes in the United Kingdom legislation. We wish that the European Community had done the same. It 879 is an example of perhaps sloppy negotiations leading to the current directive, which allows people to go further than was intended when the directive was approved.
In fact, it is worse than that. I have here Transport News Digest of November 1988, which gives a rundown on the month's important road freight news. It is headed "Supersize container plan by shippers" and says:
Plans are being laid by the shipping lines to introduce an additional supersize container on the international scene—49ft long, 2.6 metres wide and 2.9 metres high. Several American states have agreed to allow land movement of such big containers and the Dutch and West Germans are believed to be sympathetic in principle, although it would mean 17.5 metre long artics to do it … The shipping interests are attempting to put a stamp of respectability on their supersize container by calling for its consideration by the International Standards Organisation. But vehement opposition can be expected from many countries' transport ministers: You can carry supersizes by sea or rail if you can, but no way are they going on our roads, might sum up the frequent reaction.That is certainly my reaction.The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that rail should be made as competitive as possible. Leaving aside his 72 miles of special pleading, my aim is to get as much freight on to the railways as is commercially viable. That is one reason why the Channel tunnel will provide great help. That is why we expect a greater proportion of freight to be carried by the railways.
§ Mr. Tony LloydTo London; that is all.
§ Mr. BottomleyBeyond London, too, and through the Channel tunnel to the rest of Europe.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South also referred to the Armitage report, page 149, which deals with standard axles and damage numbers. It is important that he should understand the difference between a three-axle tractor and a two-axle tractor. I said earlier that we want to create no bias in favour of a two-axle tractor. If anything, we want a bias in favour of a three-axle tractor, as the third axle reduces road damage dramatically.
Britain is, I think, the only Community country with a taxation regime for heavy goods vehicles which fully covers the track costs. When other countries talk about tolls, as West Germany is apparently doing, and as Belgium did one year ago, they might start wondering whether they should analyse damage numbers and standard axles. They would find that the British approach is the right one.
§ Mr. Tony LloydIt is calculated that the Department of Transport's ineffectiveness at controlling overloading represents at least £50 million in damaged road costs each year which is not recovered in track costs. Although I accept in general what the Minister has said about road 880 maintenance, with bridges, which are the crucial part of the British road system, three-axle tractors do not necessarily alter the situation. It is quite possible to have all three axles on the bridge at the same time, and we must remember that it is the dynamic weight that matters with bridges.
§ Mr. BottomleyI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that, if he had not reminded me, I might have forgotten the answers I gave which probably provided the information that he has just fed back to me.
I do not intend to go into the question of majority voting, except to say that Italy, Portugal and Denmark are opposed to this draft directive. That is the good news. The bad news is that they, we and others are unlikely to agree about what would be better because different countries have different interests. We must use the blocking minority, although I do not think that it will come to that if it is seen that significant countries are opposed to the draft directive. We must also try to use the power of persuasion to establish what is right and make it possible.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that if we concentrate too often on which directive we are considering—although that is necessary for some of our debates—we take our eye off establishing what is right and how to make it possible. I believe that we can provide leadership in Europe on covering and reducing track costs and on getting road casualties down. Whether we are approaching the matter from the point of view of road safety, environmental damage or the ergonomics of the cab, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) mentioned—he also made a passing reference to a bypass that he would like built—
§ Mr. WarrenTwo bypasses.
§ Mr. BottomleyTwo! I should not have spoken again. Each time I speak my hon. Friend wants an extra one.
Hon. Members have reinforced the leadership provided by the Government in saying that the draft directive is counter-productive, that the Commission has identified the problem—the exploitation of a loophole by some countries—but that it has come up with the wrong solution. I ask the House to support the Government's lead. We must see whether we can do better.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6882/88 on the dimensions of articulated vehicles; and endorses the Government's objective of resisting this proposed directive on the grounds that longer articulated vehicles would present significant environmental disadvantages to the United Kingdom.