18 JUNE 2003  

MR DAVID JAMIESON MP, MR STEPHEN REEVES AND MR ANDREW BURR

  Q480  Mr Randall: It pretty well says it is going to increase quite dramatically, does it not?

  Mr Jamieson: What we said was that if the trend we know has gone on over the last five to ten years continues, and notwithstanding the decline we have had in the last couple of years, we could see growth of a certain amount by 2030.

  Q481  Mr Randall: Does the same idea, the trends, not translate to the ports? That is what I am getting at.

  Mr Jamieson: We could try to second guess that.

  Mr Reeves: We did publish this study entitled Recent Developments and Prospects at UK Container Ports, to which the Minister referred and we gave your Committee copies of it. We published it in July 2001. In that we did take a look at the trends affecting the ports industry, especially the potential need for investment in new development, particularly in the container market. We noted there, although we are not doing our own forecast, that all the commentators expected growth in containers moved at UK ports to continue at rates well above UK GDP growth. The shipping lines would need to be planning on that basis and the ports too. There is analysis, looking at the various trends and the views that the players in the industry are taking about them. It is reflected in the projects which have come forward to meet that demand. The industry is promoting pretty large projects. They are small in scale relative to something like T5 or a new airport for the South-East, but the planning system is allowing the merits of the schemes to be tested. The issues about the business case and the demand forecast are ones that will be run past those inquiries and subjected to a lot of scrutiny, including of course from the objectors.

  Q482  Mr Randall: I think you said there are four applications, at Dibden and so on.

  Mr Reeves: The fourth one is not exactly an application yet, but there are aspirations in the public domain for Felixstowe to be substantially increased.

  Q483  Mr Randall: I am just interested why you do not feel there is a compelling reason to take all these things together, as a whole. I know it is not the same as aviation, but if we had a Gatwick thing here and a Stansted thing there. The government can be congratulated on looking at the thing as a whole. They do not seem to be doing it with ports.

  Mr Jamieson: The difficulty here is that the proposals came at different times. The proposals came up from ports and they did not all come together, they came in a sequence. Had we tried to look at them all together as a block, we would be holding the first one back to wait for the last one to come along. Not only would that have been unfair on the proposers of the development, it could also possibly have been open to legal challenge, in fact almost certainly open to legal challenge. That is why we did not do that. What we do know is that the group of proposals which have come forward will adequately cover the forecasts we made a few years ago to which Mr Reeves referred.

  Q484  Mr Randall: Does the department actually look at the likely impacts on the wider transport infrastructure of port growth? Obviously freight is going to be road and hopefully rail. Do you actually have plans when you are looking at port growth? Do the other bits of the transport infrastructure come into the reckoning or is it solely focused on the port?

  Mr Jamieson: No; very much so. All through the three proposals we have before us and possibly the fourth, the Strategic Rail Authority has been in discussions with the proposers of those developments to look at what their future needs would be. You probably know as well that the multi-modal studies have looked at these issues; the five multi-modal studies at least have looked at transport to and from ports. What would happen if a port, after the inquiry, were given the go-ahead, it would then be for further discussions to go on with the Strategic Rail Authority to then, over the coming years, perhaps over five to seven years to look at what growth was actually needed in rail services and again look into the multi-modal studies to see what growth was needed in any improvements to the roads.

  Q485  Mrs Ellman: What is the Department doing to improve safety at ports?

  Mr Jamieson: This is an area where we have had a considerable amount of concern. We were very pleased to see that the Ports Skills and Safety Ltd was set up and we also published the port marine safety code after the Sea Empress disaster back in February 1996. This was setting out a statement of the legal duties of ports and also how they could be managed to a proper standard. This is an area where we have had concern. Generally where we have had concerns with safety, it has been people who have not had the skills to do the job. Although in the last year we had some reduction in the rate of accidents in the port, which has been very welcome, it is still very high up in the league table of those industries which have accidents which cause personal injury.

  Q486  Mrs Ellman: Are you satisfied that we are getting the full information about accidents?

  Mr Jamieson: Yes, I think so. The information which is coming from the ports is good. The Health and Safety Executive do provide good quality information to us and they do take action of enforcement where that is appropriate.

  Q487  Mrs Ellman: A survey has been carried out on the impact of the voluntary code of conduct on non-permanent employees. Do we know anything about the results?

  Mr Burr: Yes, Ports Skills and Safety were explaining that scheme and they are entitled to say that it has made an impact where it has been adopted. Induction training is now much more the norm for non-permanent employees in the ports which subscribe to that scheme. They were discussing with you the difficulty that there are quite a few small and occasional employers at ports and some of them still have to be reached with the case for this scheme.

  Q488  Mrs Ellman: What about self handling at ports? Is that an area which concerns you? How would that be affected by discussions on the directive?

  Mr Jamieson: That is actually a very important issue. As we know, the common position which we had reached somewhere about a year ago would allow fairly extensive self handling, but with certain safety provisos. I still have some concerns about that. The negotiations which are clearly going to have to go on after the Parliament has made these amendments is an issue we need to look at very carefully indeed. What we do not want is self handling which could compromise the safety of the people who are doing the handling and also other people in the port at the expense of people who are employed permanently at the port side.

  Q489  Mrs Ellman: Can you tell us anything about those negotiations on this point? What are you trying to achieve?

  Mr Jamieson: What I do know is that the amendments have been put down by the Parliament. We are in active discussion over those amendments now. I hope it does not mean that the whole of the directive may collapse, because there is a lot of difference of opinion within countries in the European Union over this. I would say that there are quite polarised views on this particular issue. What we have to say is that what is most important is that we maintain safety, some amount of self handling should be permitted, where it is clear that those people who are doing the handling meet all the safety standards laid down by the port, but if there is a free-for-all in this area, that is an area where I would be very concerned.

  Q490  Chairman: What are the bits which the Parliament have slung in which are causing you so much trouble? There was an agreed position a year ago, so what is the content of the amendments, what are the three or four basic points?

  Mr Jamieson: One of the amendments we have is to withdraw almost entirely from the self handling and make it very much more restrictive. There are various countries which want to restrict entirely the self handling. That goes entirely against the thrust of the directive. Some of the other ideas are better I think. They want greater transparency of state aid for ports. I would support that. That is one of the amendments which has come forward. It would be very helpful particularly for us to get some transparency of state aid in other countries. They are also wanting to remove pilotage from the directive and a number of other matters. Some of the things we are agnostic on, some we are against and some we are in favour of.

  Mr Reeves: The Parliament has put forward about 39 amendments; there were well over 200 originally. The Commission has issued an opinion on them, where they have accepted ten in full and three in part. Our view is quite close to the Commission's. We see some merit in some of them and some of the others are not very helpful. We do understand the concerns about self handling, but some of the amendments on self handling which have been put forward by the Parliament really run completely counter to allowing the principle of self handling cargo at all, which seems to be an inconsistency in the directive itself, if you go down that road. Having said that, we do need to look very carefully at what is proposed. The Parliament proposes limiting self handling only to seafaring personnel and not allowing regular land based staff to engage in it. Some of what you have heard today raises questions implicitly about that proposal. You were raising questions about the safety of the ship's crew in handling the cargo. I would just underline what the Minister said, that this needs further discussion, in fact the Council working group in Brussels this afternoon, which is considering this, has yet to work out what its position is, the position of the Member States collectively, on the Parliament's amendments. They now have until the end of July to do that. Then it will go into conciliation in the autumn and we shall see whether there is a way forward.

  Q491  Mrs Ellman: Do you have any idea when this could be resolved? Is there any timetable?

  Mr Reeves: There is a three-months-plus-one rule for the Council considering reaching a position on the Parliament's proposals and that ends on 25 July. So the working group will have to try to find a position and it will now be under the Italian presidency in their first month. I was going to say that I do not know whether you have seen the text adopted by the Parliament, but I have brought some copies with me which I will give to the Clerk.

  Q492  Mr Stevenson: May I get back to meeting future demand and the progress that has been made in terms of forward capacity and relate that to the other important element and that is surface access to ports. Can you confirm that the SRA are committed to upgrading the access to Felixstowe on the W10 criteria?

  Mr Burr: Yes. The SRA, as they explained to you last year, attach considerable importance to port business and their first priority is to retain the business they already have. If their existing customers are transferring to nine-foot six-inch boxes, then it is a priority to them to find ways of dealing with that and they are committed to a project to allow nine-foot six-inch boxes out of Felixstowe along the route they take now, which is around the North London Line, to be finished by the end of next year.

  Q493  Mr Stevenson: Will that take the W10 standard to Nuneaton?

  Mr Burr: No. There are two ways out of Felixstowe. The way things go now, which can be straightforwardly upgraded to take the nine-foot six-inch W10 boxes, and the medium-term strategy is to develop that route so that the high boxes can go as the boxes go now, while a route is developed for conventional boxes along the Nuneaton route ahead of any gauge enhancement on that route.

  Q494  Mr Stevenson: What I am trying to get at is whether this access infrastructure upgrade will mean that a port like Felixstowe, with nine-foot six-inch boxes, which we are told is 20% of containers now and expected to double, will be linked into the West Coast Main Line.

  Mr Burr: Yes. Felixstowe's traffic at the moment links to the West Coast Main Line round the north of London and that will continue.

  Q495  Mr Stevenson: Ah; yes. So which bit of the access upgrade has the SRA committed to and which I understand is to be done next year? Which bit of that?

  Mr Burr: The present route for Felixstowe boxes round the North London Line is being enhanced by the end of next year to take the high boxes.

  Q496  Mr Stevenson: Are there other upgrades which are necessary to link in turn with the West Coast Main Line?

  Mr Burr: There would need to be other upgrades to allow the high boxes to go via Nuneaton and that work has not started.

  Q497  Mr Stevenson: That is what I am trying to get at. What has happened to that bit?

  Mr Burr: The immediate plan is to assign more paths on that route to the conventional sized boxes.

  Q498  Mr Stevenson: Yes, I understand that, but forgive me; I am looking for the upgrade bit. Our information is that that section has been shelved by the SRA. Is that correct?

  Mr Burr: The SRA are reviewing their plan overall.

  Q499  Mr Stevenson: I understand that too, but sorry, I am going to push you on this. Has that other bit, the Nuneaton bit, been shelved by the SRA?

  Mr Burr: They are not at the moment working on a project to take high boxes that way.