MA toothless lion
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IOAD Haulage Association's considered reaction to the ArmiReport (CM,February 7) is a further symptom of a change of de which has been sweeping through Upper Woburn Place as .cession has deepened, writes ALAN MILLAR.
m the 1979 Road Transport in Brighton, when the Astion was driving out into fide world with all its guns ng, its ruling executive I in particular has retreated d an apparently barricaded ge yard and is lobbing the ional grenade in the direcof anything which might iauliers money.
tead of John Silbermann's ive lines for the future, la! chairman Ken Rogers' :h writers are fronting a "no forward, and one or two
• policy with tamely worded astions that operators de;atchy liveries, follow eleary business principles, 3member some of the most I connections between ge and the world of sport.
k behind the cardboard hes at a few major issues have developed in the last nonths. The national series ige negotiations, for instin which the RHA's first nse was a compete nega-here was no money avail'or any increases, it said, here matters should rest. 3 bly, it has given ground, to a fairly limited degree.
xt, the Government's sals to sell off the Departof Transport's heavy vehicle test stations. AdIly, no one in the industry kind word to say on that but the RHA's line was ass hard for the whole to be dropped, rather ) accept the inevitability of vernment, which has a working majority, pushough what is essentially a xf doctrinaire legislation.
the word is that the RHA see scope for it to earn profit from the move, but jai stance makes an in ig with that =reight Transport Associalich, while saying it didn't a idea, did propose an alye in the shape of an NFColding company which be financed with private The sniping match between RHA and the cocooned towers of the Road Transport Industry Training Board again fits into the pattern. At a time of recession, the last thing that a small haulier wants is to be saddled with extra costs, and what better cut to make than in the index-linked inflation-boosted levies which RTITB imposes on the industry.
The tales of waste which emanate from RTITB circles would do Professor Parkinson credit, and their effect on the slim profit margins of the nation's hauliers are calculated to bring tears to the glass eyes of the most fanatical proponents of nationalisation. What better victim for an Upper Woburn Place post-Silbermann grenade?
But also Armitage? Was not the RHA in the vanguard of the small band which could be grouped in the blue corner against the hoards of environmental greens? Of course it was, but either it thought heavier vehicles came with free tickets for tomorrow, or else the recession has made it penny conscious to the point that it might almost start a campaign for the lighter lorry.
To be fair, its ten-page memorandum on the Armitage Report does welcome the Professor's proposals for heavier vehicles, with the suggestion that it would be happier if twin-steer tractive units were included in the options for 38 tonne gvw operation. But the suspicion that this is a grudging acceptance gains weight when you find it is the last item in the report, bar the conclusion.
Others, both blues and greens, have said Armitage is a workable solution if it is taken as a package, something which Sir Arthur stressed it is not.
Even some of the more responsible travellers on the environmental road would take it as a package, and might modify their campaign to press for the taming of the lorry measures to be brought in ahead of the increased weights clauses.
But not so the RHA. In words which barely disguise a mood of selfishness, its memorandum opens with a grudging welcome of the report as "generally constructive and forward-looking" and adds that it hopes the Government will adopt "those of its recommendations which would clearly be of benefit to the road haulage industry and to the country as a whole".
Those verbal grenades might have been saved for another victim if Armitage had said no to the heavier lorry.
What has miffed the operators is Armitage's not at all unexpected recommendation that vehicle excise duty on 32.5 tonners be increased by £800 a year. It was going to happen anyway, and Transport Minister Fowler has done nothing to break his "no move on Armitage without a debate" promise by including the first steps towards that move in his current Transport Bill.
After months in which the RHA campaign has said heavier lorries will meet European competition from operators who already run at wieghts of upwards of 38-tonners, it seems now that new words have been written for the same tune.
There will be "no alternative" for British operators but to use heavier vehicles, but, because of the increased tax proposals, the British international haulier's costs will be "greatly increased" and he will be at a commercial disadvantage, says the RHA.
In all, the memorandum comes out with six negative points, ten positive points (of which several have conditions attached), it passes the buck on vibration, and sits on the fence on the question of more aid for rail freight.
It does not think it reasonable that hauliers should stop drivers taking their vehicles home, and it takes strong issue with Armitage's view that the industry should provide and pay for offstreet lorry parks.
Curiously, for a body which believes strongly in the Government's policy of disengagement from public expenditure, it says in its memorandum that "central and local Government should have a duty to provide cheap lorry parking and lavatory facilities for which hauliers should pay." Note the use of "duty" and "cheap."
It accepts that the definition of an operating centre must be extended to include lorry depots and other regular parking places, but it uses more than five times as many words to oppose Armitage's view that Licensing Authorities should take environmental factors into account when considering 0-licence applications.
One might almost have thought the two went hand in glove, but the RHA says: "There is no justification for changes to be made in the licensing system in order to strengthen planning controls over the use of haulage depots." Planning authorities already have these controls, it says.
Even the proposed improvements in lorry safety get a pretty insipid positive from the men of Upper Woburn Place. Yes, they support improved measures "in principle", but there may have to be exemptions, and every proposal should be looked at in dividually in light of its contribution to "road safety, reliability, weight, and cost".
What an altruistic order of priorities you say until reading the following sentence: "This applies in particular to anti-lock braking devices in view of their very high cost."
It also wants more studies to be carried out to decide whether front under-run guards really do save lives when lorries and cars collide head on.
Lorry action areas? Inevitably a no-no in Upper Woburn Place, and the RHA says: "No account is taken of the fact that many people have not been affected suddenly by the existence of a lorry action area, but have chosen to live in that area fully conscious of the existence of lor ries there." A bit like a marriage guidance counsellor saying: "Sorry, but you must have known your husband was violent before you married him."
The road transport industry, and its pro-Armitage allies, are going to need all the combined strength they can muster if Parliament is going to accept any move from the present state of play. These grenades from the RHA bunker may blow shrapnel in the faces of the hauliers' friends.