1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Richard Turner, chief executive of the Freight Transport Association, pores over the small print in last week's Budget.
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• If you want to sound off about a road transport Issue write to features editor Patric Cunnane or fax your views (up to 600 words) to Micky Clarke on 020 8652 8912.
66 Budget Day last week turned out to be an oddly muted
event. It was difficult to know whether it was the Chancellor's low-key speech, or the simultaneous arrival of US forces in central Baghdad that blew away media coverage of Gordon Brown's speech almost as soon as he sat down.
But, for transport, the Budget really represented a case of 'no news is good news'. Just as the Freight Transport Association had asked him, he opted not to increase fuel duty in the light of the volatile price of oil. He has postponed an inflationary increase of 1.28p/fit—which would have cost the industry around £172m a year— until October. Even then, if oil prices remain uncertain he may put off the increase once more. And he also opted to freeze Vehicle Excise Duty—once again, no increase. More good news, But the key news for truck operators did not feature in Mr Brown's speech at all. It was tucked away in the Red Book, the 300page publication which spells out the real Budget details. Section 7.38 discusses 'Lorry road-user charging'. Last year, the Chancellor announced that trucks would, from 2006, be taxed on a calculation of the distance they travel.
The FTA has supported this move as an inevitable and sensible way to help manage congestion. A different charge, for different vehicles, on different roads, in different environments, at different times of the day.
But our support has, and will continue to be, conditional on there being no net increase in goods vehicle taxation. Maybe winners and losers, but no overall increase. So far, the Treasury has emphasised exactly that—no net tax increase. But the government has so far failed to spell out just how it will work.
Hence our great interest in section 7.38.
In fact, what the Budget report promises is...a further report. It says that by the end of this month, April 2003, a report will be published that sets out further details of administrative arrangements for the charge and the nature of offsetting tax cuts for the industry.
And that is the key. Will the offsetting cuts in fuel duty level the playing field with Europe, be practical, and be adequate to compensate for the new distance tax charges?
It is vital that we get this process right. Not just for the welfare of truck operators, but for what will inevitably come next. As night follows day, road-user charging on trucks must. and will, be followed by road-user charging for cars.
For it is the car that is the primary cause of congestion and controlling that congestion is important for everybody involved in the transport and logistics industry.
Alistair Darting famously said: "We cannot all be on the same road at the same time." Whatever system we end up with, it must be fair, and not divert trucks from the best roads (motorways) and create a fuel tax that is comparable with the rest of Europe. The industry can certainly count on the FTA to fight that case.