The md of Reed Transport was comprehensive in his warning.
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"Lorry bans would have a devastating effect on all aspects of employment within Central London."
lobs at risk n London
S THE EVIDENCE has :cumulated at the Wood quiry into major lorry bans in )ndon, increasing emphasis )s been given to the likely feet on employment. This 3velopment might have been cpected.
Perhaps the subject should 3t have been such a long way 3wn on the list of questions to hich the Greater London Duncil's panel of inquiry invited lswers. It was less surprising lat the environmental lobby — expanding industry with no -nployment problem — should Fee with the inquiry on the vel of importance of the bject.
Much of the evidence from at source was predictable. It !fleeted the opinion of people ho dislike the heavy lorry, hile admitting that to some (tent it is indispensable, and ho would prefer as many .strictions as possible.
In this frame of mind, the fate 'the displaced lorry drivers lay seem a matter of difference. One ardent minist almost came to the 3int of suggesting that their !ache approach to their job lade a mockery of the law of rx discrimination.
It was left to the road transport ;Iodations to begin the task of ijusting the balance. The 'eight Transport Association • as particularly active.
It had the results of an inquiry its own among transport user embers. Any substantial ban, concluded, would mean more ib losses. Of the companies at replied, two out Ofevery five said that a 16-ton limit would lead to redundancies; and that 16 per cent would go out of business.
In separate evidence to the inquiry itself, individual companies have made the point over and over again. Ronald Adkins, managing director of Reed Transport Ltd, was comprehensive in his warning. "Lorry bans would have a devastating effect on all aspects of employment within Central London," he said.
Other objectors specified the results. John Elliott, company transport adviser to Metal Box Ltd, estimated a loss of over 2,000 jobs and an annual loss of £0.5m to the GLC. An estimate of a further 2,500 unemployed came from Eric Tunstall, distribution manager of Pilkington Flat Glass Ltd.
Operators on a smaller scale have been giving the same verdict. Warnings of the loss of 32 jobs have come from Reckitt and Colman distribution director Fraser Menzies; of 66 jobs from Richard Wright of Geest Foods; and of six jobs from Britvic distribution director David Dagwell. Even a few examples show the size of the potential problem.
Whatever its quality — and it seems to be generally high — the sheer weight of evidence is encouraging in one respect. On too many issues involving road operators in the past, the impression has been of a few dedicated fighters opposing a conscripted army, a levee en masse.
The supporters of
organisations opposed to the heavy lorry are articulate, not to say voluble, and eager to make their case personally. One result has been an increased respect
by the media and a willingness to provide space for a cause espoused by so large a body of expressed opinion.
The road transport industry has seemed less willing to put forward its case. Even association members who might be expected to volunteer for the task have been inclined to argue that the job is for the association itself.
The response to the lorry ban inquiry should be the pattern for the future. The industry's case has certainly not gone by default. There should be further opportunities to argue it, with the important local London press as well as with the national media. Newspapers ought to be interested in threats to employment anywhere in their distribution area.
The ground for the industry's protest has been well chosen. Unemployment has worked its way to the top of all national issues. It is held responsible for almost every social or political problem.
Whether or not this is true is another matter. But operators are justified in making use of the situation while it lasts. For the time being, redundancies do not merely mean shifting from one job to another. For most people there is no other job available.
The GLC also has to take the matter seriously. It is naturally concerned about the growth in unemployment and mayhave its own ideas about where the fault chiefly lies. From every point of view, the last thing it would wish to do is to introduce measures which can clearly be seen to make the situation Worse.
As ài*ays, there is another side to the case. It has already been put by, among others, John Lauder, principal traffic engineer of the London Borough of Enfield.
Mr Lauder understands the danger noted by so many operators, that bans which are too restrictive would influence or compel firms either to close down or to move out, with a consequent loss of jobs. His alternative is to allow smaller vehicles into London and establish break-bulk depots on the M25 boundary. This would lead to an increase in employment, at least of drivers.
Such a conclusion may seem a happy one to a local authority, but it invalidates much of the environmental case in favour of bans. The goods vehicle population might have to increase several times over to cope with the same volume of traffic as is carried at present. In the aggregate, more vehicles would be bound to produce more congestion, more noise, more pollution, more nuisance in general — and, graver still, more accidents.
The need for more drivers might prove to be only temporary. In the long term, there is no way out of the unemployment problem by simply sharing the same amount of work among a larger number of workers.
The inevitable extra cost has to be reflected in the prices of goods in general — as operators have recently been warning the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a different context — and increases in those prices will in the end make the employment situation even worse.