Why we need Armitage
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT IS with the greatest respect for the sometimes difficult task Honourable Members appear to experience in getting legislation passed through "The House", that I ask for greater consideration without political party bias towards the heavier vehicle proposals of Armitage.
We who have survived the recession so far as a result of successful management and employees' team spirit can see only too clearly that an increase in payload by increased weight legislation is a long-term benefit for several industries reliant on the road transport industry, viz, (a) Construction industry; (b) New vehicles supplies; (c) Ancillary suppliers to both the above; (d) Exports; tel Unemployment; and finally (f) The environmentalists.
Within the past 30 years we have experienced considerable difficulties from changes in legislation (a) A, B and C licensing to 0licence; and (b) Increased loads from 30-32 ton all of which took so long to introduce the industry lost business.
If it takes so long to introduce effectively, then why not keep it quiet a little longer — after all, would you buy a new car even if the latest model had so many advantages? Further still,would you spend E20,000 for a vehicle which could well be out of date in six months' time?
Thirty-eight tonnes can act as our industry's lifebelt.
Copies of this letter have been sent to David Howell, Transport Secretary; Norman Tebbit, Employment Secretary; Richard Alexander, MP; Don Concannon, MP; Peter Fry, MP (Wellingborough); and Allan Stewart (Junior Scottish Office Minister).
T. P. CHARLESWORTH Managing Director Neville Charrold Ltd Mansfield, Notts