DIFFERENT VIEW
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The predominant subject in your current correspondence columns is that related to the price of fuel and the fact that it is placing many operations in jeopardy because the operator is not enabled to get a compensatory uplift in his charges from his customer.
May I be controversial and say: GOOD! My reason for saying this arises from the way the ownership of the industry is structured. There is no way under the existing structure that demand will balance with supply. With any luck the constantly escalating price of fuel will be the catalyst for the action.
The fragmented ownership of the industry, with a predominance towards small owners who are only trying to make a living, is its problem.
The complaint by TransAction in respect of the poor turn-out at the recent rally at Westminster reflects the situation when nationalisation was being mooted in the late '40s. As long as the industry remains fragmented the Government will not listen because it has nothing to gain. The historical suicidal competition commensurate with such fragmentation keeps the country's transportation costs down and thus the prices on the shelf.
The fact that companies fail is of no consequence. The Government is a preferential creditor and invariably collects completely, having benefited from the large tax cashtlow that the operator has generously made each week by buying fuel—so why should it be concerned?
Until the industry is so constituted that supply matches demand the current situation will continue and the Government will continue to turn a blind eye. After all, why change the habit of a hftetime?
In the meantime no doubt your columns will continue to record the industry's lack of interest in rationalising and operating commercially, much to the continued delight of Government.
JD Barber, Shepley, Huddersfield.