AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

RHA slams TUC plan

18th September 1982
Page 4
Page 4, 18th September 1982 — RHA slams TUC plan
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS, in a Transport Policy Document, calls for "increased taxation of heavy vehicles and a general subsidy to rail freight".

The Road Haulage Association has given CM the following reactions to the TUC's transport ideas:

‘There is little for the RHA to agree with and much to disagree with in the section of the TUC's document which deals with freight. Although not adopted as policy it is noteworthy that the report has been endorsed by the General Council of the TUC and by the Labour Party's National

Executive Committee.

So far as road haulage is concerned there is far too much emphasis on "enforcing controls on road haulage operators". It is difficult to see how much tighter the corset of controls already confining the industry can be laced.

The report reeks of railway protectionism when it says, "Fair means must be used to get as much freight as possible onto the railways without sacrifices in cost and efficiency".

How? According to the TUC, by "a system of financial support to the railways which relieves the freight system of substantial overhead charges". Or by, "increased taxation of heavy lorries and a general subsidy to rail freight".

This is bad news for the taxpayer. If the TUC has its way the railways, having lost the greater proportion of freight traffic to roads in a free market, will be rescued by a Labour Government and spared the tiresome task of having to compete with road operators.

Moving freight, ostensibly by rail but in reality on the back of the taxpayer, would reduce the number of lorries and also the number of drivers. The TGWU must view this proposal with very mixed feelings. A victory, perhaps, for the rail union?

On the credit side, elimination of the "cowboy operator", who does so much to give our industry a bad name, is a cause shared by all parties as well as responsible trade associations. But public ownership of road haulage is certainly no answer to the problem — the cure would be immeasurably worse than the disease.

The "cowboy operator" can best be eliminated by a voluntary resolve throughout commerce and industry to use road hauliers who are members of their national trade and em players' association and thus morally bound to operate to reasonable standards. We have hitherto believed that testing of heavy goods vehicles is unbalanced and best left in the public sector. But we are prepared to go along with privatisation for the time being and we will make a final judgment on the basis of experience in due course.

The RHA does not disagree that a sensible way forward would be for the Government to introduce progressively higher standards of construction and use — presumably marching in step with advancing technology. But yet more restriction on lorry movement must be anathema to anyone with two thoughts to spare.

The answer to this problem is a more comprehensible and modern road network to take lorries away from people. It is a pity that Section 6 of the TUC report, which deals with roads, is woolly, imprecise, cautious and contradictory.

The opportunity for the TUC to put over a sensible and popular message has therefore been thrown away.,


comments powered by Disqus