AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Political forum points the way forward

19th April 1980, Page 23
19th April 1980
Page 23
Page 23, 19th April 1980 — Political forum points the way forward
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 final session in a full programme at Gleneagles was a political forum made up of Sydney Chapman Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Transport; Albert Booth, Shadow Transport Minister; Russell Johnston, Liberal MP for Inverness, with Nigel Haigh and Tony de Boer.

, Reviewing transport policy from a Liberal's viewpoint, Russell Johnston agreed with Sir Kenneth Alexander that transport must "work within a petrol context while facing its imminent disappearance", and there should be a political consensus on the direction transport should take in the future. Alternatives to such projects as the Humber Bridge and building new major airports should be considered, and he supported the Channel Tunnel.

He welcomed the lower duty on dery and thought that there could be a case for total exemption from duty. Lorries should be allowed to travel at higher speeds thought Mr Johnston, and the Armitage Inquiry was concerned about increased' lorry weights only in so far as this affected road surfaces. He supported the proposals in the Transport Bill regarding coach de-licerising and favoured open competition.

Labour's transport policy, said Albert Booth, was fundamentally the same as that outlined in William Rogers' White Paper: economic growth, energy conservation, meeting the public need for mobility, and reducing accidents and environmental damage.

On the modal issue, Albert • Booth said Rail had 11,000 miles of track while there were 210,000 miles of road. It was inevitable that in any road rail partnership, road should be dominant but the degree of dominance could always be challenged. It must be remembered that the lorry used between 60-200 per cent more fuel per ton /km than rail.

The lorry was unpopular with the general public and moves should be made to "civiMe" it in terms of quality licensing and a tax related to weight/axle load.

Turning to psv, Albert Booth said that the transport needs of particular areas should be looked at closely and that the public should be made less dependent on private cars. He was against the phasing out of transport subsidies. Rail and road interests should stop regardirig each other in a suspicious light, such an attitude could only be self-defeating for both; co-operation should be the keynote.

Throughout the Gleneagles debate, town and country planners had taken some stick so it wasn't surprising that Sydney Chapman was a little sheepish when he admitted he had been one. But transport represented one-sixth of the total national income — 90 per cent was met by consumers and the rest -came from public expenditure, so the taxpayer had a right to expect improved efficiency.

Competition would aid this he thought, and de-licensing was a step in the right direction. It was vital that the Department of Energy and the Department of Transport must liaise closely and the reduction of accidents and noise and air pollution were also key issues.

Priority should be given to trunk road schemes — 500 more miles of road were at present under construction and 200 miles more were projected shortly for Scotland. The M25 should be completed in 1985, and by-passes and better road access to ports were prime considerations.

But transport must prove itself productive and efficient and public expenditure must be reduced. In times of economic recession transport is among the first to suffer.

The Right Honourable Gentlemen rested their respective cases and in the discussion which followed John DicksonSimpson, proprietor of Transport Press Services, wondered whether environmentalists were just irrational lorry haters. If their arguments were irrational there was an answer to all their objections on size, noise or road damage. For instance, if axle weights caused the problem the answer was to have more axles.

Returning to the subject of roads expenditure, Donald MacCuish of HIDB asked why the EEC could not shoulder the burden of this, then the road programme could go ahead irrespective of the economic situation in the UK.

Clearly irritated by Albert Booth's accusation that there was insufficient road /rail cooperation National Carriers director Brian Hayward said that the company did co-operate with rail but only eighteen routes were available to them. Transport as an industry didn't make vast profits yet it was taxed heavily.' If the Government wanted more efficiency and productivity, where were the incentives?

With the first clouds of evening beginning to gather over Gleneagles, Sir Peter Mesefield summed up a day of often vehement debate. Although Nigel Haigh might wish it otherwise, transport is still a growth industry said Sir Peter. It can best serve the public by expanding, but its performance must be improved. The industry should strive to get "more for less"; more transport for less expenditure.

Major factors affecting the industry were levels of investment, inflation, and, most critical, energy.

Despite its variegated colours, the political forum was united in its belief that transport was vital to society, closely associated with the standard of living.

The debate ended on a note of warning — the industry must have no truck with complacency, it must be ''restlessly dissatisfied".


comments powered by Disqus