Commons repor
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
urges more tax
and let rail carry more freight
HEAVY goods vehicle operators face yet more taxation if the House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has its way --and they will also face stiffer competition from a revitalised rail system.
In the first of a three-volume report, entitled "The Role of British Rail in Public Transport" — only a few copies of which were available last week because of industrial action — the committee proposes that the railways should be providing more services and be regarded as a social service, not expected to cover its costs.
And it also proposes that plans for a national transport council published in the Government's Green Paper on Transport published last year should be deferred until the proposals of the committee have been put into action.
At a press conference to announce the publication of the report, committee chairman Russell Kerr MP said the report was aimed at dispelling myths connected with the railway industry.
But even though there should be more services provided by British Rail, the number of staff to provide those services is to be slashed by up to 35,000 to make it more efficient.
In their look to the future of the railways the committee recommends there should be no more closures of rail lines, but that buses should be running to replace some services as an experiment.
The committee proposes that buses be run and operated by the British Rail Board with through services and rail interchanges.
At the end of the experiment a full cost analysis would be published and if there is social benefit and financial benefit, the service should stay.
The bus services would be run on routes that were not well-used during the evenings or at weekends, and the comitttee envisaged that whole shifts of BR staff could be "saved," especially where labour intensive station operations and signalling were concerned.
Operations similar to Swedish services should be introduced to include bus services in the rail time tables, and the bus services are stipulated as part of the "absolute minimum guarantee" to be given by BR on future services, before any line is proposed for closure.
The only part of the report that might harm the future of BR is a proposal to form a Passenger Transport Execu tive for the London area, to take in both London Transport services and London's rail links.
The railways are described by the committee as having the scope to be more efficient, and committee chairman Mr Kerr sees this as one way of achieving higher efficiency.
Another way is to trim around 35,000 jobs from the railways — and that plan has already brought angry reaction from the rail unions.
Stricter regulations and more enforcement is also likely if the committee's proposals are put into action. "It would be wrong to distort the system of regulation within the road haulage industry, directly for the benefit of the railways," admits the report.
But it adds: "By enforcing stricter standards within the industry, such changes could place road and rail competition on a basis more favourable to rail."
Heavy lorries come in for more taxation. The report quotes hgv statistics from the Green Paper published more than a year ago, but these figures were updated by Transport Minister William Rodgers only last month.
Calls for heavier taxation and claims that lorries do not pay their track costs abound. Figures are put forward, compiled by the National Union of Railwaymen, which claim that track costs for a 32ton, four-axle vehicle exceed taxation by £1,710 a year — or £71 million for the 41,000 lorries in the class.
But even these costs are now outdated by a written answer to a Parliamentary question which revealed that• vehicles over 30cwt are now paying their track costs. And yet the committee agrees with assertions by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association that the methods used to calculate the track costs are imprecise.
Taxation is intended to be a means of promoting social justice, says the committee, but it also says that it might clarify the situation if the Government spelt out what sums are paid in pure tax and what was paid as a levy for road use.
EEC legislation is backed all the way by the committee. Tachographs should be introduced as soon as practicable, along with regulations on drivers' hours and distance limits — though the committee admits that the 450km (2g0 miles) will probably be "eased."
Implementing the regulations is seen by the committee as a matter of principle. As a member of the EEC, Britain has to abide by the rules of 'the club,' the same as any other association.
And there are a number of other directives under discussion in the EEC which might have a profound effect on balance between road and rail.
On the thorny subject of the National Freight Corporation's Freightliners, Mr Kerr points out that NFC chairman Sir Dan Pettit has gone on record as saying: "The National Freight Corporation without Freightliners would be like Liverpool going into the European Cup Final with the defence of Accrington Stanley."
"This attitude," said Mr Kerr, "does not do any 'good for the NFC case."
NFC reaction to the proposal was one of depression. "We are disappointed that the committee has failed to take into account the track record." A spokesman told CM that • the company disagreed with committee comments that the staff had a feeling of "separateness and isolation."
"It is depressing for the management to be diverted by questions of the ownership of the company," he said. Sir Dan has commented: "The Freightliners New Model Army continues to be winning the battle of profitability and there is no reason to concern itself with the manoeuvres of the Duke of York marching up and down the hill."
Apart from slight inefficien cy and overstaffing, the findings of the committee are that the railways are making the best of the job they have to do.
• Stephen Geary