IA gallon is a gallon is a gallon'
Page 73
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN the criticisms by operators of the latest increase in the I fuel tax less use was made than usual of some of the familiar epithets. The favourite reaction this time was one of surprise or shock. This was no doubt justified; but on other occasions users would have one to describe the extra 6d. per gallon as discriminatory, disgraceful, iniquitous, malicious and so on. The various representative organizations would have appeared to vie with each other in vituperation.
Perhaps the comparative moderation had something to do with the fact that there is now a Labour Government. Nothing has been said clearly about limiting the freedom of road operators but they must be conscious of the hidden threat of renationalization or of equally unpleasant restrictions. If they had complained too bitterly about Mr. James Callaghan's sixpence he might conceivably have retorted that this was the least of the tribulations they could expect. In a word, road users may feel that they can with impunity be more rude to a Conservative than to a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They had every right to deplore the new imposition. Even at 2s. 9d. per gallon the fuel tax was unreasonably• high. Owing to the increasing use of the roads the tax had had a growth rate exceeding 10 per cent per annum and has therefore each year made up a larger proportion of the national revenue. There was no justification for seeking yet more revenue from one section of the community especially when that section includes important industries and services upon which the whole economy depends.
Something is being done to relieve passenger transport, or at any rate stage carriage operators, from the effects of the higher tax. Although it will bear just as harshly although less directly upon the housewife in the shops and upon the exporting industries no concessions have been offered to road goods operators. They are left to their own devices. The main device of hauliers has been to translate 6d. per gallon into the major factor in a 21 per cent rates increase. The C licence holder cannot adopt quite the same procedure but the extra transport cost is bound to reflect itself in his price list.
Natural but Unreasonable
It has been suggested that the Government will be watching prices closely and intend to satisfy themselves that no increase is made unless it is strictly. necessary. It would be possibly natural but certainly unreasonable of them to do this. The Government were responsible for imposing the additional tax, a surcharge from which there can be no escape by means of greater economy or improved efficiency. A gallon is a gallon is a gallon, as the late Gertrude Stein might have said, and the user cannot make it go further even if it costs him more.
Notoriously on these occasions a good many shopkeepers make the rising cost of transport an excuse for putting up their own prices. The customer finds it almostimpossible to check his explanation and the authorities would have
equal difficulty. They would have to trace the goods back perhaps through several links to the producer and separate the transport element in each Move. Hardest of all would be establishing that whatever had been paid for transport at each stage was no more than a small percentage higher than would have been paid before the Budget.
Where a haulier is used regularly the comparison might be more straightforward. He would normally have some kind of rates structure to which reference could be made. Whatever this might prove, the problem would still remain of convincing any reasonable person that the customer would allow the haulier to put up his rates beyond what was justified. Trade and industry keep as close a watch over expenditure on transport as even the Chancellor could wish. Here is at least one field where there is no need for an inquiry.
Nor can there be an official objection to the figure of 21 per cent reached by the Road Haulage Association and recommended to members. The inference that the figure applies equally to every haulier is a convenient piece of fiction and is generally recognized as such. Probably the majority of operators find that their costs have gone up by an amount to which 21 per cent is a close approximation. The R.H.A. point out that in some special cases the increase will be greater and the assumption is that in a few other cases it will be less.
Generally speaking the haulier has asked his customer for the percentage increase which is appropriate to him. Competition is normally too keen to allow him to demand more. 'The customer would certainly not pay it. The greater danger is that, as happens in some cases, he refuses to pay any increase. Where the haulier has no other traffic readily available he may feel forced to comply. If the Government did feel minded to appoint watchdogs over transport expenditure they might be better employed in making sure that the haulier, and especially the small operator, receives a fair return for his labour.
The suggestion is no doubt impracticable but not entirely frivolous. Many small operators have not been earning enough even to keep their vehicles in good shape. They frequently find difficulty in passing on to the customer increases in their costs. If he is unco-operative they are forced to make economies and these may be at the expense of their vehicles. The greatest pressure to break the law is exerted on the haulier whose costs are growing more quickly than his rates.
The Government will not find that commercial road operators are exploiting the tax increases to make more money for themselves. The more likely danger is that road users of all kinds, especially perhaps the small operator and the less affluent motorist, will find the extra sixpence just beyond their means. They will try to cut their operations or their motoring to suit the slightly more expensive cloth. Except in the last resort they will cling to what they have and refuse to be driven off the road. Their dilemma is sufficient argument in itself against adding to a tax which one would have thought was already too high. for comfort.