1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Soaking road operators for £33m a year
Page 26
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
STORM OF PROTEST AT MRS. CASTLE'S WHITE PAPER PROPOSALS
THE road haulage charge proposed in Mrs. Castle's White Paper "The Transport of Freight"—reviewed in CM last week—will cost operators £33m—of which some £3m will come from the abnormal loads levy. This was revealed by the Minister of Transport at a Press conference last week. Answering questions, Mrs. Castle denied that this road haulage charge had anything to do with the integration of freight into a road-rail system.
She said she had "abandoned a financial weapon in favour of quantity licensing". The maximum effect of quantity licensing, said Mrs. Castle, would be that road would lose a ton-mileage equivalent to a few years' growth but that rail freight would gain by 30 per cent.
Integration was a practical way of tackling the railway deficit, she asserted. The NFC "was not a plot to destroy road haulage"; it would offer fair competition and operate on commercial principles.
Considerable probing by the Press—including CM's representatives—brought the following points in reply:— • NFC vehicles will pay the road haulage charge.
• The abnormal load surcharge will apply to vehicles coming within the Special Types Order.
• The £30m will not be devoted wholly to road maintenance and building.
• The surcharge for big loads does not represent the thin edge of the wedge in road pricing.
• Payment of charges up to £.15 a mile will not mean that abnormal loads will enjoy any relaxation of designated times and routes of movement.
• Appeals against loss of transport managers' licences will go to the Minister—because matters of safety can be involved; but quantity-licence appeals will go to an independent tribunal—because an operator's livelihood may be affected.
• The cost of the licensing scheme will be covered by licence charges.
• The 25-mile minimum limit for bulk traffic has been dropped (thus making the provisions applicable over any distance), but in return the list of commodities affected has been shortened.
Lightheartedly
Defending her abnormal loads surcharge, Mrs. Castle said that too many firms were "lightheartedly" putting such loads on the road. When the suggestion was put to her that the new road transport taxes would increase consumer prices she said that road operators would have to make every effort to absorb the new charges.
Asked why industry could not be left to make its own transport choice, Mrs. Castle replied: "A little bit of a shove is not too much to ask" in getting industry to overcome its reluctance to accept the railways as a transport mode.
The White Paper itself drew a storm of protest from operators, from industry, from vehicle manufacturers and Tory and Liberal politicians. We reproduce below some of the main points made by organizations covering a wide field of transport providers and users.
I RHA1 Vicious attack
Road Haulage Association
The determination of Mrs. Barbara Castle to crush the road haulage industry out of existence is at last made perfectly clear. The applicant for a quantity licence has the impossible task of proving in advance that the railways cannot do the work as satisfactorily as he can. This is nothing more or less than compulsory direction of traffic.
The new road goods tax will almost double the amount paid at present by lorry operators in vehicle licence duties. An 8-tonner now paying £243 will pay a further £190; total, £433. The mileage tax on abnormal loads could mean an extra charge of £2,000 on the carriage of a very large piece of equipment from, for example, Sheffield to Liverpool. Mrs. Castle has ignored the effect of these crippling tax increases upon trade and industry (and particularly upon the export trade) in her anxiety to eliminate long-distance road transport. She obviously does not care what happens to Britain's trade.
Protest meetings are being arranged all over the country. There will be one in Sheffield on December 13, while in Newcastle on Friday the national chairman, Mr. P. H. R. Turner, said the cost of all goods carried by road would rise by 4 per cent as a result of Mrs. Castle's taxation plans. Addressing Northern hauliers at a packed meeting he described her plans as "the ultimate in idiocy".
The meeting pledged full support for the RHA campaign.
Earlier Mr. Turner had commented: "Mrs. Barbara Castle will go down in history as the Transport Minister who did more damage to Britain than any other. Whatever the motive behind them, her proposals must be construed as a vicious and unprovoked attack of the road haulage industry. The effect will be to bankrupt or drive out of business large numbers of hauliers whose efficient and economic service has played a major part in holding down prices."
TRTA Nightmare
Traders Road Transport Assmation
Planning gone mad is the only way to describe the quantity licensing proposals. The interests of industrial and transport efficiency are subjugated to the narrow objective of balancing the railways' accounts. The plan is a theoretical dream, but a practical transport man's nightmare. If it works— which is doubtful— it will destroy road transport's most priceless characteristic—flexibility.
Any idea that it will ease traffic congestion is a political red herring. In fact it will promote the use of more and larger vehicles in heavily con
gested urban areas, often at peak times.
The special tax on heavy lorries will be seen as a further measure designed to move traffic to rail in defiance of commercial criteria; the proposed scope of the surcharge on abnormal loads is far too broad, and indeed impractical at the lower end of the scale.
(See also the interview reported on pages 21 22.)
TUJC Monopoly
Transport Users Joint Committee
The quantity licensing proposals, if put into effect, would upset the whole balance of trade and industry. They would require Government interference in commercial operations by removing the right to choose the most efficient means for transporting goods.
The licensing proposals will be bound to affect adversely the overall investment in business, because estimating transport spending over a period becomes impossible.
The overall effect of the proposals will be tc create a State monopoly in the carriage of good; over long distances.
I TGWU Pro-rail bias
Transport and General Workers Union
Mr. Len Squire, national officer (road haulage) "The Minister has taken note of some of our idea but has rejected others. There is a pro-rail bias; am not happy about British Railways spendin; nearly £3m on road vehicles when BRS vehicle could do the job. There is a risk that some 30 cwt vehicles exempted from carriers' licensing will b operated on long-distance work.
"The future for the smaller road haulag firms, however efficient, looks gloomy, with cost rising. They will have to amalgamate or be take over."
1 SMMT1 Repressive
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
The president, Sir George Harriman: "The plar introduce a new ministry involved in the collectio of taxes, plus a penal road tax. It is a staggerir fact that, despite the Government's suppose dedication to consultation, the biggest con mercial vehicle exporting industry in the wod should learn of these astounding new proposa by going out and buying newspapers on the stre corner."
The effects of the White Paper, he said, wou be to put up prices to the public; add to the co of exports and have a depressive effect upon ti commercial vehicle industry; and will not sol, the problems of the railways. He added:
"It is astonishing that the Government shot launch this new repressive tax plan upon Britt when the balance of payments situation is critical. "The SMMT will fight the new road tax with all the weapons at its command and is seeking an immediate meeting with the Government to go into all the details of this alarming measure."
LURTU Diabolical
United Road transport Unfon
Mr. Jackson Moore, general secretary: "The White Paper is absolutely diabolical. The attempt to save the railways at the expense of the country is doomed to failure. Too many boffins with no knowledge of the transport industry have helped make policy. If labour troubles disrupt the Freightliners there will be no large fleets of road vehicles around to rescue the industry. The rail tracks should all be paved with concrete.
'The nightmarish charges on heavy haulage movements will not induce much traffic to rail; most large pieces of electrical equipment are too big for rail gauge:'
{NFU In jeopardy
National Farmers Union
Neither agriculture nor horticulture could stand the massive increase in costs . should these proposals be adopted. Such legislation could only result in the loss of flexibility in road transport on which the industry depends so much.
Food prices would be bound to rise and the specialized services necessary to bring fresh produce into markets in the best possible condition would be put in jeopardy.
The proposed restrictions on drivers and the revisions of the licensing system could cause an upheaval the industry might not be able to stand.
BRF Disastrous
8ritish Road Federation
Based on estimates of licence revenue for 1968-9 the extra charges proposed in the White Paper will cost £40m a year. The duty paid by operators of goods vehicles over 3 tons unladen will rise from £50m a year to £90m—a crippling extra cost for industry to bear.
By raising the track costs question the Minister is playing one road user against another in order to win support for her steps against road transport.
The Minister must have known that it would have been impossible to prove that it was cheaper to send freight by rail unless she first increased the costs of road transport. It is a disastrous and irresponsible way to prove a point. The Federation is violently opposed to the totally inequitable proposals for quantity licensing, designed to force traffic from road to rail.
CBI Irresponsibility Confederation of Botish Industry,
Director-general Mr. John Davies: "The new system will be rigid and expensive, administratively cumbersome and liable to breakdowns and hold-ups. To add £30m a year to industry's costs at this time is an act of frightening irresponsibility.
'The White Paper is yet another prime example of selective and discriminatory action. The methods used to shift freight to the railways are irresponsible and doctrinaire.
"The proposed road haulage charges make nonsense of all the Government's professions about prices and incomes policy .
SCMU Brave
Scottish Commercial Motormen's Union
Mr. Alex Kitson, general secretary: "It is a brave attempt to try to do some necessary things for the transport industry. We would want to look at certain items to protect the interests of our members. The joint parcels organization is welcomed and is in the interests of the industry.
"The White Paper poses a challenge to trade unions and a new structure of co-operation, perhaps a joint industrial council, is called for."
A oi. Firmly opposed
Aims of Industry
Preliminary results of research based on a wide random sample of our membership of some 4,500 companies show an overwhelming majority firmly opposed to any restrictions on the use of road haulage that would force them to send their goods by rail. Most of these companies have tried both kinds of transport.
[NA CAM Grave
Notional Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants
The Association is gravely concerned at the possible effects on agricultural costs of the new charges and restrictions.
An increase in the cost of carrying grain from farms in areas which often have no 'adequate rail connection to ports, millers and compounders would give rise to an increase in the price of home produced grain against imported supplies. Particularly in view of the Prime Minister's statement at the weekend that farm production would be stimulated and so be able to do more o replace food imported from abroad.
BEAMA_, Serious
Bykish Electrical and Allred Manufacturers Association
The proposed levy on the movement of abnormal loads will add a serious burden to the cost of transporting heavy electrical plant. The imposition of this extra cost on British exports must be deplored at a time when export incentives are what is really needed.
LMC Iniquitous
Leyland Motor Corporation
Sir Donald Stokes: "I am shattered that the Government should place such an iniquitous burden on Britain's highly successful road transport industry without adequate prior consultation. Companies send their goods by road because it is the most efficient and economical way of moving them."