topic
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Killing the goose by Janus
OVER the years the road transport interests must have run out of arguments hopefully designed to soften the heart of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. The annual plea for reductions in the fuel tax and in vehicle licence duties has no visible or positive effect. Whether or not they are prepared to admit it, most operators will be satisfied if Mr Anthony Barber next Wednesday merely refrains from imposing a tax increase.
For this reason alone the ritual approach is justified. There is also the possibility that some of the points put forward will be raised again during the Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, in which case the Chancellor or one of his henchmen may find it necessary to explain and defend the official point of view, thus widening the field for subsequent discussion. This could happen with the proposal that road transport undertakings should be entitled to investment grants, and should not have to go through the pracdure of paying selective employment tax and then claiming it back. Both items were included in the joint memorandum sent to the Chancellor earlier this month by the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association.
NO more than a hint was given in the memorandum of a possible change of attitude that may be forced upon the Government by circumstances. Plating and testing, more rigorous licensing and stricter control in other ways have combined to push up road transport costs even faster than most other costs. Operators and their representatives have naturally not been slow in quoting the analogy of the goose that laid the golden eggs and in giving warnings of the harm that higher transport rates might inflict on the economy.
Apparently, the prophecies have been no more respected than those of Cassandra. The best retort the Government has been able to find is to bring in the Prices and Incomes Board, presumably in order to promote the opinion that increased road haulage costs were due to inefficiency as much as anything else. There was a simultaneous and somewhat contradictory assumption that road transport was fundamentally a sound and prosperous industry and that, in contrast to the railways, there was no need for any Government to worry much about its welfare.
SUCH optimism is no longer tenable Apparently stable industries and firms with household names are running into trouble. It is no longer safe to assume that any industry can he neglected, or even harassed, and come out of the ordeal unharmed. The continual complaints about rising road haulage costs may also at last be having some effect. It is recognized more generally than in the past that transport costs make up a considerable proportion of the price of an article.
Some small evidence of a new approach is already visible. Earlier in March Mr Evelyn King MP, asked the Chancellor if, "in the light of its effect on prices," he would remove taxation on fuel used by road vehicles carrying food. The Parliamentary impact was minimal and the reply from Mr Maurice Macmillan a flat negative on the grounds that "such selective relief is impracticable". The significance lies in the unlikelihood that such a question would even have been put down a few years ago.
On the following day the Secretary of State for the Environment was asked another question by Mr Marcus Fox. He wanted to know what progress had been made in determining the feasibility of road-pricing as a form of motor taxation. Mr John Peyton's reply was cautiously worded. The Road Research Laboratory had carried out extensive tests on road-pricing devices, he said. "At present the difficulties involved in using them on the roads appear to outweigh the advantages."
EXPERTS accustomed to Parliamentary understatement have interpretated this answer as meaning that road pricing is no longer a threat and even that the Government disapproves of it as a fiscal device. Obviously, road operators would have found themselves paying much more in taxation than previously and prices again would have had to go up. The Government must surely have had this point in mind.
Local authorities would no doubt have welcomed road pricing. Commercial vehicle users are under no illusion about the reception they can expect when they venture into a town or conurbation. They might be entitled to suppose that they were conferring some benefit on the local community, and some of the residents may be grateful. In general, the lorry and its driver are treated no better than the old-style tinker or gipsy. The resentment they arouse is reflected in the hostile legislation which many local authorities are introducing.
EVEN when the action which is taken appears to be well-meaning, the net result is often a further increase in operating costs. It is easy to understand the varying problems caused by indiscriminate
parking, aspecially at night. If acceptable facilities are provided off the road, operators cannot reasonably refuse to make use of them. Once again there is an extra financial outlay. Few local authorities feel an obligation to allow free parking. As a result, the clearing of the streets means yet another cost which the haulier must pass on to his customer.
Mr Peter Walker, Secretary of State for the Environment, is now considering the report on overnight lorry parks from his Department's working party. The wholly admirable intention is to ensure proper conditions for vehicles and their drivers when they have to spend the night away from home. What seems more than likely is that, once the facilities are available, there will be pressure, if not compulsion, to use them. Operators may find themselves having to pay considerably more for a service which is no better, and may even be less congenial, than what is already available.
THERE are other authorities which are looking to the road operator as a source of extra revenue. The Mersey Tunnel , joint committee has proposed substantial increases in tolls. At present the charge for vehicles over 2 tons is 174p. In future, it is to be 40p for vehicles up to 5 tons and 50p for vehicles over 5 tons. The rate for the heavy lorry will almost be trebled.
The Dover Harbour Board has put up its demurrage rates which are imposed on semi-trailers after two days of free parking. Previously the charge thereafter was 7fp a day for two days and 15p for each subsequent day. The corresponding new rates for ferry operators are £2 and £5. Inevitably, the operators will pass them on to the hauliers.
ACCORDING to reports, the intention behind the increase in Dover is in some ways commendable. It is a deliberate attempt to avoid trailer congestion by encouraging operators to remove the vehicles as soon as possible. There is no specific desire to increase revenue, although this seems likely to be the effect. The Mersey Tunnel decision, on the other hand, is said to be the consequence of the Government's refusal to grant aid for the second tunnel.
So far as hauliers are concerned, there is no difference between the two cases. They are being asked to pay considerably more. There is no lack of other examples. The Government testing stations are running at a loss and surely it will not be long before the Department announces increases in the test fees and various other measures which from the Government point of view will look like economies but for the operator will merely be higher charges. Whether or not the Budget provides the appropriate opportunity, it may be time for the Government to give some consideration to the steady increase in the many costs imposed on road transport.