Supplementary memorandum by Meeks of Luton
(RH 39A)
I had the opportunity to attend the first public
session of the above committee on 8 March 2000. Prior to the session
I lobbied my MP Kelvin Hopkins.
The main reason for attending was to support
the Road Haulage Assn, our Chairman, John Bridge and our new Chief
Executive, Roger King. It was very interesting, although at times
I could hardly contain myself as there were additional answers
I would have dearly liked to have given!
Our company did provide your committee with
a list of objectives we would like your committee to consider.
The documents provided by the Potter Group, the Malcolm Group
and the Reed Boardall Group all seemed relevant and covered a
lot of the same points we raised. However, I do hope that companies
of our size will be listened to, because there are thousands of
us as opposed to the few hundred big operators. We are very much
at the sharp end and regrettably a lot have already gone bankrupt
or just closed down their businesses, before they too became insolvent!
How many of the 200 to 400 truck operators have gone into liquidation?
None that I know of, but an awful lot of smaller companies have
failed, due to not being able to pass on the increased cost of
fuel.
We acknowledge we are an extremely competitive
service industry, but we should be allowed to earn a reasonable
living, without having to subsidise other industries! We are not
greedy individuals, with expensive life styles to match. We are
dedicated companies working longer hours for less money and still
we have to tackle more legislation. Our margins are being slashed
and it removes our ability to replace our older vehicles and any
chance of being efficient.
We operate 16 commercial vehicles and during
our part in the campaign we have met a lot of directors of similar
companies. We have a wealth of experience and do feel we could
contribute to the debate. Having witnessed the first session,
I have listed a few points, which seemed relevant. These are enclosed
and if there are any opportunities for any informal talks then
I would be only too pleased to support them. I realise that you
have been good enough to meet with your time to the East Anglian
Haulage Group and if you have heard all this before, then I apologise
for wasting your valuable time.
1. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS
WOULD YOU
LIKE TO
SEE?
An essential user rebate for commercial vehicles.
This would then treat cars differently to lorries. The government
policy of getting people out of their cars could then be pursued.
2. CONGESTION
ON THE
ROADS?
The present day congestion on the roads is not
because of the increase of trucks on the road. The enormous growth
in the number of cars is what has caused the problems and there
are less trucks on the road today than there were ten years ago.
3. DO YOU
RUN YOUR
VEHICLES EMPTY?
Everybody who uses road transport wants to obtain
"return load rates". The idea being that a vehicle going
home has covered most of the standing charges and overheads, which
would allow a cheaper price for the return journey. A truck cannot
go out on an outbound journey at a cheaper rate and then also
come home also on a return rate.
We back load whenever possible. BUT
we will not come home from Liverpool, with a delivery to Portsmouth,
for less than we would charge from Luton to Portsmouth. Unfortunately,
that is what is expected!
When it is quiet, we are forever getting calls
for vehicles all over the country, by people looking for vehicles
to back load. If the trucks are not leaving their yards, then
they are not available to back load.
The back load has produced a lot of clearing
houses, who offer deliveries at cheap rates. This means that the
Haulage Contractor who was doing these deliveries loses the work.
The industry would dearly like to see the Operators Licensing
System cover these clearing houses.
We offer both customers reduced rates if we
are loaded both ways. Please note we often spend a lot of time
and money attempting to get return loads for our vehicles. Sometimes
they are just not available.
4. JUST IN
TIME DELIVERIES?
(J.I.T.)
Manufacturng Industries have disposed of all
possible warehousing and storage facilities to save on costs.
This means nobody now carries any large volumes of stock. So we
are faced with J.I.T. deliveries, which is the least efficient
means of transport. This results in trucks being treated as Taxis
and expected to be available at the end of the telephone (24 hrs).
We see this from our customers who are involved in the manufacturing
of cars. These companies do not want to understand or care about
the Driver Hours & Regulations and we become the mobile warehouse!
5. OPERATOR LICENCE
REGULATIONS.
While the Industry wants to be rid of the rogue
trucks/cowboys, we do need regulations that are workable. Trucks
are mechanical and things can sometimes go wrong. Even a new vehicle
can suffer from an air leak, oil/water leak, a broken bulb etc,
but the changes in the regulations now mean two defects and you
could lose your Licence.
6. TRANSPORT
FORUM?
Companies want to focus on the Forum as the
place to do business. So far we have seen very little as a result
of these meetings. We feel what has been achieved has happened
because of the mass lobbing of Members of Parliament and the public
demonstrations. We managed to get the problem over to the general
public. Everyday I speak to people outside of transport and they
cannot believe the figures we are quoting.
The Budget
We only operate one 38 ton unit which we thought
might benefit from the reduction in VED, but because it is a three
axle tractor unit and not two axles, we received no reduction.
The remainder of our units are 32 ton with tandem trailers and
they received no reduction in VED. The 3.4 per cent increase on
fuel duty from the Budget will add £270 to my average monthly
fuel bill. From last March (1999) and including the result of
Wednesday's announcement our fuel has increased by 25 per cent
in 12 months. If these costs are not passed on to my customers
and there is considerable resistance in any increases in transport
charges, we will be out of business in two years.
Peter Little
March 2000—Revised June 2000
| 
