"Fuel is STILL the Big Issue" declares National Chairman at RHA Annual Lunch

At the RHA's Annual Lunch on Wednesday 4th October, National Chairman, Willie Oliver said that although the Association would continue to press strongly for a reduction in fuel duty, it also recognised Government's freeze that has been in place for the past four years, due, in no small part, to relentless lobbying by the Association.

"Of course the huge increase in world oil prices has led to a corresponding rise in fuel costs, and the Chancellor has benefited accordingly", said Willie Oliver. "But recently these prices have started to fall and the temptation to add 2p or 3p per litre to duty may become overwhelming.

"The motorist, having paid nearly £1 a litre for fuel and now forking out around 85ppl, would probably take such an increase with a shrug of the shoulders.  But for the road haulage sector this would prove disastrous. What possible sense would it make to see the difference between UK fuel duty and the average paid elsewhere in the EU rise from 24ppl to 26 or 27ppl?

"This is one big freeze that we must NOT see an end to!"

Notes to Editors : The full text of the National Chairman's speech follows at the foot of this e-mail. 

The Road Haulage Association - supporting the industry on which the UK depends.

Contact Kate Gibbs, RHA Communications Manager on

• Tel: 01932 838917
• Mob: 07979 531451

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladies and Gentlemen:

May I offer you a very warm welcome to this our Annual Lunch. We like to think that this occasion offers a relaxing respite from the rigours of a working day. We do however understand those who must pay due regard to time constraints with the need to return to their office to read their emails . If you have to do this we understand.

One dear friend we will not be seeing today will be Aubrey Ward from DAF who passed away recently.

A great supporter of the RHA, always to be seen at our functions Aubrey is sadly missed by us all but surely most of all by his wife and family.

Let me state at the outset, I am aware of the intense speculation surrounding me, but I shall stand down from my term of office next summer. This is not to show solidarity with Tony Blair, although he needs friends, or a need for the RHA to renew itself, or because there is an impatient candidate in the wings whose time has come. Not even because I had dinner at a London restaurant 15 years ago and made a pact. (I didn't because no one would buy me one). No, I'm standing down because I will have done my two years. And that, as they say, is that. I look forward to the income potential of the American dinner circuit where the straightforward comments of an Ulsterman would be in direct contrast to those of an ex Prime Minister.

A year ago the emphasis of my speech to this luncheon was the creation of an industry wide inquiry into the effects of high fuel prices on the competitiveness of the UK haulage industry. Thus was born the Burns Inquiry which, a few months later, became the Burns Report. Chaired by Robbie Burns, who did a quite excellent job, this exercise sought to prove once and for all an irrefutable case to government that road haulage was being damaged, perhaps permanently not only by the rising tide of foreign competition but also by the unfair advantage gained through the excessive taxation of UK fuel. We firmly believe the Burns Report gives the evidence that there is a case to answer.

The fact is government can cut the argument any way it wishes. Perhaps in a basket of costs the UK comes up average, but if our competitors choose to keep fuel costs down, and by a considerable margin, then modest benefits elsewhere are soon wiped out.

The government states it has considered our Report very carefully. In its response it set up a Task Group to test the conclusions reached. We continue to play a full part in this exercise, arguing our case most forcefully, but the Treasury seems unconvinced that high fuel prices are the prime cause of our industry's predicament or if they are they refuse to admit it  We continue to argue that a 24ppl difference in fuel costs simply has to have an anti competitiveness label attached to it. Later on this month we will be meeting with Ministers in another attempt to address this core issue.

However it would be wrong to say nothing has happened since Burns. We are pleased at the redefinition of cabotage and expect the enforcement authorities to tackle what we believe is widespread breaches of the spirit of this legislation.

We are encouraged, too, by greater steps to ensure compliance of operational law on foreign hauliers. Work by VOSA has revealed that far too many foreign truckers in the UK seem to consider us a soft touch, as the level of excessive hours operated and overloading have revealed. Some of our sister organisations within the EU have accused us of being anti foreign because of our support for strong enforcement. We reject this outright. All we seek is a level playing field between our industry and visitors to these shores. Compliance of the law by everyone would be a major step forward.

And in that connection our joint call with the FTA for the registration of all inbound vehicles into the UK has to be another worthwhile step. The authorities need to know who the operator is quickly and efficiently, and not have to endure conversing with a driver who suddenly cannot speak or understand a word of English!

We look forward to the swift introduction of the graduated fixed penalty and deposit scheme once the current Road Safety Bill has completed its parliamentary stages. For those UK hauliers who have experienced such a form of justice elsewhere in Europe this cannot happen a moment too soon. We would welcome an indication from government on a date when this will begin.

Although we continue to struggle with our case on fuel duty it would be wrong not to recognise government policy of freezing the duty rate for the last four years. We believe our consistent lobbying helped establish this. Of course world oil prices have seen a huge increase in corresponding fuel costs, and the Chancellor has benefited accordingly. But these prices are reducing and with it surely the temptation to add 2p or 3p per litre to duty may become overwhelming. The motorist, having paid nearly £1 a litre for fuel and now forking out around 85ppl, would probably take such an increase with a shrug of the shoulders. But for road haulage this would prove disastrous. What possible sense would it make to see the difference in UK fuel duty and the average paid elsewhere in the EU rise from 24ppl to 26 or 27ppl? All the arguments we have presented to government in the Burns Report would be even more relevant.

The answer has to be the introduction of a rebate. If the Chancellor wants to maximise his income from the motorist, he must de couple road haulage taxation. I am not now talking about a 24ppl rebate, that is an argument we will go on pursuing. I am referring instead to a continuing duty freeze on fuel used by HGV's from now until Government accept that UK and EU operators should pay the same. Does that mean road pricing in some form or another? I will refer to this later. And talking of rebates can I say to Govt. please don't tell us that the EU wont accept such a scheme...the EU wants to see harmonisation of fuel duties and don't lets forget that the fuel rebate was a vital part of this Govts own LRUC cheme.

We will go on pursuing what we believe is a legitimate aim - to see the price of fuel at least for C V operators on a par with our European partners. Certainly from a N. Ireland perspective this is long overdue. Indeed the members of a Westminster Select Committee were emphatic that by levelling the playing field the Government could deprive the smugglers/fuel launderers of £7000 on each load of illegal fuel finding its way onto the market.
 
Leaving aside the threat of unfair competition, it is in the UKs interest to keep commercial transport costs down. And one need look no further than the Scottish Executives' inquiry into freight transport.

This was conducted in response to the RHA's petition asking for just such an exercise on the basis of foreign operators having an unfair advantage over Scottish hauliers. A good deal of evidence was presented and we participated in the hearings. And the Scottish Executives' conclusion? Well amongst many it stated that low cost foreign hauliers were probably beneficial to the Scottish economy because of lower transport costs! Taken logically we could go further. We could argue that foreign shipyards are better for the economy because they build ships cheaper. What about foreign whisky? Or electronics? We know lower transport costs benefit an economy which is why we want lower transport costs in Scotland and elsewhere. but the difference is that we want British hauliers to be the provider. Govt should also be mindful of the other basket of taxes which British hauliers contribute to its coffers. In coming to their conclusion the Scottish Executive has merely confirmed the core of our case. We look forward to a full debate on the report by the Scottish parliament. The forthcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament should certainly concentrate minds. We will be listening carefully.

Running a competitive economy is not just about equalising direct costs; it's also about investing in the right infrastructure. We continue to express grave concerns about the severe lack of road investment. The government's priorities seem confined to rail, which worthy as this might appear cannot be at the expense of a comprehensive roads programme.

We question the £6.5m spent on the aborted M6 Expressway project, surely a non-starter from the word go as the RHA stated. The £20m spent so far on finding a solution for the A30 at Stonehenge, and yet none identified. And we await the results for the M42 Active Traffic Management scheme, that cost £100m, to see if it could be employed elsewhere. Whilst it is true work has started on the southern M1 widening project, and later next year the M25 northern section, there are far too many pinch points on the system that need addressing urgently, never mind new road build. Given we have to have traffic there is nothing greener than flowing traffic. For example the A14/M1/M6 junction at Rugby is a nightmare of congestion and accidents. John Spellar when Transport Minister years ago announced a programme to deal with this, yet nothing has happened. It is time it did.

Again looking at N. Ireland many of you here will be familiar with our successful port at Larne. The road from Larne to Belfast to link up with our strategic road network is a designated Euro route yet in the Governments recently published Road Improvement Programme 2015 it makes no mention of upgrading the 14km of this road from a single carriageway. Larne is our largest Ro/Ro port carrying 51% of N. Irelands Ro/Ro freight in 2005 - dualling to such a port would be taken for granted anywhere else in Europe.

This government boasts of its economic record. Such an achievement attracts new immigrants from the EU and elsewhere. The population is set to increase by 7 million by 2030. Already our roads cannot cope with today's economy. Do we have any other choice, if we are to absorb this population growth and the economic growth to go with it, than to embark upon a rolling sustainable roads programme? In an era when the green agenda prevails it needs courage to commit to the obvious. Which political party will grasp this challenge?

Of course politicians now seem to believe that road pricing is the best way of regulating traffic and presumably of doing away with any roads programme. My feeling is that this is years away and in any case I am uncertain as to its effectiveness. Why do I say this? Because fuel costs have increased by leaps and bounds recently and there has been little discernable reduction in traffic. Will congestion levels respond to a pricing mechanism? Only time will tell but current evidence must place a question mark over it.

Meanwhile local authorities continue to make life ever more difficult. We will shortly have Transport for London's Low Emission Zone which will conveniently put a question mark over the operation of legions of construction vehicles building the Olympics. Up and down the land ideas abound about local congestion charging. Other local authorities want to ban lorries from a wide area during parts of the day. Instead of one nationally understood transport policy we are in danger of scores of different ones. Is this the way to run a modern economy? It strikes me more as devolved responsibilities gone mad!

All this and much more is what the RHA was set up to address 61 years ago. We have never been busier, led by our able and talented staff collectively addressing the issues I have highlighted together with scores of others. I pay tribute to every one of them from our Chief Executive, Regional Directors, senior managers, our superb area managers and support staff at our head office in Weybridge, regional offices and our National Operations Centre at Peterborough. I would also pay tribute to my fellow Board Members, members of Regional Councils, and of the various committees all of whom give of their time freely and so willingly for the benefit of all our members. We are an association that does much more than even our members think. And we aim to put that right next year with a new initiative highlighting the benefits of RHA membership.

Speaking of initiatives we have some to announce today. I am pleased to announce the launch of the Road Haulage Industry Minimum Security Standard programme. Long overdue this represents the first ever attempt to establish basic standards in addressing vehicle crime. Devised and written in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan Police and leading insurance companies this represents a fight back by our industry against worsening attacks on road hauliers and their employees. I strongly commend it to you.  The Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker MP will be formally unveiling the programme at our Security Seminar on 7 November but details are available today.

A little later I will be inviting a representative of the FTA and BAR to join with me in presenting a cheque to Skills for Logistics as the first payment for an exciting new Schools Project designed to attract interest in career opportunities with the industry.

Next year we will see a new and innovative National Conference entitled Interactive '07. We will challenge issues facing our industry head on so do not come merely to listen.

Details on this and our newly launched Members Reward Scheme for the introduction of new members are also available today.

A few weeks ago the RHA Rescue and Recovery Group launched a petition to urge the government to speed up the review of the current Statutory Fees paid in England and Wales to recovery operators. The RHA's Chief Executive had raised this matter at the last meeting of the Road Haulage Forum and had written to ministers on the same theme back in August.

Today would have seen a final flourish of signatures as we wave the petition goodbye on its journey to the Home Office. But suddenly the government has responded positively to Roger King's letter promising action as swiftly as resources permit.     Be assured that the RHA will be forthright in seeking an out come to this complex issue, with the emphasis on swiftly.

This month promises to be a very busy one for the RHA. Towards the end we are hosting a unique Ride and Drive day for parliamentarians, civil servants and other guests at the TRL test circuit at Crowthorne. We are delighted that all the truck manufacturers have responded positively and we will have all manner of vehicle types on display and for driving. The object of the exercise is to bring our legislators face to face with the road haulage industry.

RHA members know the value of their Association and I trust that today I have illustrated to all of you the essential role this organisation plays in standing up and speaking for all involved in this industry.

Ladies and Gentlemen thank you for your patience.