RET for hauliers
Fortuitously, I bumped into an old friend who is close to the centre of decision making in the Scottish Government. The vagueness over their role is deliberate.
Talk turns to RET, and my friend caustically points out that the SNP had 30 years of formulating a policy and supporting RET for commercial and domestic traffic, only to claim after 2 years that the policy which has proved successful in Norway doesn't work (but only in the Western Isles).
The real decision, they confirmed, was all about saving some money. The decision to blame the hauliers was taken at the last moment, without any evidence, and with the full knowledge and support of Alasdair Allan (MacNeil seems to have absented himself from this view).
Civil Servants have been unable to find any evidence to support the Government's stance, which is now the official position, which the "consultation" is expected to confirm.
The Civil Service took the view that if there were 'profiteering' by local hauliers, then it will only be a matter of time before mainland hauliers (or new local firms) exploit the opportunity, driving prices down. By reverting back to the old system of volume discounts, the Government are creating barriers to new hauliers entering the market, which will - perversely - keep haulage costs higher for the islands.
Meantime, we see the attempts to justify the decision appearing in the local press, without any evidence to support the arguments. My friend confirmed that SNP Press Officers are busy churning out template letters and briefings to affected constituencies putting forward the view that a cut in subsidy is A Good Thing.
Talk turns to RET, and my friend caustically points out that the SNP had 30 years of formulating a policy and supporting RET for commercial and domestic traffic, only to claim after 2 years that the policy which has proved successful in Norway doesn't work (but only in the Western Isles).
The real decision, they confirmed, was all about saving some money. The decision to blame the hauliers was taken at the last moment, without any evidence, and with the full knowledge and support of Alasdair Allan (MacNeil seems to have absented himself from this view).
Civil Servants have been unable to find any evidence to support the Government's stance, which is now the official position, which the "consultation" is expected to confirm.
The Civil Service took the view that if there were 'profiteering' by local hauliers, then it will only be a matter of time before mainland hauliers (or new local firms) exploit the opportunity, driving prices down. By reverting back to the old system of volume discounts, the Government are creating barriers to new hauliers entering the market, which will - perversely - keep haulage costs higher for the islands.
Meantime, we see the attempts to justify the decision appearing in the local press, without any evidence to support the arguments. My friend confirmed that SNP Press Officers are busy churning out template letters and briefings to affected constituencies putting forward the view that a cut in subsidy is A Good Thing.
21 comments:
The fact remains though, that hauliers did not pass the benefits of the RET on to islanders. Everyone who lives here knows this for a fact. The cost of living here is has always been high and has been soaring over the past 18 months. Given our basic needs for daily living have to come onto the islands by ferry, the RET was supposed to reduce the costs of living here by reducing the costs of transportation. I do not feel hauliers have provided any explanation on this point and it would be helpful if they are brought to account on this. The Scottish Govt may wish to consider how in future they ensure that any benefits are passed on to islanders, as intended. As a result of this change of policy on the RET, it is islanders who lose, not hauliers, AGAIN!
Re - 12.12
The fact remains that all this is quite irrelevant.
In May 2011, there was no mention of any changes being introduced to the way in which RET was being administered. A few months later and there's a sudden, abrupt alteration in the policy. No notice was given. The innocent were punished along with the guilty...
If there were changes required in RET, surely there were less ill-considered and draconian way of doing it, allowing even the 'guilty hauliers' the oppootunity to change their ways.
Re - 12.12
The fact remains that all this is quite irrelevant.
In May 2011, there was no mention of any changes being introduced to the way in which RET was being administered. A few months later and there's a sudden, abrupt alteration in the policy. No notice was given. The innocent were punished along with the guilty...
If there were changes required in RET, surely there were less ill-considered and draconian ways of doing it, allowing even the 'guilty hauliers' the opportunity to change their ways.
Seems to me that the Scottish Government is simply a poorly thought out excuse.
Re - 12.12
The fact remains that all this is quite irrelevant.
In May 2011, there was no mention of any changes being introduced to the way in which RET was being administered. A few months later and there's a sudden, abrupt alteration in the policy. No notice was given. The innocent were punished along with the guilty...
If there were changes required in RET, surely there were less ill-considered and draconian ways of doing it, allowing even the 'guilty hauliers' the opportunity to change their ways.
Seems to me that the Scottish Government is simply a poorly thought out excuse.
The fact is that since the introduction of RET mainland Hauliers have been able to compete with local Hauliers and this has been evident by the increased number of mainland Hauliers coming onto the Island
The new schools project is an example. In the past you would not have seen so many off Island companies transporting goods across the Minch
If customers have not benefited from RET then they themselves are to blame for not seeking competitive prices from other Hauliers as I can assure you that cheaper prices have been and are available when you move away from the major contractor.
I can think of at least 4 new local Hauliers that have started since RET was introduced
Seek and you WILL find considerably reduced rates
I built a new house in 2001 and it cost me £100 per cubic metre for ready mix concrete from Bardons.
I am currently building a shed and have been quoted a price for concrete from the same source for £91 per metre
Concrete blocks cost me in 2001 £1.10 each
This time only 85p each
I believe that RET is responsible for the difference
and so say all of us!!
12:12pm
Agreed that as in most businesses the only costs that are passed onto the consumer are the ones that increase but surely the SNP should have built this into the terms of RET rather than using it as a very weak argument to withdraw the subsidy.
It doesn't matter if the Islanders will feel the benefit of RET being given to the hauliers or suffer the consequences of RET being taken away, there is a perception that something that should have, could have and would have benefited the Western Isles has been promised on the back of a tick in an election box and then withdrawn once that tick isn't required any more. Perception is reality and this is a vote killer.
Also, whilst I am on my very small soap box, I would like to understand the withdrawal of the ADS system to businesses. Surely any local business who is going to the mainland to hopefully win business onto the island is worth investing in?
The SNP really need to understand that when they give something in order to win an election and then take it away once they have the vote, many many voters will feel a little / lot disgruntled. We really aren't that stupid. We have always asked how the SNP were going to pay for their policies and it seems that they too are now asking the same question.
It doesn't matter what Labour did or didn't do, you cannot blame them for the things that you gave and then took away. Maybe they didn't give something because they knew that they couldn't afford to. The SNP couldn't afford to either but needed the votes and are now sneakily pulling everything away.
Since RET came in it has been stated that the hauliers did not pass on the benefits to the Islanders.
With the cost of fuel since then I think you will find out the hauliers have passed on the benefits or else the haulage costs would have increased by over 50% since then.
Anon 12:12
I'm not sure you have got this right. As I understand it from Angus's post and other comments I've seen. Some hauliers because of what was called bulk discount were already getting a huge reduction in their ferry fees. So when RET came along and they paid the RET rate it may they were paying more in ferry fees than they were when they got bulk discount. Even if this were not the case and it worked out to be pretty much the same of course they would have had no savngs to pass on.
RET only benefited those who did not get bulk rate, or those who now found they could deliver to the island whereas before it was cost prohibitive. We have benefited from RET and to loose it will be a travesty.
Re 4.31
If I repost several times how many will Angus allow to be posted, especially if it is irrelevant?
Re - 2.02
Some people have serious stutters.
Why are you discriminating against them?
Another thread of labour whingers trying to jump on the RET bandwagon, a scheme they opposed...why, because they couldn't give a flying **** about the Western Isles, never have, never will.
1:13pm
And the SNP gave a flying **** when they needed that all important X on the ballot paper now they couldn't give a **** just like the rest of the Politicians. So what is worse, false hope or no hope......
Re 5.29pm Is it not fact that the Scot Govt have continued the RET subsidy on cars, increased vehicle length to 6 metres (costing over £5m) and found over £2m to off-set the increase for commecial vehicles, and instituted a review. Subsidy also for SoH and SoB ferries within the life of this parliament. This at a time of severe austerity and Westminster funding to Scotland cut by £1.3bn. Waken up to the reality of events. What did Labour offer?
8.43pm
Why did they put £2m additional in after the uproar when the SNP Gov was only demanding a saving of £1.5m.
If they simply left it alone they would have saved 500k and an awful lot of lost votes.
No money for Commercial RET yet £6m for a land fund for the select few.
Somehow I think that the priorities are all F####d up
Which of the above will be of benefit to the majority?
The first one is a known quantity
The second is an unknown as all buyouts require public money for the rest of time to survive
Agree totally 10.23.
Re - 8.43
Game, set and match to 10.04.
One cannot believe how badly the SNP has handled all this.
In terms of their political skills, AA and AB have - as their names suggest - only mastered the first two letters of the alphabet.
I would like to comment on Anonymous 7:07pm who built his home in 2001. I would think that RET had little or nothing to do with the lower prices on RMC and Concrete Blocks and more to do with the fact of greater competition within the marketplace has driven the prices down.
Interesting point on the cost of RMC
Bardons parent company are one of a number of National RMC suppliers who are currently under investigation by the OFT for price fixing and attempting to put small independent suppliers out of business by unfair competition
The unfair competition comes from dropping prices to below cost of production when a small independent company dares to compete
Post a Comment