By Andy McCue, 3 March 2005 16:20
NEWS Capita, IBM and Siemens have been shortlisted to run the IT infrastructure for a complex multibillion pound lorry road-user charging system but the government has delayed its introduction by almost two years to allow for thorough testing of the technology.
The charging scheme will automatically bill haulage firms based on the recorded mileage of their lorries on all UK motorways and roads and the charge will also apply to foreign lorries on UK roads. The government is promising to soften the extra cost by offsetting the charges with tax cuts for the industry.
A combination of on-board units, satellite positioning and mobile communications tracking technology will record the mileage of all lorries using UK motorways and roads. This data will be sent to a central services function, which will process the customer account management and billing.
There are likely to be different rates for motorways and trunk roads and for different times of the day. The government said it is also closely watching developments with similar schemes in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.
The government had hoped to introduce the charging system by 2006 but the last progress report by HM Customs & Excise, which is running the project, said this has been pushed back to allow for a "comprehensive testing phase with thorough monitoring of how the systems are operating and whether objectives are being met".
Pilots will take place during 2006 followed by the rollout of the technology to the haulage firms and along the UK's road network, with the charge coming into force in early 2008.
The scheme has been split into three contracts, which are charging data services, enforcement services and central services.
Capita, IBM and Siemens have been invited to bid for the central services contract, Serco, Siemens and T-Systems International have been shortlisted for the charging data services contract and Autostrade, Serco and the Tracs consortium will bid for the enforcement services deal.
Contracts are expected to be awarded by the end of 2005.
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. Frank Kelly
This scheme has all of the hallmarks of another government IT C*ck up. Why not leave the UK truckers alone so they can get on with what they are good at, as opposed to helping the government run complex revenue collection schemes, and just raise a levy on all non-UK vehicles coming into the country. It is easy for UK to raise a levy as there has to be a "ticket" purchased to get into UK, the levy could be added to this easily in the same way that airport tax is.
2. Richard
Trust the Brits (from whom the EU are eager scholars) to make the simple complicated. To charge for road usage, isn't the existing fuel tax charging system sufficiently hungry (and efficient)? Just put the rates up..the government has had enough practice to have perfected the task.
Or do you get extra points for high administrative costs? And is it "clever" to use computers?
3. Karen Challinor
At the end of the day they are destroying the market they are trying to exploit.
Large firms have moved offices abroad and register, tax and garage their vehicles on the continent because it's cheaper, they make sure they have enough fuel, also purchased on the continent, for a round trip.
So the net income from these companies to HM government is zero, and the reason for that is that HM government turned the screw too far and the truck companies reacted with economics.
So HM Government reacts to this loss of income by turning the screw even further on those that remain making it uneconomic for them to remain in business, resulting in a total loss of income from the market and subsequent increase in the tax burden to pay for all the new 'job seekers' created by the crash.
You know this, I know this, it's baby economics, grab something too hard and you kill it, when will the government learn this ?
4. Mark Stanley
Talk about technology looking for a problem to solve. What is the point in this project? I reckon those that use the most fuel cover the most miles, or is a fuel tax too simplistic? Is it reallyworth the xxx millions of pounds and guaranteed egg on face to faff about which roads they choose to drive on? ...its not like they choose the M4 to get to Bristol from London out of spite!
5. i-Richard
CAPITA??? Ha Ha HA! (Truck off ! )
The Germans spent Billions of Euros and several years utterly failing to make a similar system work - at enormous cost to the tax-payer, not to mention the hauliers who have forked out for useless black boxes.
Meanwhile the Swiss have stuck with a low tech solution that costs next to nothing. It is cheaper for the hauliers, cheaper to administer and actually works. It's a Sticker in the cab window. It may not be *fair* in that everybody pays the same, but the German experience is that everybody pays MORE in their "fairer" mileage-based system. D'Oh!
Now, with the UK's track record in large capital projects (Wembly Stadium) combined with our record in large IT projects (NHS), combined with - oh my god - Capita's complete and utter inability to do *anything* at all properly (apart from landing government contracts... HOW?????)... well it doesn't look good, does it?
Sorry guys, looks like you are well and truly er, trucked.
6. Allan McBain
Common tax rates
For the Government to believe such a scheme worthwhile it must:
a) expect to lose the Euro referendum
b) not believe greater harmonisation of the European Tax system will happen
a) almost inextricably leads to b) although b) could happen without it and is a stated EU aim.
With harmonised tax systems and thereby a common budget, there would be no reason to differentially tax anyone driving into the UK. This system, then, would only be of value "against" those driving into the UK from outside the EU - and unless you come here from Switzerland, that's a long drive on one tank of fuel.
An increase in Fuel Duty to cover the cost of the Road Fund Licence would work for HGVs, vans and private users, encouraging all to be as fuel efficient as possible (including avoiding country roads [changing speed] and busy times [congestion]) - in accordance with the Governments Kyoto commitments.
So, if the Government is consistent across all its pronouncements, this is a high-cost, low efficiency, unproven scheme that can only have a few years of life before being overtaken by events.