Vehicle base debate
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
_PH CROPPER clearly feels ingly about the proposed v environmental controls on :rating centres provided for in 1982 Transport Act.
1 addition to comments elseare, he has said so in a letter he Editor of this journal, and awed it up with an article 9, July 2 and 9). He suggests t the Road Haulage Associaand Freight Transport Assoion should try to persuade new Minister to "wipe away" proposals.
feel equally strongly that for ler body — or, indeed, any: else purporting to speak for industry — to appear to iry the basis of the current posals would be to do the ustry a serious disservice.
Well, he would, wouldn't " is the understandable reon of readers who know that Ti 1970 until last year I ded the DTp Division resisible for 0-licensing.
refer such cynics to the fact t I recently spent 90 minutes Tipcon criticising many asIs of the system for which I :c1 to be responsible. I am not he business of automatically ending the activities of my Tier colleagues. Quite apart ri the fact that they can do the very well for themselves, it is ch more fun to criticise them m the safety of my retirent.
,alph Cropper and I agree on thing. The current draft eme which is out for consulon, and the Act from which it ms, are unlikely to have seen light of day were it not for difficulties which David Nell faced from his backichers over increased lorry ights.
:ut although the actual legison might owe its birth to rid Howell's political fears, its iception was much more res:table.
icensing Authorities were an power to control the envimental suitability of operatcentres in the Road Traffic 1974, which was found in 5 to be defectively drafted. t Foster Committee thought ironmental controls should considerably strengthened, I this recommendation was Iported by Armitage. Neither uiry, I think, can be regarded even the most paranoid haulier as in any sense antilorry.
So the inclusion of this item in David Howell's pacification package was not some desperate afterthought dreamed up late at night in Marsham Street after a difficult vote in the Commons. It has a respectable pedigree.
Ralph Cropper's reference to the legislation being "in a Schedule to the Act and in small print" suggests that the Government was ashamed of it. The inclusion of detailed schemes in the Schedules to Acts is very common indeed, and the same sized print is always used.
Ralph Cropper seems to be saying, in effect: "The industry got its higher weights, but at a substantial price. Not all of this has yet been paid. Let us now try to get out of paying some or all of the balance."
What the environmental lobby would make of this is easily .imagined. The industry's spokesmen did not object to the principle of the legislation when it was going through Parliament. They sensibly concentrated on getting amendments on points of detail. But that was before the amendments to the C&U Regulations were adopted. If, having got their increased weights, they were now seen even to be attempting to go back on the deal. their good faith would inevitably — and rightly — be challenged.
No doubt David Howell's sacking from the Cabinet was due to a combination of things. But in purely political terms there can be little doubt that his enthusiastic espousal of the heavier lorry caused him more problems within his own Party than anything else he did.
Lynda Chalker, who remains at the DTp, saw this at close quarters. I understand that it was due to her support that the original Bill was amended to protect existing operators where there will be "no material change in the use of the operating centre".
The RHA and FTA were understandably grateful for this, and said so at the time. Mrs Chalker is not going to thank them if they now challenge the whole principle.
And this does matter. For the industry wants many things from the Government — lower taxation, including downlicensing; higher speed limits; more effective defences against overloading charges; abolition of road tolls; higher weights and speeds for drawbar combinations; and much else.
Getting the Government to agree to any one of these is not going to be easy; even the higher speed limits on dual-carriageways promised more than 18 months ago are still not here. If the negotiations take place in a situation where the good faith of the industry on a matter of great political importance is in doubt the task will be nearly impossible.
Now if the effect of the new scheme were going to be as drastic as Ralph Cropper fears it might be necessary for the industry to rethink its attitude. Desperate situations demand desperate measures.
But it is surely clear that it will have almost no effect on any existing operator. Ralph Cropper seems to think that the "no material change" safeguard will only protect large operators, though he does not explain why this should be so. I cannot see why the wrath of the general public should be moderated towards the 100-vehicle fleet and concentrated on the ownerdriver. But even if this were to happen, the protection of the Act is quite clearly stated.
Nor does it seem likely that new entrants will be deterred on a big scale. Only those proposing to operate from the street outside their homes — or anyone else's home — or some other unsuitable place will run the risk of difficulty. But does anyone doubt that in those circumstances they should have problems? The industry's image suffers more from this sort of backstreet operation than from almost any other single cause.
Nor do I share the fears that 0licensing inquiries will come to resemble rowdy motorway public inquiries. A proposed new one-vehicle operating centre in Little Snoring is not going to have the Friends of the Earth sending in their massed forces.
However, the greatest safeguard for the industry is that the system will be operated by Licensing Authorities who, in the eyes of most operators, apply a vast amount of commonsense to their work. Those LAs to whom I have spoken about the scheme say that they are broadly content with the proposals.
There are many points which would benefit from being sorted out at the present consultation stage. It would be astonishing if a vast document were not capable of improvement on matters of detail — for example, clarification of which newspaper is "appropriate" for publication of details.
But in my view to attack the central theme of the proposals, as Ralph Cropper does, is both futile and dangerous. The modest scope of the proposals means that it is also unnecessary.
• by Reg Dawson