COMMEN'T
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MT! LISTEN TO THIS...
Is nothing sacred? Nowadays it seems it's not only journalists who can refuse to name their sources_ Apparently the Vehicle Inspectorate is getting in on the act, having declared that it won't reveal the identity of an informant, or the nature of any allegations, if it receives a tip-off that a haulier has been getting up to no good. "But I've got a right to know who my accusers are," splutters our old friend Joe Soap haulier, while carefully sprinkling his tea over last week's tacho charts. "How else am I going to defend myself without knowing who's been saying things about me?" Well, quite. It seems like yesterday that the United Road Transport Union was calling for protection for "whistleblowers". Mind you, if memory serves us right the URTU wasn't just demanding anonymity for informants, but also immunity from prosecution. Well if whistleblowers tell the VI their troubles they can take the first bit as read. Anonymity guaranteed. But is this really the way we should be enforcing the law? After whistleblowers, what next? Paid informants? And how will the VI weed out the spiteful from the public spirited—by taking each case to court? That could prove an expensive business. It might well be a good idea to protect the identity of informants, but if the Government spent more money on enforcement the VI wouldn't need whistleblowers; it could do the job itself. And that's why the Road Haulage Association is right to call for an increase in the cost of an 0-licence in order to fund better enforcement—and to hell with Treasury red tape. If the road transport industry is ever going to get rid of its bad apples it can't rely on unnamed deep-throats and whispering grasses to point them out. Law-abiding hauliers deserve better than that. And so, on a point of principle, does Joe Soap..,