Foster: too much left unspoken
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CM argues that Prof Foster's proposals simply are not practicd
THE REPORT by the independent committee of inquiry set up by the Transport Secretary on December 13, 1977, was published in January 1978. The members of the committee were: Professor C. D. Foster; D. J. H. Candy, OBE, formerly Metropolitan Police (Traffic); A. P. Coldrick, OBE, former general secretary, Transport Salaried Staffs Association; B. M. Currie, FCA, an accountant: Conrad Dehn, QC, a barrister: Sir Alexander Dune, CBE, formerly director-general of the Automobile Association; C. M. Hall, director. Council for the Protection of Rural England; Sir Stanley Homes, DL, a lawyer.
They were assisted on request by P. J. Mackie, an economist; C. H. Palmer, a director of the Transport Development Group: L. S. Payne. distribution director of J. C. Sainsbury and a statistician, A. H. Wa!son. CBE. The two road transport assessors were called to assist "quite frequently". The committee met on 64 days.
The report is now being considered by "interested parties." Eventually Parliament will consider the report and the views of interested parties. All of the 91 recommendations, or some part of them, may become law by 1981.
The committee was invited by the Secretary of State "to consider the effectiveness of the Operators' Licensing system of road freight transport introduced by the Transport Act 1968, as amended, and to make recommendations for any changes in the system or its practical application which would improve the quality and efficiency of the road freight industry, bearing in mind Government policy for that industry as recently announced in the Transport Policy White Paper."
These terms of reference, were laid down on December 12, 1977. On December 15, 1978 the committee report began as follows under the title of "objectives"!
"1 1. We have concluded that the purpose of operators' licensing should be to promote road safety, to help protect the environment from heavy goods vehicles and to prevent undue damage to the roads."
The 91 recommendations are based on that conclusion.
An examination of the committee's terms of reference from the Secretary of State, and its objects as seen by its members, suggests that during its 12 months of deliberations it somehow lost direction, pro ducing the answer to a question which it had not been set.
Under "major recommendations", the report catalogues 44 aspects which demand atten tion. They vary from the need for track costs to be estimated annually, to give policy and goods vehicle examiners access to computer-based statistics of all goods vehicles to aid quick identity.
Recommendation (1) reads "That a permanent committee should be set up to review track costs annually and to make and publish recommendations for the appropriate level of vehicle excise duty to be charged on each category of vehicle." The main report, while recommending an annual review, does not say what evidence will be required or its sources. It is much too vague.
Presumably track costs. when considered officially, are meant to finance road-building and repairs. This is a financial burden carried by national and local government.
The local amount will vary depending on the outlook of the council and the standards set by the highways engineer. Most of the local expenditure is met through local rates initially and rate support grants have to be justified by evidence.
The Foster method carries the danger that local authorities will load their road-building and repair bill or genuinely improve their standard of maintenance. Unless the track cost committee may examine estimates and can assess standards, its track cost analysis can be no better than an educated guess.
The danger is that the weight of public opinion will accept the guess to "punish" heavy goods vehicle operators for damaging their environment. They will fail to recognise the economic fact that increased transport costs for whatever reason will be reflected in consumer goods prices.
Foster's second recommendation deals with roadside checks by vehicles examiners, which should be extended to night-time and weekends, according to the report. The trouble is that the committee's evidence clearly shows that only one-third of the examiners' time was devoted to goods vehicles in 1977 and that priority was given to annual testing. Local authorities felt that the examiners were unable to give sufficient time to vet new applicants.
Despite Foster's views to the contrary, it would not be possible to step up checks on appliclants and extend roadside checks without considerably increasing staffing levels. The increased salary bill for roadside checks is estimated at £100,000, which would pay for 20 per cent of the time of 10 per cent more examiners. This is not a lot of money but would it be effective? Controlling the quality of new applicants would go a long way towards improving the quality and efficiency of the industry.
There are also practical difficulties for vehicle examiners operating at night. Although not impossible, roadside examinations in the hours of darkness present problems unless they are to be conducted in permanent centres. This would of course add to the cost and take away the spot-check surprise element. It would fail to apprehend the real culprits who would find a way round the station
The permanent station idea is what Foster has in mind, particularly at motorway service areas and on what the report describes as "high-speed roads". In evidence, motorway area tenants said they would not welcome a test station on their. premises. Foster correctly argues that safety should be put before the commercial interests of the tenancies.
Yet anyone knowingly running a defective vehicle will seldom be caught. The less fast roads around the "obstacle" would soon become well used. Equipping a service area with a test sta tion will involve considerable cost and unless all are so equipped on motorways, then those that are will soon be deserted.
Apart from the cost, there is also the problem of administration. Not every vehicle can be pulled in for inspection or traffic schedules would be disrupted. Regular trunk vehicles would be liable for inspection every night because the report does not make any recommendations on how long a clearance certificate might last, nor does it propose that repair facilities should be working to clear defects on the spot. Too much is left to conjecture. It may be a good idea but it will not work