Waiting for Armitage
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Transport Minister Norman Fowler and his Department should to Sir Arthur.
ALL THROUGH the summer, every reference to the heavy lorry will evoke the picture of Sir Arthur Armitage, flanked by his four acolytes, doggedly making his way through the pile of repetitive evidence that he has brought upon himself. After such an experience, he would be excused for hoping — with some of his witnesses — that he never sees a lorry again.
Transport Minister Norman Fowler and his Department should be grateful to Sir Arthur. They have a breathing space during which his name is sufficient to conjure away even the most awkward criticism.
The consequent expectation that his report will have the same effect may not be of much comfort to him. The volume, if not the variety, of the evidence will have shown him how much importance people attach to his task. The issue has been building up for a long time — since well before British membership Of the EEC introduced another emotive dimension.
Sir Arthur could well have imagined himself the focus of the kind of demonstration that is becoming more and more familiar, where slogans are shouted, or displayed on banners, by opposing factions both demanding the solution to their problems.
Not all the evidence has gone to extremes. There is a fairly general willingness to see both sides of the case.
Among the supporters of the lorry there ought to be signs of battle fatigue. They have already had to present their case over and over again in statements before and after committees of inquiry (including the Foster committee), budgets, consultative government reports, definitive government reports and subsequent legislation. Resentment of the persis tent sniping from the anti-road lobby might be excused.
But the road transport representatives continue to respect their opponents case. They admit that their vehicles cause damage, inconvenience and nuisance in general. It is against this background that they put their own arguments_ Most of the opponents are equally courteous. One or two veer towards the opinion that the best way to cope with the heavy lorry is to abolish it, or even to abolish the traffic. More often, the lorry is accepted as essential, with the accompanying recommendation that it should be curbed and discouraged in every way and that certainly there can be no increase in weight or size.
The existence of a middle ground where there appears to be agreement between the two sides must have encouraged the extreme moderation of professedly neutral organisations such as the Department of the Environment. The keynote of its memorandum to Sir Arthur is concern "that the necessary level of traffic should be provided while minimising damage to the environment.
This innocuous approach is applied to every aspect of the problem. The memorandum advises, for example, that "environmental and economic gains and costs need to be carefully studied in deciding whether heavier or bigger lorries should be introduced and there should be no relaxation of
existing or prospective standards, eg on noise or emission, in order to accommodate them.
The firm conclusion of the statement gives the impression of a positive proposal. It does no more, however, than advocate something with which everybody agrees. The call merely for -careful study" on the wider issue is of no help.
According to witnesses before the Armitage committee, a considerable proportion of the discussion was devoted to the heavier lorry. It is a subject on which Sir Arthur must be expected to reach a definite conclusion. The public wish him to say whether he favours a weight increase and, if so, to what level.
No sensible compromise can be devised to please most, or displease fewest, people. It would be absurd to take the bottom and the top weights suggested and fix a figure half way between them. It would be equally absurd to suggest, as politicians are fond of doing, that equal hostility from both sides must mean that the proposed solution is about, right.
Most of the organisations giving evidence would prefer the maximum weights to remain as they are or even be reduced. This case has some unexpected supporters. Transport and General Workers Union's Jack Ashwell, for example, has told Sir Arthur that most operators neither want nor need larger lorries.
Representatives of those operators say, on the contrary, that an increase would be welcome. They have put a strong case, although the arguments on the other side are not negligible. Sir Arthur will not find it easy to decide.
It has been an advantage to the organisations supporting the lorry that they agree on the basic requirements. Their separate evidence could be collated without significant contradictions appearing.
The other side, made up of • various elements in the protest industry, shows no such cohesion. Each category of objector has in mind a different environment, and sees the future role of the lorry in a different way.
There is a wide variety in forecasting. Some organisations envisage a continual expansion of goods traffic and of the accompanying environmental problem. Others see no reason to cater for such an expansion, but have other objections to the lorry.
Its opponents will keep up the pressure. although Sir Arthur is no longer taking evidence. The road transport organisations must also use any opportunity to re-state their case.