AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Muted response to MPs' safety report

7th November 1996
Page 24
Page 24, 7th November 1996 — Muted response to MPs' safety report
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

After hearing evidence for three months, the all-party Transport Select Committee's Report into The Adequacy and Enforcement Regulations Governing Heavy Goods Vehicles clearly demanded a major response from the Department of Transport. But have we got one?

by Brian Weatherley

• Gwyneth Dunwoody's verdict on the Government's reply to the most comprehensive investigation into road transport enforcement ever undertaken is unequivocal: "They've failed to provide any adequate realistic answer to a cross-party report, which was based on evidence from the industry."

But is Dunwoody, the senior Labour member of the select committee, right in her condemnation of the DOT—or is she merely trying to score political points?

Much of what the committee called for has been rejected by the DOT (see tint box). And many of its answers are little more than a reiteration, or justification of existing policy. So did the DOT ignore everything the committee called for?

The depaitment has accepted the phasing out of domestic hours law in favour of EU regulations: "Not only because having two separate and different sets of rules creates complica tions and areas of overlap hut also because UK rules are difficult to enforce."

It tried to dump the separate domestic rules in 1994, but says it's reconsidering its legal position after a decision from the European Court of Justice.

After recent criticisms of the Vehicle Inspectorate's enforcement weighing programme, the DOT agrees with the committee's recommendation that 'enforcement effort should concentrate most on drivers' hours and the mechanical condition of vehicles."

But there's no promise of extra funding to combat the problem and little else beyond the fact that the VI is conducting more silent checks and "considering the establishment of a national database of vehicle sightings as part of the Joint Enforcement Database Initiative". This would enhance the effectiveness of retrospective tacho checks.

The committee wants the DOT to accept responsibility for funding a central computer database of haulage miscreants to "improve the exchange of information among regulatory and enforcement bodies."

But all the DOT will say is that it "accepts the benefit which a more co-ordinated database will bring to enforcement", and has promised a progress report to Parliament before Christmas.

A central computer database is vital if enforcement is to be improved—the VI makes no secret of the fact that the database is the key to introducing impounding. It would also enable TAO staff to conduct a more comprehensive check on 0-licence applicants—something else the committee wants.

The DOT is finally prepared to consider laden testing for provisional HGV drivers. Up until now it's shied away from it, citing problems of insurance

for examiners and sourcing loaded trailers for artic tests.

However, it has queried the cost of modifying test centres to take heavier trucks and longer tests.

In fairness, some recommendations are beyond the DOT's control, like magistrates placing stiffer penalties on rogue hauliers and empowering traffic wardens and vehicle examiners to stop vehicles for roadside checks. Or getting the private sector to provide rest facilities for HGV drivers.

So was all the hard work for nothing? With Parliamentary time limited before the next elec

tion, the committee shouldn't be surprised that the Government has given its report a cool reception. The current Treasury squeeze on public spending means that the DOT is not in a position to spend heavily on changes to enforcement.

In her rebuke to the Government Dunwoody says: "The only people who don't understand the problems are the department." Judging by its muted response the DOT probably knows only too well what those problems are—and what it will cost to solve them.


comments powered by Disqus