|
|
|
A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST |
|
REPRESENTING BRITAIN’S, DRIVERS TO THE GOVERNMENT? (OR THE OTHER WAY ROUND?) GOVERNMENT FORUM IS A TROJAN
HORSE FOR LOBBYIST
INTERESTS? |
|
BACKGROUND Another article
reviewed the Government’s response to Alan Cook’s ‘independent’ report on investment in major roads in England
(‘the Cook report’ that came out in Nov 2011). In particular, the response
identified follow-up actions, like:
The little-known ‘Motorists Forum’
was identified as the government’s preferred liaison point over these tasks. It is interesting that in the past,
the HA has consulted a National Road Users’ Committee. However it is
difficult to trace any minutes of its meetings or anything about its
composition or method of working on the HA website. |
|
REPRESENTING INTERESTS – BUT ARE THEY MOTORISTS? The Motorists’ Forum was originally a
tame body set up by John Prescott, the former Labour Transport Secretary who
was ideologically committed to driving people out of their cars. Hardly
surprising that he set up a forum representing mainly political and commercial
interests, although a minority interest (disabled drivers) was represented. Let’s look at the current representation
– co-ordinated by the DFT. Campaigners for Bigger
Transport subsidies? Stephen Joseph is the representative
of the amazingly named Campaign for
Better Transport (CfBT) – a facelift of the old ‘Transport 2000’ that was
funded by public transport companies and trade unions. CfBT lobbies for public transport
and has explicitly campaigned for drivers’ interests to be relegated,
It has backed removing road space from drivers; and opposed parking
provision, new roads, motorway widening and a fuel duty
stabiliser (on the grounds that drivers might pay less tax!). CfBT’s 2010
Annual Report noted that “In Nottingham we helped campaigners lobby the
Government to get approval for a workplace parking Ievy”, and were for ‘reclaiming
public space from traffic’. Incredibly their 2011
Annual Report claimed that “There is no detriment or harm associated with our
activities...”. Clearly private motorists don’t
count. Joseph has also been a supporter
of road pricing (to curb travel, rather than as a means of providing new road
capacity). CfBT reported difficulty in raising
funds – they did however get grants
of over £10,000 from public bodies like Transport for London and Network
Rail. CfBT London Group Newsletter, No 18, May 2013, rejoiced that
after some mothers in Bristol broke the law to arbitrarily close a
residential street to traffic, ‘play streets’ were being set up in London. Sian Berry, coordinator of CfBT’s
Roads to Nowhere campaign, welcomed
the Highways
Agency’s backsliding on plans to open up the congested M60’s hard shoulder on
environmental grounds. She felt it should set a precedent on opening up major
routes to more traffic. The RAC Foundation –
‘Raising Additional Cash’? There are several RAC Foundation
(RACF) connections. RACF is not exactly a ‘grass roots’ organisation that
stands up for the motorist – it is classed as a charitable foundation, but has
promoted unpopular measures like speed
cameras, which drivers see as hyped and about making money. Its Director, Prof. Stephen Glaister
is a road pricing addict and a road pricing evangelist. His background is
mainly in rail, and he was seen as politically correct enough for Ken
Livingstone to appoint to the Board of Transport for London. By pure coincidence, he has also been a special adviser to
rail body, the Office of Rail Regulation, which DFT has considered
for representing the interests of drivers on major roads issues! Glaister recently called for a major
expansion
of the congestion charge in London and then immediately across the core
cities of the UK. RACF criticised the Government
decision to dissuade the Cook review from explicitly considering any form of pay-as-you-go driving. Roads Minister Mike Penning
appointed another Livingstone appointee to chair the Motorists’ Forum - RACF Chairman
David Quarmby, with a public
sector (Ministry of Transport), public transport (mainly rail) and academia credentials. An internet search was carried out
for identifiable appointees to RACF’s Public Policy Committee. Reviewing their
backgrounds, and those of a number of RACF’s leading officials, hardly gave
much confidence in credentials that represent the majority of motorists. Their interests have often been in
public transport, rail, aviation, etc; government, consultancy or selling
services (like insurance) that make money out of
motorists. Quarmby defended
the current speed regime after the new Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner,
Stephen Bett, called for more driver-friendly speed limits and a common sense
approach to regulations and limits. (Quarmby has since retired as Chairman
and recently been replaced by Joe Greenwell)..
The RAC RACF is distinct from RAC Group, which
supplies two of its directors. The Group provides services such as vehicle
examinations, breakdown cover and wider insurance. Formerly part of insurance
giant Aviva, the group is now part of US-based asset sweaters, the Carlyle
Group, whose interests include road
pricing, and who also bid
for a speed camera manufacturer, Redflex. RAC Group is now represented on the
Forum by RAC Motoring Services’ Technical
Director, David Bizley who confirms that “RAC
is not opposed to the principle of
road pricing and other reasonable measures...”... and seems blandly dismissive
of driver resentment. “UK motorists feel they are being
treated as a cash cow by government and it’s vital that their opinions are
not ignored in this process. Any attempt to introduce road pricing will need
to be explained carefully so that
people understand the benefits
such as incentivising driving at times and in places where roads are least
utilised” road pricing’... ...we believe a ‘pay
as you drive’ based solution is probably the least unattractive option”. Drivers currently are aware of
timing their journeys to avoid delays and congestion and do not need to be
charged for the privilege of driving in it! (Other Carlyle overseas road pricing
links: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/~engel/pubs/efg_revamp.pdf
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1815 http://infolution.wordpress.com/category/toll-roads/) The AA The AA (now part of insurance group Acromas Holdings) is represented by former RACF Director,
Edmund King, who has in the past talked
up ‘drive time road pricing’... ‘the only way ahead is a voluntary system that shows
motorists they can benefit’. At the height of the national debate on
road pricing in early 2007, when nearly 2 million signed the petition against
it, the AA was equivocal and sat on
the fence – “it's still too early to support or
oppose”.
King,
however, was still with RACF, who argued for a new approach to road pricing
which should include re-branding the concept, and building it into a wider
package to make it appeal
more to motorists (e.g. with stolen vehicle
tracking, pay-as-you-go insurance, e-call). The AA group benefits from
government patronage – e.g. it has in the past won contracts for privatised
services, and today provides ‘speed awareness courses’ through its ‘AA
Drivetech’ arm. The AA and PACTS jointly lobbied
for speed cameras to escape recent spending cuts. The Centre for Automotive
Management The Centre for Automotive Management is represented by Christopher
Macgowan, formerly of manufacturers and traders’ group SMMT, and Vice Chairman
of the Motorists’ Forum. He is also listed
as Chairman of DFT’s Interoperability Forum which will “help
steer the delivery of interoperability between different road pricing schemes”,
and ‘Chairman, RAC
Foundation Network’. Other interests –
commercial, government, lobbyist.... Other interests represented are
commercial (e.g. ABI, BVRLA, FTA, SMMT) or
government (e.g. DFT, TFL); the controversial private company run by chief
police officers (ACPO) and lobbyist forum PACTS. FTA
and BVRLA
seem to both welcome the government’s lorry road user charging (LRUC) plans and at
the same time moan
about the possible harm to their members! Paul Everitt, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), seemed a level headed person, but he left the industry and the Forum in 2013. Garrett Emmerson, a Director of Transport for London (TFL), comes across as a public figure who listens, but he is tasked to represent English local authorities (LAs). Under Cook’s vision, the LAs might end up with a wider roads remit and, like SMMT, be seen as ‘supplier’ to drivers rather than ‘customer’. The ‘Cook Report’
(p66, p75) regards ‘route based strategies’ being discussed from 2012
as an opportunity for local and national government to ‘build a consensus’ on tolling routes
that are currently free. Cook envisages discussion between highways
authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships (which seem to be substantially-seconded
from local councils). The voice of insurers The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is represented on the
Motorists’ Forum. The Competition Commission recently launched a full-scale investigation
into the car insurance industry after it was found that drivers were being
ripped off by at least £225 million a year. An Office of Fair Trading report
uncovered evidence that premiums were being inflated by excessive costs in
repairs and providing replacement cars. Journalist Mike Rutherford criticised
the ABI for not putting its house in order before. The ABI defines its role to be “the
voice of the UK insurance industry, leading debate and speaking up for
insurers". As opposed to ‘drivers’.... The ABI is hardly a disinterested
party in any commercialisation of England’s roads – the Government announced in
its 2011 Autumn statement that they were working together to set up an
Insurers’ Infrastructure Investment Forum. The Government has targeted up to
£20 billion of investment from this initiative and UK pension funds. The voice of lobbyists On the Forum Chief Constable Phil Gormley has represented ACPO – a private company for whom
‘road policing’ is a ‘business area’. Its associated company, Road Safety Support
Ltd, assists speed camera partnerships in prosecuting drivers. Although he
favours the police moving away from targets, he wants more drivers sent on
offender courses. ACPO and RACF have collaborated over the courses. His roads policing predecessor, CC
Mick Giannasi felt:
"There is not a war on the motorist and there never has been”. ACPO recently supported Brake in calling for a ban on
hands-free phones. This met with public disbelief, as using hands free
responsibly is no worse than listening to the traffic programme, Would they
ban car radios too? Private company PACTS is a diverse forum attended by representatives of the ‘road
safety industry’ and others interested in transport safety. Its Executive Director and first representative on the
Motorists’ Forum, Robert Gifford, is
hardly ‘independent’ of DFT – he was also listed as
an external research adviser to the DFT on road safety, a special adviser to
the Transport Select Committee and a member of the Ministerial Road Safety
Advisory Panel. He recently maligned
drivers as being 'carcooned’ – sitting in increasingly safer cars with less
concern for the pedestrians and cyclists.
PACTS and the AA have jointly lobbied
for speed cameras to escape recent spending cuts. (David Davies has recently
replaced him as PACTS’ rep). The ‘DFT’ side of appointees to the
Forum includes Graham Dalton,
chief executive of the Highways Agency,
hardly a disinterested party when the government supports Cook’s view that it
should sweat maximum economic return from the road network. Why
should DFT have to seek clear evidence of ‘what drivers want’ when it already
has it? As part of the DFT programme Making Better Use of the Road Network (MBURN),
the MVA consultancy engaged with drivers to identify transport measures that
would enjoy general support. In 2011, it presented its findings that ‘road
charging options’ were ‘distinctly unpopular’. Consultation alert In 2013, DFT launched a consultation
which quietly hinted at the little-known Motorists’ Forum being a possible ‘champion
of the driver’. Several of its members – and certain anti-motorist groups -
are being consulted
to provide direction for the Transport Focus ‘motorists’ watchdog’. Watch
this space! |
|
|
|
ANNEX – SOME MORE INTERESTING CONNECTIONS Watch this space as more information
comes to light. Remember that the whole business of
road pricing and infrastructure sweating is not just a DFT initiative – DFT
is working closely with the Treasury, who have a major financial interest in
national infrastructure. Under new guidelines,
measures for ‘demand management’ (which may include ‘access rationing’) are
to be considered in infrastructure planning. By pure coincidence, the Treasury ‘Infrastructure UK’
Advisory Board has included a representative of Arup, a consultancy that
collaborates with RACF over promoting road pricing. Again, by pure
coincidence, a report
advocating road pricing was produced by the ‘connectivity commission’ of the
lobbying group, London First, the Chairman of whose Board is from Arup. One
of their ‘commissioners’ is from a consulting firm linked to asset sell-offs,
and another from a specialist company in ‘Intelligent Transport Systems’ – a
term that covers tracking and charging technology. Then there’s an executive
of Australian bank Macquarie, who own the currently loss-making M6T toll
road! This London First report
also gives a plug for the ‘Cook report’. Senior Treasury Minister
and Chancellor George Osborne actually believes that “This Government has done more to support
motorists than any other”. FOOTNOTE This article was originally compiled in 2012. The Alliance of British
Drivers secured representation as a grass roots motoring group on a new
official road user forum, ‘Transport Focus’, in March 2015. |
|
|
|
Campaign index |
‘Fair Deal’ home page |
Site map |
