THE impartiality of the Transport Research Laboratory could be jeopardised by the government鈥檚 privatisation plans, warns former transport minister Peter Bottomley.
The two groups in the running to take over the 66-year-old government research organisation made their final proposals to the Department of Transport late last month. The existing management is proposing a buyout and would set up a foundation to carry on the work of the lab much as it is now. The other group is a controversial consortium consisting of consultants and two bastions of the road lobby 鈥� the AA and the RAC.
Many critics argue that the independence of the laboratory will be compromised if the commercial consortium wins. 鈥淲e are at risk of losing parts that matter 鈥� confidence and continuity,鈥� Bottomley told New 杏吧原创. A commercial laboratory will not command the trust of government and the public in the same way, he says.
Advertisement
The big fear is that the vested interests of the two pro-road organisations could skew research priorities. 鈥淲hy be an owner if you can鈥檛 have any impact on what goes on?鈥� asks Hugh Davies, a retired TRL researcher. 鈥淭here are better ways of making a profit than buying a research lab.鈥�
The TRL has traditionally carried out a wide range of research, including devising ways of traffic calming, evaluating toddlers鈥� car seats, monitoring vehicle emissions and working on pedestrian safety. Its results have been 鈥渧ital鈥� in shaping transport policy, says Bottomley, who was junior transport minister from 1986 to 1989.
Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, agrees that a key part of the lab鈥檚 work is to provide knowledge and expertise to government. 鈥淚f the RAC and the AA were the successful bid then it is possible that they could influence government policy,鈥� he says.
Lynn Sloman of the pressure group Transport 2000 agrees that under the consortium research which could influence government policy on road safety or environmental issues could be abandoned. The RAC and the AA 鈥渃onsistently argue for more and bigger roads鈥�, she says. Their ideas of road safety, she says, revolve around technologies such as airbags and rollover bars -鈥渁nything you can do to keep people in cars safe, even if it encourages them to drive faster and more dangerously鈥�.
The TRL鈥檚 top-rate research on pedestrian safety could be downgraded, says Davies, whose work at the lab focused on pedestrian welfare. 鈥淭hey seem to regard pedestrians as a nuisance best kept off the road.鈥� Bottomley told New 杏吧原创 that he knows of no commercial interest committed to the safety of pedestrians.
Critics also argue that results of research could be distorted. In November, for instance, the RAC released details of a study it commissioned on car dependency, reporting that people are dependent on their cars for 80 per cent of their journeys. 鈥淏ut this was a distortion,鈥� says Sloman. Only 20 per cent fell clearly into the 鈥渄ependent鈥� category. The remainder said that they could imagine alternatives but it was easier for them to travel by car. Jeremy Vanke, a spokesman for the RAC, later admitted 鈥渢here鈥檚 a lot of grey in the findings鈥�.
Vanke dismisses concerns about impartiality. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no way we would interfere with the work,鈥� he says. 鈥淲e will have no control over the results of the research and we鈥檒l be run by an independent advisory board, drawn from academia.鈥�
The management buyout has gained widespread support. More than a hundred private companies, professional societies and universities support the proposal. 鈥淚t鈥檚 the best way of trying to maintain and enhance the traditions of the lab,鈥� says Peter Jones of the Transport Studies Group at the University of Westminster, which has worked with the TRL. 鈥淚t has a good reputation for independence.鈥�