Integration, but at what 'price?
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM THE 1947 Transport Act onwards, right up to last month's General Election, the Labour Party has advocated an integrated transport policy. Equally consistently, the Conservatives have opposed the idea as undesirable in principle and impossible to achieve in practice.
Integrationist elements of Labour legislation have been revoked by Conservative Governments. But they have gone further than this. Immediately after winning the 1959 General Election the Macmillan Government deprived the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of the last three words of its title. And before the 1964 General Election the Douglas-Home Government planned to hive off merchant shipping to join aviation under the wing of the Board of Trade. The incoming Labour Government implemented this plan, despite its anti-integrationist implications.
The submerging of the Transport Ministry into the Department of the Environment in 1970 confused the issue a little. In practice, however, John Peyton went out of his way to run his side of Peter Walker's vast empire as though it were still a separate Ministry.
And in 1976 the omelette was unscrambled and the inland transport industry once again had its own representative in the Cabinet, though now following the fashion of being called a Secretary of State, while the outfit he headed was called a Department.
But the new Department was still confined to inland transport. Increasingly this caused problems in the EEC, which began to take more and more interest in shipping and aviation matters. This meant that Britain had to be represented by two Ministers — each with his own retinue of supporting bureaucrats — at meetings of the Council of Ministers.
Now all forms of transport are again under one Minister. As this journal said last month, such increased responsibility should mean that the status of the Secretary of State is enhanced. And since the first holder of the newly enlarged responsibilities was previously in Ministerial charge of the giant and prestigious Environment Department, it seems that the Prime Minister implicitly accepts that view.
But although increased political influence must be welcomed by everyone in all sectors of the industry, there are also reasons for concern. The CM leader already mentioned pointed out the extraordinary failure to appoint an additional junior Minister to cope with the enormously heavier workload. The Department of Trade used to have a Minister of State solely to look after shipping and aviation. That post has been abolished, and two already very hard-worked junior Ministers at the DTp are expected to cope without any augmentation. That surely cannot last.
In addition, there is the enormous workload stemming from the transfer. Something like 1,400 staff are involved. This alone presents problems of personnel management. In addition, there will be innumerable problems of organisation. For example, should there be a merger of the Directorates dealing with international matters and the EEC on inland transport, civil aviation and merchant shipping?
The transport of dangerous and radio-active goods raises similar questions. There are many more. They are of little interest to the average haulier or coach operator, but they have to be resolved. And their resolution absorbs almost all the time and energy of the top civil servants, to the exclusion of matters of more immediate importance to the industry.
Add to this the sensitive question of whether all the enlarged DTp can be brought under one roof, and if so where, and it will be surprising if there will be time for much original thinking by the top officials for several months to come.
But even when the organisation and accommodation questions are resolved, and the inevitable additional Minister is appointed, there will still be disadvantages for the road transport industry. The brightest and most energetic junior Minister (and the DTp has been fortunate with Lynda Chalker and her predecessor Kenneth Clarke) is a poor substitute for the Secretary of State, where important matters of policy or legislation are concerned.
And with the best will in the world Tom King is simply not going to be able to make himself available to the road transport industry's leaders as readily as David Howell, Norman Fowler and Bill Rodgers. He is bound to have even bigger worries.
The British merchant shipping industry is in such a serious condition that even the current problems of road hauliers pale into insignificance. This is bound to be given a high priority on industrial grounds alone. In addition, last year's events in the South Atlantic underlined the defence importance of retaining a healthy merchant fleet.
Nor does civil aviation lack its
worries. The privatisation 0. British Airways and the deregulation of domestic air services both raise political, financial and legal question the highest importance.
In comparison with these topics, subjects dear to the transport industry — downlicensing, for example, or hi speed limits on dual carriageways — are trivia. Where the issues are simplE and the speed limit increase surely falls into that categor sheer pressure of work may drive Mr King to act quickly simply to clear the decks.
The likely handling of cloy licensing under the new reg better illustrates the point. Ii may seem a simple matter t industry. But as seen by the there are three complicatior the loss of tax revenue, the increased danger of evasior and the likelihood of claims similar treatment from othe whose lorries cause belowaverage road wear, perhaps because of low average milE This is not of general publ interest; and there is no poli kudos to be gained from resolving the matter. It is thi. ideal for a junior Minister to handle, while Tom King trie: get British Airways into a financial state which might tempt a buyer.
This is equivalent to sayin the DTp's own civil servants to the Treasury, that Tom Kii does not think the matter important. Against that sort background even the bright( junior Minister has little chai of overcoming the entrench( opposition of the bureaucral even if he wants to.
Road transport tends to re the term "integrated transpc policy" as a code for railway preference. Ironically the Pal which does not believe in su policy has nevertheless rest( an integrated Transport Ministry. As a result, though doubt unintentionally, road transport seems likely to fin( itself downgraded.