Ygo radic
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Janus
While the glamorous section of the transport industry was being promoted at one end of Whitehall, very different treatment was being dished out to inland transport at the others
Carrier or customer?
THE TOP officials in the Department of Transport are well-known to trade association officers, but almost unknown, even by name, to the rest of the industry. So an announcement that two top DTp officials are swopping some duties would normally go totally unremarked.
However, a move last month raises some Important questions affecting every operator In all modes of transport.
It was widely reported in the press that the top Dip official responsible for civil aviation was unhappy with Nicholas Ridley's policy of deregulating that industry. It was said that he felt the interests of British airlines were not being sufficiently considered.
Mr Ridley, on the other hand, is said to regard the interests of the passenger as paramount. And if these were best served by a deal which favoured foreign airlines against their British competitors, that was too bad for the British airlines.
Ministers make policies, which have to be implemented by their officials whether they agree with them or not. But when a fundamental disagreement becomes public knowledge the results can be embarrassing.
So civil aviation was transferred to another DTp mandarin already responsible for trying to liberalise international road haulage within the EEC. The implication is clear. The liberalisation objective will be pursued regardless of the interests of British airlines — or of British international hauliers.
For the haulier there is nothing new in this. British inland transport policy has become increasingly consumeroriented over the past 25 years. Why has civil aviation been treated differently?
The answer lies in the merrygo-round which has governed Ministerial responsibility for transport during the last quarter century. In 1959 the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation lost the last half of its title, For five years aviation had its own Ministry. It was then transferred to the Board of Trade. And It remained with Trade until it was transferred back to Transport last summer.
During its 25-year "exile" the Industry was cossetted by Its political and civil service
masters because it was seen as a major foreign currency earner. It was promoted In the same way, and with as much enthusiasm, as exports of Scotch whisky.
In particular, enormous efforts were put into negotiating wide landing and traffic rights for British airlines in foreign countries. This is done through inter-governmental treaties. The most spectacular example of this happened in the Seventies. Britain abruptly cancelled the original agreement with America, negotiated immediately after the Second World War.
Ministers and civil servants put enormous political pressure into getting a new version giving Britain's airlines a much bigger share of the key trans-Atlantic market. PanAm and TWA complained bitterly that their own Government had sold them down the river. But their British competitors were full of praise for their protectors.
These efforts were justified on the grounds that the whole country benefited from the increased employment generated by a large civil aviation industry, as well as the foreign currency it generated. Nevertheless those carrying out the policy would no doubt have argued that the passenger benefited from a wider choice of airline to many destinations.
While the glamorous section of the transport industry was being promoted at one end of
Whitehall, vary different treatment was being dished out to inland transport at the other. The Beaching plan aimed to make the railways commercially viable, by providing only those services — freight and passenger — for which there was a demand. The Geddes report wanted to sweep away the carriers' licensing system which had, at least in theory, protected existing carriers, road and rail, from new competition for over 30 years.
More recently, the coach industry has received the same treatment. And now stage carriage is to be similarly treated.
One unexpected aspect of these moves was that, on the whole, they were accepted by the industries affected. And this acceptance has, if anything, grown stronger with the passage of time. Railway management (unlike some politicians) does not want traffic forcibly directed onto their system. And the RHA continues to oppose any form of capacity control, though it would like to see some of the existing quality controls tightened up. Whether the busmen's current reluctance will survive the actuality of Mr Ridley's plans remains to be seen.
So when civil aviation was transferred from Trade to Transport last summer the civil servants concerned suffered a culture shock. The interests of the industry they sponsored were no longer paramount. Henceforth, the passenger's interests were to be treated as supreme.
This episode is not simply an everyday story of aviation folk. It holds lessons for hauliers.
The RHA supports a domestic liberal licensing policy. But It discovered some time ago that different considerations apply In International transport. While other countries protect their own hauliers, liberalisation does not benefit the British international haulier. Foreign lorries come and go as they please, with no check of the permits insisted on by their own governments. Well over 50 per cent of UK traffic with West Germany is hauled by Dutch or Belgian hauliers, because
Britain has not enough permits to meet the demand.
The RHA change of policy has attracted a lot of criticism from many sources, including the House of Lords. Its presentation could certainly have been improved, but the association has a point.
Imagine the position of the British international haulier if the Government had treated him in the same way as the aviation industry. He would now be carrying at least half the traffic with each foreign country. Bulgarian and other East European hauliers would not be able to "dump" their services on the British market to earn hard currency. The transit taxes, the limitations on the entry of duty-free fuel, the weekend lorry bans and much else that he has to suffer would be reciprocated here.
The present position is quite different. But the DTp is not worried. So long as goods move — as they do, give or take the odd dock strike — it does not matter who moves them.
That seems extraordinarily short-sighted. Perhaps the Department of Trade's aviation policy had a point.