Party pieces
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The following document has fallen into the hands of Janus. It purports to be an internal Department of Transport memorandum from the Permanent Secretary to the Freight Directorate UnderSecretary. The fact that its authenticity has not been confirmed by professor TrevorRoper does not necessarily mean that it is genuine. Janus admits that he has been watching a lot of Yes Minister videos recently.
DURING the few weeks' blessed peace of the election campaign you are no doubt preparing the usual briefs for incoming Ministers, according to Party. In doing so, please bear in mind the following.
The theme of the brief for a new Tory Minister should be "More of the same". The move from 38 to 40 tonnes as a quid pro quo for the Prime Minister's impending better EEC budget deal has, as you know, already been agreed in principle. However, it will need much better presentation, especially to back-bench Tories, than the subArmitage package received. Is there any other part of a lorry on which we could require some bars to be fitted? They may serve no useful purpose, but the general public sees these as evidence that Ministers mean what they say about "taming juggernauts".
However, all this may become very difficult. There are already signs that the RHA and FTA would actually resist any further maximum weight increase because of the Chancellor's determination to squeeze every possible pound out of Vehicle Excise Duty on lorries. Since the PM's EEC budget triumph depends on harmonisation of weights we might have to force an increase down the industry's throat. The new Minister should be warned that this could be politically embarrassing. We must not repeat our error of letting a new Minister think that the public will not notice; David Howell was very scathing about this over his farewell drink.
The other policy to be vigorously pursued will be further reductions in Civil Service numbers, Despite the universal unpopularity of the test station sale, no one seems to realise that in total more staff will be employed to do the same job. Hence the higher test fees.
This convenient blind spot opens the way to seeking other candidates for privatisation. From the point of view of staff numbers the Traffic Area Offices are the most attractive prospect. Even an announcement that privatising them was being considered would have some advantages, since it would make it•possible to "defer" implementation of the new environmental controls on lorry operating centres, which have so upset the FTA. This would also avoid having to tell the LAs that they cannot have the extra staff they are demanding to operate the system.
Some will no doubt argue that licensing is a function that can only properly be performed by Government, but that need not be an obstacle. Much the same thing was said about vehicle testing, and we were able to ignore that. However, it is not immediately obvious who could respectably take it over. Lloyd's Register have shown themselves far too commercially minded over the test stations even to be considered.
Freddie Plaskett complained recently that so many undischarged bankrupts were , getting 0-licences by various subterfuges that the system had become something of a gamble. If that is so, might William Hill or Ladbrokes be interested?
The brief for a Labour Minister will be much more difficult to prepare. We must, of course, respect the wishes of the electorate. On the other hand, our wider duty as Civil Servants demands that we should not allow Ministers to proceed down disastrous paths without pointing out the dangers they run. Only if they are deaf to our advice should we resort to less direct methods of persuasion.
The most immediate difficulty with a Labour Minister will be over withdrawal from the EEC. You and I know that would be a catastrophe. Unfortunately, getting out seems to be quite popular with the general public; the Civil Service seems to be the only substantial body of pro-EEC opinion.
Cynics will no doubt continue to attribute this to the delights of frequent expenses-paid trips to Brussels and Luxembourg, and to the resultant regular supply of duty-free whisky; we know better. There are many ways in which road transport benefits from our EEC membership. Admittedly they do not spring immediately to mind, but between us we ought to be able to think of at least a few to list in the brief.
However, realistically we must expect that this list will not persuade a new Minister to adopt a pro-EEC stance. We must therefore introduce him to the more obvious benefits of EEC membership. The brief should recommend he visit Brussels as soon as possible for discussions with the Commissioner — ostensibly on the mechanism for withdrawal.
I need not remind you of previous anti-EEC Ministers who have come to recognise the merits of Europe after such a visit, especially after some years in the perks-free desert of opposition. The VIP flight in a private jet, the journey from the airport in the British Ambassador's Rolls-Royce (so much more comfortable than the Ministerial Rover) the police motorcycle escort and the hospitality which the Commission is expert at dispensing — these have worked wonders before, and may do so again.
Re-nationalisation of the NFC will also need careful handling. is sometimes suggested that it would be impossible because most of the NFC's shareholders are also trade unionists. Although this is the line to be emphasised in the brief I doubt whether it will work out that way.
You will recall that the previous Government's anxiet\. to rid itself of the NFC meant th. (as with other sales of nationalised assets) the purchasers got a bargain. The growth in the value of the NFC'l shares since then simply reflect this fact. Once the profits from sales of property acquired at knock-down prices come to an end the shareholders may positively welcome the State buying back the company. And the fact that most shareholders are trade unionists would simp make it difficult for a Labour Government not to pay overgenerous compensation. So thi taxpayer would lose twice over We might try out on Peter Thompson the idea of changinc the Consortium into a Cooperative. That could provide way out. But that idea should n. be mentioned in the brief. It should be kept up our sleeves until Ministers become desperate.
I need not deal here with the pro-rail freight policy. This is covered in the attached* copy c my note to the Railways Under. Secretary.
(*Janus did not receive a copy this. It is believed to have been leaked to Transport 2000 in the traditional way.)