by Janus Liffle tims
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
OLAS RIDLEY might turn r be the best Transport ter ever. Or he might prove a disastrous nonentity like of his predecessors. ibly he will lie somewhere man these extremes. We have to wait and see. , while making the fullest ance for the unfortunate 381 and personal
nstances which forced last h's re-shuffle on to the Minister, the whole port industry is surely ad to complain at the val of Tom King after only nonths in office.
road transport section of dustry will remember Mr as the Minister who finally ad Norman Fowler's daft ne — dreamed up in the ul irresponsibility and ance of opposition — to ff the goods vehicle test ns. Never before has a ssal united all interested Is in single-minded ity. Equally, never has a terial U-turn received a per welcome than Mr s.
practice it seems likely that treat started under his !cessor, and that Mr King Iy inherited the situation. aing in the right place p right time is f the secrets of success in nd above all in politics. So, ler justly or not, the glory main Mr King's.
it is not on the grounds of nal loss that the industry right to complain at Mr 3 removal. It will be seen as iother indication of the low ing of the Transport rtment in the policital rig order.
No long memory is needed to recall several humiliating incidents which show how successive Prime Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, regard the importance of the Transport portfolio.
Edward Heath's inclusion of transport within the newly formed Department of the Environment in 1970 is often seen as the start of the downgrading process. But in fact this had been foreshadowed in 1969 by Harold Wilson dropping the Transport Minister from the Cabinet.
In 1976 this error seemed to have been recognised, and James Callaghan re-established a separate Transport Department, with a seat in the Cabinet. Moreover, he appointed to that post a Minister, Bill Rodgers, whom many saw, perhaps wrongly, in the light of subsequent events, as a politician with a bright future.
But three years later, when Mrs Thatcher found that there were legal limits on Cabinet size which required her to drop one Minister from membership, it was once again the Transport Minister who went out into the cold. True, he was treated as a member of the Cabinet; the fact remained that he was not a member. Inevitably his status, and thus his influence, were reduced.
Again, this was remedied in time. And after this year's general election the creation of a comprehensive Transport Department, covering all modes, seemed to have put matters right for the foreseeable future.
Cecil Parkinson's problems showed that prediction to be over-optimistic. But if it really was necessary to move Norman Tebbit into Mr Parkinson's shoes, surely there were other Ministers with longer service in their present posts than Torn King's four months who could have taken on the task? Why could Nicholas Ridley, reputedly quite as much a herd-liner as Mr Tebbit, not succeed to the Employment post, leaving Tom King where he was?
It is difficult to resist the idea that behind the decision was the thought "Oh well, it's only Transport."
It is rumoured that Mr King was not overjoyed at his move from Environment to Transport after the general election, It is possible that he made this known to the Prime Minister, and that this was a factor in the decision to move him to Employment. Certainly the latest move is seen as a promotion. When this point was put to him in a radio interview Mr King simply said wryly: "It's nice to be wanted!"
We shall presumably have to await the Thatcher memoirs before we can know for certain what lay behind the move. But it all contributes to the image of the Transport Department as a Whitehall Cinderella.
The frequent Ministerial changes cause the industry enormous problems. However well-briefed the DTp civil servants may be, the important decisions are taken by Ministers. And until the industry's representatives have put their case face-to-face they cannot be certain that the right points have been stressed.
They have worked on Mr King since his appointment in June. The RHA national chairman and director-general were in his office within 10 days of his appointment, The FTA was not far behind, and invited him to speak at the annual conference, in place of his predecessor. (It is a reflection of the high rate of turbulence among Transport Ministers that, had the FTA Conference been three weeks later, two separate Transport Ministers would have accepted such an invitation but been moved on before they could perform.) Behind the scenes the DTp civil servants will have been beavering away, putting the facts on major transport questions in front of Mr King, with recommendations for decisions. Speed limits, taxation (including down-licensing), the new 0-licence regulations, coach safety — all these and much else are subjects on which Mr King might be presumed to have had at least tentative views.
Mr Ridley had ever even heard of most of them before arriving at Marsham Street it would be surprising. So the educational process must start all over again.
Meanwhile, vital decisions will be further delayed. In particular the lorry speed limit increases recommended three years ago seem unlikely to come into effect much before the middle of next year On one subject, though, the new Minister comes with full knowledge. Taxation was his concern at the Treasury. More specifically, he was concerned with the review of vehicle excise duty forced on the Government as a result of the outcry following this year's Budget increases.
Optimists may hope that his move from poacher to gamekeeper will have altered' the hard line he is reputed to have taken while at the Treasury. Pessimists will try to ensure that their vehicles are taxed for a year shortly before the next Budget.