You think you've got problems
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THOSE WORKING in the transport industry frequently have cause to contemplate the actions, and sometimes the inactions, of Transport Ministers. Usually the result of such contemplation is bewilderment that what the transport man or woman sees as a simple matter is not so perceived by the Minister.
There are of course many reasons for this incomprehension, but one stands out above the rest. Those working in transport tend to regard the Minister as their Minister, and at least as an honorary member of the profession. They therefore expect him to look at transport problems from their point of view.
But Transport Ministers are not in the industry, even temporarily. They are, and remain, politicians, and inevitably look at matters from a political point of view. The present low rating of politics and politicians in public esteem might make that look like a criticism; it is not so intended. The role of a politician, and especially of a Minister, is to take the widest view of what he or she regards as the public interest. A Minister who came to be regarded as the spokesman for an industry would not be doing the job for which he was appointed.
Against that background, let us step into Mr David Howell's size 11 shoes as he prepares for the forthcoming Parliamentary year, and try to look at the world through his eyes.
His major pre-occupation is unlikely to have any transport element. He will be considering his standing as a politician within his Party as a whole, and within the Cabinet in particular. He has the consolation of a seemingly impregnable base in his Guildford constituency. Mr Howell therefore need not worry about his future as an MP.
His future as a Minister, however, is much less secure. He was a fervent supporter of Edward Heath's so-called "new style of Government" in 1970, and the present Prime Minister does not even try to conceal her low opinion of her predecessor.
Mr Howell managed to distance himself from Mr Heath sufficiently to be given a post — Secretary of State for Energy — in Mrs Thatcher's first Cabinet, but he was not regarded as a success. (Whether or not this verdict was justified is another matter.) His move to Transport just over a year ago must therefore have seemed to him a last chance to save his Ministerial career.
Only at this stage will transport matters as such intrude into Mr Howell's contemplation. And, against the political background, his primary concern will most emphatically not be what the industry would like, but what the Party, and especially the Prime Minister, expect.
Three topics must dominate his thinking — the future of the railways; the financing of public transport generally, in the light of the Lords' judgment in the London Transport case; and heavier lorries.
This is not the place to examine the first, except to note that, despite Mr Buckton and all their other faults, the railways still seem to have considerable public support. Any proposal for a radical reduction in the size of • the network would cause a furore, especially in the Tories' rural heartland.
More directly relevant to readers of this column is the issue of the proper scale of public transport subsidy, and in particular whether this level should be determined by local elected representatives, or by central Government. As his Marsharn Street neighbour Michael Heseltine is discovering, Tory councillors object quite as vehemently as their Labour opponents to erosion of their right to raise and spend the rates as they please. This is a tightrope on which Mr Howell will have to do a very careful balancing act.
But the heavier lorries issue is politically the most tricky. It seems clear that the intellectual and economic arguments in favour of increased weights, long accepted by DTp permanent officials, overcame Mr Howell's political judgment. It would hardly be surprising if he were to conclude ruefully that he had been "bounced" by his Civil Servants into accepting the case for heavier lorries. He had, after all, only been in the post for three months when the White Paper was issued.
All conceivable environmental and other sops have now been offered. Great pressure has been put on the rebellious Tory backbenchers. There seems little more that can be done to win more votes. Yet the Chief Whip is said to have concluded that he cannot guarantee victory.
However, to retreat at this stage would have been 'unthinkable. The loss of economic benefit (the extent of which some Ministers in any case privately doubt) could have been tolerated; the political humiliation involved in a retrE was unthinkable.
The favourite Whitehall dev for excusing delay — an inquil — was ruled out; to follow Foster and Armitage with yet another would have invited derision. And even if operator difficulties in deciding what nl vehicles to purchase could ha been overlooked, the plight 01 vehicle and trailer manufacturers made immedi, action imperative.
So, reluctantly, the Cabinet decided that there was no alternative to making the necessary Regulations and laying them before Parliamen The sooner the deed was don the less it would loom in publ memory when the General Election came.
Full Cabinet backing for hig weights will mean speeches1 Ministers from other econom Departments in support of thi change. But there is no doubt that many of his Cabinet colleagues wish that David Howell had followed his predecessor's example and k his head down on this unpop issue.
Even if, as seems likely, thE Government wins the inevita vote, his only thanks will corr from industry. If the vote wer be lost, David Howell's politir career would suffer a blow which would probably be fat Whatever the outcome, roE hauliers must feel grateful to Howell for having grasped th horns of this especially lively bull. If his political career sufl from this he will no doubt receive much sympathy frorr the industry. But he must be thinking that hauliers' sympa is no substitute for political power.