IEN an industry is in great difulty, thoughtful people in
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
inagernent and the trade ons canvas ideas in the hope it collective goob sense, acted at the Government, or 3where, may bring about an )rovement.
The institutions of an industry Iresenting various elements professional and managerial Is, trade unions, the trade as;iations, even the technical ss — clearly play a significant a during a prolonged recesn.
The decline in industrial out: has driven out of business lusands of road haulage firms
threatened more with bankAcy. It has hit blindly at trade ion and trade association ,mbership alike, compelling a itraction of membership seres, or, at best, stringent ecomi es.
The transport industry is really Nhole complex of disparate lustries. Road and rail, those
I enemies, may feel they have le in common though both for grievously from the trade mp. Civil aviation, shipping, J ports — all have their tales of le, brought about by reduced Dnding of consumers in many untries, along with high ergy costs.
With little need for the majority of people in the various transport sectors to work together in the normal course of things, there are obvious difficulties in concerting what might be termed the "total transport voice" into an effective political lever. Even so, as is noted later, there has been a useful initiative by a number of trade associations, trade unions, and large transport operators, to apply pressure upon the Government.
In an earlier article in this series (CM March 21) I suggested that the obvious body to speak for British transport, as a whole, was the Chartered Institute since this long-established body included in its ranks representatives from all transport modes. I urged that the CIT should be beefed up to form an effective "bridge" between the public, demanding high standards, and government, which alone can provide the infrastructure necessary to all forms of transport.
It was crucial to my thesis that the CIT should be transformed into a body concerned with consumer interests in transport and tourism, as well as the professional interests of transport providers, in order that a new focus should seem credible to government. For government has been lobbied by sectional interests with sharp axes to grind for generations.
I was glad of a chance to discuss these important issues with Hugh Featherstone, director-general of the Freight Transport Association, and the FTA's head of public relations, John Guttridge. The FTA, certainly in the top ten of all British trade associations, is highly experienced in the communications business. It has certainly "punched its weight" on behalf of its 16,000 member firms for many years, waging some memorable campaigns within the EEC and in pressing for the Armitage proposals.
Hugh Featherstone thought the wider role I had suggested for the CIT would prejudice its professional status. The CIT did not "represent" FTA members (companies) at all, and could not speak for them, though many FTA members, company's representatives, support the CIT in individual capacities. While the objective of a more powerful voice to reflect transport interests was very sound, the difficulty was the wider the ground covered, the less chance was there of getting agreement, and hence, effective action. "Where is the common denominator between road and rail, passenger and frieght, provider and user?"
The FTA position, while accepting that transport does not punch its weight, relies on the premise that, in reality, there are very few issues on which transport can "punch" as one combined body. The outstanding exception is in the sphere of public investment.
The FTA, along with the RHA, the British Road Federation, the National Freight Company, British Railways Board and five trade unions with a major interest in transport, signed a joint submission to the Secretary of State for Transport recently calling for a much higher priority to be given to infrastructure invest-1 ment for transport, which was contrasted with the higher spending in Europe.
Civil aviation, vitally important in mass holiday and business travel, was omitted from the list. So was London Transport, BNC and the PTEs. The CBI, I was told, would like to have been asked to sign. And the CIT, the professional umbrella body, was studiously ignored.
Hugh Featherstone was convinced that attempts to organise "big combined voices" would lead to unnatural alliances and wishy-washy compromises. The answer is co-ordination of effort through loose alliances on specific issues o common interest. This techni que had been very successfull deployed on Armitage and th dery tax, "Let's go for effectiv action, not unproductive talk shops", was Hugh's approach John Guttridge thought ther could be grave dangers in th conflicting interests of industr and the transport interests o people. Go far down this roa and the only body to reconcil divergent interests is the Gov rrnment I see the point, but ransport managers in civil aviition and railways have coped yith the interests of passengers Ind senders of goods for generitions. Goods and passengers ire often carried in the same 'ehicle abroad, and in Scotland ry the MacBrayne organisation.
The confusion may lie in the ratural fear of a special interest rody such as a trade association lot wanting to feel submerged ry a new Transport Council, or idustry voice, with more inluence — because it would be nore representative — with govrnment. In Hugh Featherstone's vords: "We will work with anyIle to achieve a worthwhile re ult but we would not wish to euter the special interests we xist to defend."
Against the grandiose concept a single voice to make the kwernment more receptive to °ansport interests, the FTA sees reat merit in co-ordinating a umber of separate voices, ose of existing organisations ith broadly common interests. is approach explains the joint peal to the Government by ten ansport-related bodies to ost infrastructure investment d the effective marshalling of e road haulage "voice" in mmending the Armitage oposals to public opinion and rliament.
Of the proposals for Armitage, gh Featherstone commented: e're in the numbers game. e Government are likely to be luenced by the number of letrs received on the subject by Ps, regardless of the source." Hugh suggested that a transport/consumer voice would, in effect, be trying to do the Government's job for it. He thought this concept totally impracticable though I cannot see why, if transport people are so dissatisfied with the response of government, it would be a bad thing for transport organisations, in alliance with consumer interests, to spell out the essential elements of a national policy. After all, governments, of all parties, have for years consulted representative bodies in trade and industry. The Government role has been made more difficult by the absence of popular consumer opinion.
Governments in all countries are reluctant to respond to special pleading. In the United States the virtually unknown Ralph Nader was able to focus more effective political support than the giant motor vehicle manufacturers whose products he criticised so tirelessly. Is it wholly fanciful in these days of mass travel and tourism that the transport industry should ally itself with consumer voices — bus, train, air, ferry, etc, passengers — rather than allow a spate of often justifiable criticisms to be broadcast by Esther Rantzen, and others?
Said Hugh Featherstone: "It's fine to theorise in a perfect world, but we're paid to look after our members' interests, and not to chase moonbeaMs.
"Certainly, we try to think big and look at broad issues. But at the end of the day if our feet are too far off the ground, we should be shot down — quite rightly."
Such caution is understandable. Perhaps trade associations should be more adventurous? The FTA has exploited its organising strength to reflect its members' interests in shipping and air cargo as well as road transport. I was tempted, again, to raise the issue of a merger between the FTA and RHA, to be told, not for the first time, that the "customer" status of the FTA companies prevented this kite from flying.
There is a lot of co-operation, Hugh said, buta merger is now accepted by most people as cloud cuckoo land.
On the face of things there could be economies in staffing with a joint body, and if it is possible for a trade union to represent-sen io r executives and junior clerks one would have thought that the "customer" role of the haulier vis-à-vis the ownaccount operator could be dealt with. The American Trucking Association represents all Motor Carriers whether in the "Private" or "For Hire" sectors of the industry.
But, as was stressed to me, the two organisations shared offices 30 years ago. They went their separate ways by mutual consent.iThe attractive notion of a merger must await a revolutionary change of attitude on the part of both memberships.
It would simplify things for many transport people if the Minister for Transport really did run the whole transport show, including shipping and civil aviation, etc. Hugh Featherstone agrees, but would be much opposed to transport being subordinated to the Environment Ministry. "If all transport functions are in the same pot, don't include Environment."
There are mAny approaches to this problem: transport could be an aspect of industry, with no specific Department of Transport.
The FTA, in common with quite a number of transport bodies in road and rail, would like to see a Little Necldy set up, under the NRDC Umbrella. The Government, still somewhat disposed to quango hunting, has yet to be persuaded.
One problem with a transport Little Neddy would be the car side. Should the AA and RAC be included? Would passenger operators sit happily with freigh operators? What would be th( interface, if any, with Europear transport agencies?
A Little Neddy would certain!) give transport spokesmen thE chance to press for higher prior ity for infrastructure spending though, for my money, I woulc want to see tourism included And the NEC Forum may not bE conducive to maximum mediE coverage.
In a real sense, on the tradE union side, the TGWU is a gooc example of grandiose planning A host of mergers led to thE welding together of the bigg..est union in the country. But has ii helped transport to dilute thiE bus, docks and lorry mem. bership with more than another million general and engineerinc, workers?
Hugh Featherstone could seE some merit in a more compact transport union with clearly defined objectives, but he coulc see lots of snags if the argument was stretched to have a single transport workers' union covering all modes. The TGWU, as constituted, opposed heavier lorries, thinking unemployment would worsen among lorry drivers. Would a massive transportonly union be more enlightened?
Within the road haulage context, the FTA and RHA liaise closely on public relations matters, even though, philosophically, the FTA is concerned with freight moving, not exclusively or necessarily, road transport. In current difficulties the FTA bleed, like the RHA, with membership losses, though strenuous and successful efforts are made to recruit more members. The recession has compelled the FTA "ship" to be very tightly managed.
Hugh Featherstone summed up our wide-ranging discussion. "It would be a mistake to be depressed about the prospects in transport. Compared with other countries the representatives of transport operators in Britain do a pretty effective job. That doesn't mean we are complacent. It does mean we intend to keep our feet firmly on the gfound. We can still reach for the stars, but we must not end up on cloud 9."
The debate on a more effective transport voice will go on.
Whatever the outcome, the FTA, however ranked, will box on sight.