FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1958
1958 - 0039.PDF
FLIGHT, 10 January 1958 41 THE STATE AND THE INDUSTRY By FRANK BESWICK, M.P. BUILDING aeroplanes is not a political operation and somereaders may well ask why politicians come into this businessat all. It is a fair question to which, I think, there are twoanswers. Firstly, the aircraft industry itself seeks and relies upon Government interest and support, notably for basic research andfor production orders. This was never more obvious than at the present time. Secondly, if (as most will agree) the future of Britainis bound up with the construction and operation of aircraft, then a close political interest is inevitable. Accepting, therefore, thatthere must be a special relationship between State and industry the problem to be solved is the form of that relationship. We havenow to devise a partnership calculated to yield the most fruitful results. This article sets out to contribute modestly to the solutionof the problem. The first immediate and essential need, agreed by all, includingthe various companies concerned, is a firm and clear statement on behalf of the Government as to what, over the next few years, itsown requirements as a customer will be. No one can plan an industry unless there is a reasonable estimate available as to whathe is planning for. Having said that one must, nevertheless, depre- cate a tendency to consider the nation's defence policy as a functionof the aircraft industry's livelihood, rather than the other way round. It must be added that Britain cannot buy a lot of militaryaircraft simply for the purpose of keeping a particular industry alive. Any consideration of the future must be based upon theassumption that there is a genuine defence need which, together with that of pur civil operators, will provide the necessary mini-mum on which the industry can depend. There must be some minimum level of output which if not reached would make Govern-ment-sponsored basic research grossly uneconomic. Granted this potential of British civil and Service demand, theconsequent question is what department or body should assess it and convey it to the industry in the shape of positive orders. It isoften asserted that there should be some new super body—a British Aviation Board. It is fashionable just now to criticize the Ministryof Supply, and some seem to think that if this department was eliminated all would be well. When one probes deeper into thiscriticism it usually emerges that the super Board which these critics want is a sort of Ministry of Supply writ large. Alternatively,suggest the M.o.S. critics, the "user" should become the "buyer": the Air Ministry, for example, should take over respon-sibility for its own procurement. This is always qualified by the provision that the Air Ministry should be strengthened by appro-priate permanent technical staff. In other words they ask that a miniature M.o.S. should be built within the organization of eachuser Ministry. Few will claim that the R.A.F. officer who can indicate a Service requirement, and whose training and ambitionwould fit him for the post of Chief of Air Staff, is necessarily the best man to have responsibility for procurement. In any case,under the present and foreseeable system, serving officers are unlikely to remain in their respective posts long enough to see amodern aircraft through from drawing board to production delivery. Therefore, some sort of procurement organization isrequired. Too Many Cooks From the outside it does not seem that a case has been madefor eliminating the Ministry of Supply in favour of the Air Ministry, Admiralty and M.T.C.A. Apart from weakness in thetechnique of procurement these departments could not provide the necessary co-ordination of Service and civil demands, andcertainly they are unfitted to take over responsibility for the pro- gramme of basic research.On the other hand, the present Ministry of Supply does seem inadequate. The fact that the Minister has found it expedient toset up an inter-departmental committee "to examine the prob- lems involved in the transition, including the future of Govern-ment policy on aeronautical research," is in itself an indication of this inadequacy. One could understand the value of a thorough-going inquiry by an independent committee of high-powered out- side experts (some of us suggested this two or three years ago);but to refer the problem now to such a committee of several departments would really be a confession that the Ministry whichought to be in charge did not command the necessary confidence. 1 hen there is this peculiar hybrid body, the Transport AircraftRequirements Committee, which also has a finger, or several nngers, in the pie. Upon this body are represented the Ministryof Supply, the Air Ministry, Admiralty, M.T.C.A., B.O.A.C., «E.A. and B.I.A.T.A. It undoubtedly brings together a lot ofexperience, but its functions are only advisory. It can only add to advice already given, largely by the same individuals in anothercapacity. The general impression created in this whole field of IN this forthright discussion of a highly topical problem Mr. Beswickfirst examines die familiar arguments for transferring the powers of the Ministry of Supply to die Air Ministry, Admiralty and M.T.C.A. "Weneed an aviation policy," he says, "and we need one recognizable body capable of formulating and executing it. This could equally mean a neworganization or a reformed and strengthened Ministry of Supply." Turn- ing to the aircraft industry itself, he dismisses nationalization as imprac-tical, but advocates a form of part-ownership. Mr. Beswick, well known for his contributions to Parliamentary debates on aviation subjects, is» the Member for Uxbridge. supervision, and of forward policy-making in procurement andresearch, is one of dispersal of authority and lack of leadership. We need an aviation policy and we need one recognizable bodycapable of formulating and executing it. This could equally mean *a new organization or a reformed and strengthened Ministry ofSupply. The name is irrelevant; what is essential is that there should be this authority charged with the necessary responsibilityand having personnel with the necessary technical knowledge and experience to carry it out. But then, when policy is decided and requirements known,should State intervention end there? It is extremely difficult, surely, to argue that the Government should have no continuinginterest in the progress of orders placed, or in the use that is being made of the results of Government-financed research. Moreover,it has now become almost a commonplace to say that the structure of the industry should be re-patterned into fewer but larger units.Is this a process which should be left entirely to the industry? The industry itself says that it should. Individual firms make outa good case for the proposition that each one concerned is the best judge as to which other firm or firms it can most usefully andamicably partner. The Minister of Supply has said that the Government "ought ... to use their position as customers toencourage integration." In answer to another Parliamentary ques- tion he has said, "I have accordingly intimated to the industry thatin placing orders for further requirements the Government will be influenced not only by the quality of design but also the resources,technical and financial, available to complete the project quickly and successfully; and that insofar as these criteria are not met inisolation, the Government will require the chosen contractor to work in association with one or more other contractors." No Time to Spare Some may call this declared policy a fair compromise. It mightalso be described as a process of pushing from behind rather than of leading from the front. At one time it may well have beensufficient; it might have achieved results if given time. But today there is no time to spare. Moreover, the reshaping is necessarynot simply to achieve greater efficiency but because of the reduc- tion in Service orders. The operation is bound to be more far-reaching than it would have been three or four years ago. In the circumstances it is difficult to believe that this process of re-group-ing will be sufficiently resolute or radical if it is left entirely to the individual firms concerned. Moreover, there must surely be someregard to the resultant national pattern and it is never easy for those who are engaged primarily upon self-survival to pay closeattention to the scene of the struggle as a whole. But how can the Government exercise a more direct influenceupon the shape of the industry? Is there not a more effective means of bringing pressure to bear dian by the proposed method ofwithholding orders from some, giving to others, and conditionally offering contracts to yet others. The most open, honest and con-structive approach to greater influence within the industry seems to be through a measure of public ownership.There are colleagues of mine who claim that the answer is outright nationalization. I have never accepted this. For onething, we are here dealing largely with a system of human skills. There are no great fixed national assets in the aircraft industrycomparable with coal, railways or gas. And if the human beings concerned are not actively asking for nationalization then the moreeffective mobilization of their energies is not helped by such a course.Another proposal, officially advanced some time ago, was that the State should take over those "firms which have fallen down onthe job." I find this equally unattractive, especially in the circum- stances of today. Why select the unsuccessful as the elite of theindustry of tomorrow? If a selection is to be made, as is inevitable, even if only for the discriminate order-placing which the presentMinister has in mind, then clearly it is the successful firms which must be chosen. And can there be any objection to the nationhaving some financial stake in these selected undertakings? The advantages of this part-ownership are several. Given Concluded on page 51)
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
