Collapse of an industry
Sir: I have always subscribed to Conrad's °Pinion that authors should approach
reviews with tape-measures rather than
sPectacles. However there are one or two ;It'all points in Geoffrey Robinson's review k15 July) of my recent study of the nature and consequences of the governmental attempt to rescue the motor-cycle industry Winch call for comment. And here I am not referring to his understandable failure to make any reference to his own part in this sad story. Mr Robinson lays the entire blame for the Collapse of the British motor-cycle industry during the 1960s on the shoulders of top Management. Not so. Another major contributory cause was the switch-back course of the domestic motor-cycle market over this period. This was the direct consequence of the sort of neo-Keynesian demandmanagement policies pursued by successive governments, which used the automotive
industry as a crude implement for the finetuning of the British economy.
He charges me — without attempting to provide any evidence to substantiate his charge — with 'misrepresenting the ECGD role'. My complaint was — and is — that government repeatedly attempted to abuse and circumvent the legislative responsibilities of the ECGD in ways that were unfair to the civil servants concerned, and intended to avoid the obligations of parliamentary accountability. Now that Mr Robinson has returned to politics from his brief adventure into industry it would be encouraging to find in him a greater awareness of responsibility towards the taxpayers he represents.
But the strangest aspect of Mr Robinson's contribution is that, notwithstanding his own past involvement, he seems to be unaware of the fact that the British motorcycle industry has gone. Five-sixths of the labour force has been paid off, and all that is left is a small cooperative producing genuine reproduction antiques. I conceded that in the absence of government inter vention the motor-cycle industry might have disappeared, although I also suggested that an important part of it would have had a very fair chance of survival and long-term prosperity. What is certain is that state intervention put paid to that chance. But I suppose that for one who was himself a product of the system it is the fact of state entrepreneurship which matters, and not its results.
J. Bruce-Gardyne 13 Kelso Place, London W8
Previous page
