Policy aims - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 179

to publish them in a formal list does not mean that they do not have any! The post-
1979 Conservative Government for example was one of the most purposive on record,
yet it managed to operate for most of its eighteen years without any overall statement
of transport objectives and policies.
Even when objectives are published it would be wrong to imagine that they are
(all) the considerations which are actually being brought to bear on decision-making.
Sometimes governments will want to focus on particular issues or priorities which set
them apart from their political opponents or predecessors - in other words to highlight
distinctive differences - even though in reality there is a lot of 'common ground'.
Selectivity may also be used to put a favourable 'spin' on the objectives claimed for
particular proposals. (It is much easier to change the rhetoric surrounding plans
and programmes than it is to change their substance.) So even where objectives are
presented for public consumption one needs to do more than simply take them at face
value.
Statements about objectives are important not solely in terms of the issues
they address but also, implicitly, of those which they omit. In the interests of
comprehensibility and 'saleability' to the general public it is almost inevitable that
attention will be focused on a few issues only. The fact that others are not represented
may simply mean that they are not being actively pursued or given priority. However
there is also the danger that when conflicts arise or resources are tight such issues may
be compromised or overlooked in the pursuit of objectives which are being highlighted .
That is why, when reviewing the objectives adopted by any particular administration it
is important to keep the full range of issues in mind.
11.4 Objectives set nationally
The 1998 White Paper was remarkable for the extent to which transport was viewed
as a means to an end and hence as a potential contributor to Government objectives
in other policy sectors.
We need a transport system which supports our policies for more jobs and a strong
economy, which helps increase prosperity and tackles social inclusion. We also
need a transport system which doesn't damage our health and provides a better
quality of life now - for everyone - without passing on to future generations a
poorer world.
(DETR 1998a para 2.1)
A 'framework for change' was set out under a series of headings which reflected
these broader aspirations (see Box 11.2). Interestingly only one of these was
expressed in terms of transport itself. The presence of economic and environmental
components reflected traditional concerns of transport policy although within these
categories there were some notable innovations - to have regard to the economic
vitality of particular areas for example and to reduce traffic growth and respond to
the challenge of climate change. However the status accorded to health and social
inclusion issues as distinct categories was novel. So too was the approach taken to
issues associated with transport operation - as part of an integrated system developed
in the public interest.
Politically however this enlightened approach to transport issues was vulnerable
and the fact that little priority appeared to be given to serving the more immediate