AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Kiss of Death

17th November 1950
Page 45
Page 45, 17th November 1950 — Kiss of Death
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

ONE lesson that operators should have learnt from the recent holocaust of original permits is never to seek or expect concessions from the Road Haulage Executive. No Marquess of Queensberry rules regulate the present haulage rough-and-tumble, and even an apparent gesture of courtesy is more likely than not to be a hidden trap.

When the British Transport Commission win proudly displaying its scars, boosting the 1949 losses as if they were the riches of Aladdin's cave, Lord Hurcomb graciously announced a concession to hauliers. Their lamentations had been heard in the ivory tower, and they were promised an early statement on the likelihood or otherwise of the continuation of original permits after the first 12-month term.

• Spoiling Their Christmas

This, according to Lord Hurcomb, was because he did not wish to leave permit holders "in suspense until the end of the year or later" He must have known, of course that he was spoiling their Christmas, for plans to wipe out all the original permits of any consequence had been laid several weeks before his announcement.

Nevertheless, it seemed that he was trying, in a limited way, to be helpful. If he could not soften the blow, he could at least give warning of its coming, so that hauliers would have as long a period as possible in which to determine their course of action. In the event, the apparent kindness of Lord Hurcomb bears a close resemblance to the equivocal remarks made by the three witches to Macbeth at the same time as they were preparing a most foul brew just off-stage.

The quick and merciful sentence promised by Lord Hurcomb had a hidden sting, in its way as startling and unpleasant to the haulier as must have been to Macbeth the news of the unconventional delivery of Maeduff. A soothing harbinger of bad tidings was expected, to he followed by a breathing space before the official notice. What the haulier did receive was the official notice itself, a curt stereotyped note over a rubberstamped signature, giving him three months in which to come to terms with the ivory tower.

Such a concession he would be better without. The R.H.E. need have told him nothing until one month before his permit ran out, and he would still have had his three months' grace. As it is, he now has to offer his•business, if at all, while his original permit is actually current; the business may even be taken over before the permit expires. Such a hurried pulling on of a makeshift shrdud while the body is still warm cannot be pleasing to the haulier, particularly when he is apparently expected to thank the undertaker.

Thwarted Body-snatchers

The haulier who cheats the grave thus prematurely prepared for him cannot expect to escape without a chase. Should he decide to carry on within the 25-mile radius, sooner or later his licence will come up for renewal. At once, the thwarted body-snatchers will leap to the attack, and oppose the application on the ground that loss of an original permit has meant a change in the firm's activities.

Here one small obstacle interposes itself. The R.H.E., in common with the Railway Executive and the Road Haulage Association, is party to , the negotiating machinery considering applications for. licences. The machinery is regulated by a solemn covenant which, among other things, pledges the parties not to object to the renewal of a licence without modification.

Opinions on the value of. the joint machinery are mixed. The R.H.E.has consistently.. supported it, perhaps not willing to risk the odium of breaking the agreement. While negotiating committees remain in being, therefore, the haulier might fancy himself immune from an attack on his licence.

Not a bit of it. The saving clause has a proviso covering "exceptional features.". The R.H.E. is apparently arguing that, although 8,000 'permits are to be revoked or substituted, each such case is "exceptional" and entitles it to oppose the licence renewal. The Executive is already adopting this policy where hauliers were refused original permits It is hard to understand why the free-enterprise parties to. the procedure have .not protested publicly against the one-sided violation of the joint agreement.

The Danger Signal Naturally, , the Executive _ will have a number of plausible excuses for its action. One will almost certainly be that the opposition in the traffic courts is a disinterested and: noble atfenipt to _help the haulier. At this point, every : sensible. haulier will see the danger signal. ..Once.the'R.H.E. says it Wants to help him, he is a doomed man; He has had the*.iss of death.. Even Macbeth, not one of the brainiest of tragic heroes, got the point in the end.

"I pull in resolution and beg:n To doubt the equivocation ot the fiend."

Macbeth saw the light too late.. The haulier may still avoid the trap, and insist that the R.H.E. should not enlist his aid for his own destruction.

Witches' Cauldron

Complaints about the agreed joint procedure are mounting. It is said that information supplied in confidence is used by the nationalized undertaking for its own purpose. Instructions are alleged to have been sent to group managers to use the procedure for their own ends. There ,are stories of applicants being persuaded to cut down their demands more than is necessary. The whole thing has the appearance of yet another witches cauldron, likely to bubble over at any time.

It is regrettable if the free-for-all which would then ensue should disguise who is responsible. At the moment, if not for long, there is a clear issue involved. The R.H.E., while ingenuously claiming to be within the letter of the covenant, has contravened both spirit and letter.

This should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. The free-enterprise side of the tripartite agreement should call firmly for its strict observance and if not given satisfaction, should tell the world that the agreement has been broken by the Commission. This places the responsibility where it belongs, and makes it impossible for the Commission to deny subsequently that the break came from its side.


comments powered by Disqus