Gruel Thick and Slab
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HE chairman of the Road Haulage Executive, Maj-Gen. G. N. Russell, was commendably straightforward in his latest statement on the rogress and policy of the Executive. With a military, nd almost brutal frankness, he made it clear that othing would be allowed to change the course of action aid down by the Transport Act, and that it would be ust too bad for any hauliers who happened to be in he way.
Plain speaking is rare these days, and hauliers should e grateful to Maj.-Gen. Russell, at least, for the small ercy of an unambiguous sentence. It is becoming a general habit to disguise an unwelcome piece of news, r even to announce it as a blessing.
The threepenny surcharge on London taxicab fares s shown on the meter in such microscopic print that few assengers notice it, and the cabbies suspect that in ractice the amount comes out of their tip. The preudget application by the London Transport Executive or a revised scheme of charges was put forward in such erms that one might have been_excused for not noticing t first that the effect of the scheme would be to increase evenue by £3,700,000.
The L.T.E. Becomes More Precise Emboldened possibly by the subsequent spate of rates ncreases, the L.T.E. has become a little more explicit. sked during the course of the inquiry into the appiicas ion whether a higher revenue had been one of the bjectives, Mr. A.. B. B. Valentine .replied that "some uidance had to be given to those framing the scheme s to the revenue result which would be appropriate."
o some people, this may not appear to throw much urther light on the question, but in the circumstances it s probably as definite a statement as one could have xpected The extra tax on fuel oils and the new purchase tax
n lorries provide a Complete justification for a rise in ates for goods transport by road.. Practically all transport users recognized this fact, and were.interested only n learning precisely how much the increase would be. he rather gingerly approach of the R.H.E. to the uestion must have surprised many traders, and even ave aroused suspicions.
R.H.E. Surcharge Reasonable
The figure of 74 per cent, put forward by the R.H.E.
hould mean that, where previously the cost was per on, it must now be 22s. 8d. This was much in ccordance with expectation. The R.H.E. had already stimated that its ftlel bill would go up by f--2,500,O00, ell over 6 per cent. of its revenue. The addition of nother 1 per cent, to cover the purchase tax could not
e regarded as unreaSonable.
Customers who now imagine they know the worst ould be well advised, before they regard the matter s closed, to read the complete R.H.E. announcement :
"The R.H.E. find it necessary to increase their rates in order to cover the increased cost of oil fuel and some element of increase in respect of enhanced replacement costs, together with certain other recent increases in costs not arising from the Budget.
"In addition to adjustments already required in cases where the basic rates recently charged have been B10
unduly low anduneconomic in relation to the general level, a 'surcharge of 7,1 Per cent. will be applied on all general haulage and parcels charges on and after the 15th of May."
This statement, presumably designed to satisfy _ the
curiosity-of trade and industry, seems almost wilfully to provoke a whole series of questions. What is the precise connection between the paragraphs? What are the "certain other recent increases "? Is it possible for any of the "basic rates recently charged" to have been unduly high? What happens in such a case? Why should the customer be expected to pay for "enhanced replacement"? (Wake up at the back there!) What on earth is meant by" uneconomic in relation to the general level " ?
Too Many Cooks ?
The notice issued by the R.H.E. gives no precise assurance to any customer that 2s. 8d. extra in the pound is all he will be called upon to pay. The RILE,: of 'course, has nothing to gain' by being obscurantist Ori this point: It'may be that the statement was a composite literary production, evolved at a high-level conference of experts, each one adding his quota to "make the gruel thick and slab."
On another. Point, the R.H.E. cannot be altogether absolved from the charge of misleading, even if unintentionally. In the course of his statement; reported in "The Commercial Motor " last week, Maj.-Gen. Russell denied any undertaking to -issue permits "high, wide and handsome." This denial mist be accepted, but it remains, true that earlier authoritative pronouncements had given the impression that a generous policy would be followed in dealing with permit . (and particularly original-permit) application's.
False Encouragement
Over 12 months ago, Maj.-Gen. Russell spoke of the protection afforded by the original-permit provisions, and said that large numbers of hauliers would retain a considerable measure of freedom." "Itis expected," said a later statement by the R.H.E., "that the Executive will grant an original-permit to an applicant in terms that will enable him broadly to continue to carry the longdistance traffic he is at present carrying." Other references, encouraging to the haulier, have been made on numerous occasions by representatives of the State transport organization, from Sir Cyril Hurcomb dowawards.
One must always make allowances where statements are taken out of their context. In the complete version, there are generally one or two provisos to the main statement. The fact remains that the main statement is regarded as of primary importance. The ifs and buts -are, to most people, mere garnishings, superstitious observances against some unlikely contingency, not taken too seriously even by the person carrying them out.
• It is obviously risky to treat in this lighthearted fashion any pronouncement emanating from the R.H.E. Generally speaking, according to the R.H.E. a year ago. applicants for original-permits would be allowed to continue as before. Now, Maj.-Gen. Russell reveals that, out of 17,500 applications, 3,800 have been grantedin the terms sought by the applicants. "Generally speaking," therefore, means less than one in four.