Political Commentary
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Go Back and Do It Again !
By JAN US AT school we knew the fate awaiting most of our not-too-enthusiastic efforts to cope with the exercises set .by our masters. We were sternly told to "Go back and do it again." The same sort of thing is happening to hauliers to-day. A month or two ago they were given the task of applying for original permits on form P.R.2. Those who went as far as this are now being told, in many cases, to "Go back and do it again."
The Road Haulage Executive provides for these laggards some additional help in the shape of form P.R.2(a). Not that this placates them. They feel like the magician's stooge who has been invited to examine a pack of cards, shuffle them and take his pick, only to find that the rest of the trick is performed with another pack taken from the magician's sleeve.
"Led Up the Garden" The hauliers protests are perfectly natural. The original permit is one of their few rights. They have been led to expect it would be given them without much bother, at least for the first year. Now, at the last moment, it appears as if the cup is being snatched from their lips. The impression is that after they have been consulted at every stage—led up the garden, as it were— after they have been allowed to make representations, and their amendments have in some cases been accepted, the R.H.E. produces a new form calculated to nullify all the concessions previously given.
This impression is not altogether fair to the R.H.E. It can be argued that P.R.2(a) requires no more information than its predecessor, P.R.2. The heading of the celebrated column 4 of P.R.2—" Work for which the permit is required "—seems to allow a fair degree of latitude, but it is qualified by a footnote instructing the applicant to " set out (i) particulars of goods to be carried and approximate tonnage; (ii) the points between which the goods are to be carried and the frequency of the journeys where regular services are run. In other cases the areas or districts served should be given: (iii) by reference to the index marks and registration numbers any motor vehicles which it is desired should undertake any particular work and state whether it is desired to use trailers on that work, and, if so, the number."
Duplication of Labour?
P.R.2(a) has separate columns for commodities, points between which goods are carried or areas served, frequency of journeys, approximate tonnage carried during past 12 months, and the maximum number of vehicles and trailers used on this work at any one time. These details are roughly equivalent to those in the P.R.2 footnote. Two further requests, for approximate tonnage per annum before November 28, 1946, for similar commodities between the same points or in thit same area, and remarks (including comment on any variation between the present and pre-November 28, 1946, traffic), may be fairly described as implicit in column 5 of P.R.2, headed: "Work included in column 4 which was being done before November 28, 1946, and which has continued to be done since, subject to intermissions incidental to such work."
Another section of P.R.2(a), headed "Queries," is a little more dubious, as it gives the R.H.E. an opporn4 tunity to ask for anything else it thinks fit. Apart' from this, one objection to the form must be its issue without prior consultation between the R.H.E. and the hauliers, after every other form connected with the permit regulations had been exhaustively discussed.
Also much resented is the request for the return of the form within 14 days (now extended at the Executive's discretion). By now we must all have grown used to peremptory demands of this sort from the inspector of taxes, the local council, the Water Board, the Electricity Board and so on. Applicants for original permits, however, have already had one final demand notice, expiring on August 2. To find the whole process apparently beginning afresh, this time with a fortnight's notice instead of a month's, is nicely calculated to infuriate hauliers, who have already a grudge against the whole business.
Work Wasted ?
Advisers and consultants to hauliers, including area secretaries of the Road Haulage Association, must also be inclined to question the value of the hard work they put in during the month of July. Protests from all over the country cannot have been altogether unexpected. It is worth asking why the R.H.E. risked abuse and opprobrium in its determination to obtain the additional information.
The total of 17,000 applications for original permits was apparently more or less what the R.H.E. expected, although many thousands of hauliers with a strong claim neglected to apply. After August 2, when the lists were closed, everything seemed set fair for the liberal granting of permits with generous conditions.
This appears to have been the policy of the British Transport Commission for some time. As long ago as April of this year, Maj.-Gen. G. N. Russell, chairman of the R.H.E., spoke of the wide terms" in which applications were likely to be drawn, and only a week or two back Sir Cyril Hurcomb himself stated: "The R.H.E. wilt find it necessary, for administrative and other reasons, to accord permits freely during the first year." .
Is P.R.2(a) Necessary
In view of these statements, the granting of permits to practically all the 17,000 applicants would not have been surprising. There seems no reason for meticulous insistence upon details of commodities and journeys.
The R.H.E. can want the information for use. only after the permit has been granted. It must intend to spend the first year of grace in analysing the forms P.R.2(a) in order to be in a position to refuse practically every renewal. The information will enable it to build an ultimate barrier against any haulier wishing to carry non-excluded traffic beyond a prescribed radius of 25 miles.
Unfortunately for the R.H.E., if any doubt of its intentions existed before, protests by hauliers against form P.R.2(a) have made them patent. There are several possibilities for the future. Hauliers, growing more and more assured of the real designs of the R.H.E., may prefer to reorganize their businesses without waiting for the inevitable refusal of a permit renewal. Uneasy traders, where they can do so, may take out C licences When the R.H.E. finally comes to lock the stable door, it may find that the traffic has run away.