■ Ilocating permits lore fairly
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JOSE OLD enough to have lult memories of food tioning will recall the awe with hich it was necessary to treat e Food Office functionaries. In eir discretion lay the magic lupons which might entitle a egnant woman to bananas, or leavy worker to additional ieese.
No doubt in their private lives ost of these officials were kind dumb animals, helped old dies across roads, and ?rformed other good works. at in their official lives the iture of their work inevitably eant that they were not liversally loved.
Food rationing finally ended years ago. Yet one small Ind of officials continues to wform a similar task. The 30 so men and women of the martment of Transports ternational Road Freight Office 3FO) in Newcastle on Tyne rye the task of rationing the ad haulage permits which are ?cessary for British lorries to iter the most important
rropean countries. Even in the esent recession these permits e in short supply. Expectant others looking for bananas are placed by expectant ternational hauliers looking for ?rmits.
Although their clients imetimes grumble about IRFO, hen pressed they usually Emit that the staff with whom ey deal are as helpful as the 'stern allows. The ghost of the rmidable Food Office nctionary has not been surrected. Relationships ?came a little strained when FO staff joined the Civil wvice strike a few years ago, it that episode is now rgotten.
Nevertheless, while the staff ight be well-regarded by their stomers, the system which ey have to operate is much more heavily criticised, especially for its secrecy. The detailed rationing policies are devised in discussions between the RHA, the FTA and the DTp. The most that IRFO's customers can expect is a brief press announcement giving the outline of what has been agreed, followed in due course by a letter showing how the new policy will affect them individually.
Inevitably there are suspicions that some firms have been treated more generously than others. In particular those who need more permits to carry traffic offered to them believe that other hauliers have more permits than they need.
There is no way in which those aggrieved can check whether their suspicions are wellfounded. IRFO steadfastly refuses to discuss one operator's allocation with anyone else. Such information is regarded as falling within the Civil Service privacy grade "Commercially Confidential". As a result the rumours, and the discontent they generate, go unchecked.
In some countries there were suspicions that the explanation lay in corruption. That is not so here. Whatever other failings may have been attributed to the British Civil Service in recent years it still retains its justified reputation for incorruptibility. Offers of bribes to IRFO staff are almost unknown, and those few that are made are usually put forward under the cover of jocularity, so that they may be hastily withdrawn.
A more wide-spread suspicion has been that the criteria adopted for rationing are unduly influenced by the interests of the established operators, and especially the very big specialist international hauliers. Inevitably the term "closed shop" is used.
The secrecy which surrounds the system makes it impossible for all the rumours and discontent to be examined against the facts. In 1977 the Department published a Permits Report which gave a very full account of the development of allocation policy over the years. An updated version was published in 1979. No doubt further versions will appear from time to time.
This partial opening of the shutters is welcome. But the light shed on the system is just enough to emphasise the dark shadows in the corners. It does nothing to disprove the suspicions of some operators that others are receiving better treatment than they are.
The RHA has recently decided to move towards opening up the system. Among seven policy changes recently recommended by the International Functional Group was the publication of the names of hauliers with permit allocations; it is not clear whether the RHA wants publication to extend to details of the numbers of each type of permit received by each haulier, but this would seem to be a logical development.
This would remove a great deal of the mystery and the myths surrounding the topic. It would be easier to check the familiar allegations that a haulier with one vehicle has three EEC "books", or that this same legendary haulier has so many bilateral permits that he regularly sends batches of them across to be stamped by the French Customs in order to "prove" use.
Probably some of the wilder rumours would be disproved. However, it seems inevitable that publication of detailed information about permit allocations would provoke an initial flurry of comparison. And those who were shown to be less well-off would inevitably want to know why.
Presumably most apparent discrepancies could be explained. But dealing with the volume of queries from the "have-nots" would involve an enormous amount of work for IRFO. It was on these grounds that the DTp is believed to have turned down a similar idea in the mid-1970s. The first Permits Report was offered instead as a partial substitute.
If the RHA's request is to stand any chance of adoption by the DTp it will be necessary for the association to agree that publication should be treated as the start of a new era, and that the past should not be exhumed. That would not stop complaints of the "We wuz robbed" variety, but if that is the inevitable price of greater openness in the future it might be worth paying.
Whatever happens, it is surely time that permit allocation was given a proper legal basis. At present, the only relevant Statute Law regulates the level of fees charged for permits.
The House of Lords Committee which is currently looking into permits displayed some interest in allocation methods when taking evidence from DTp witnesses. They seemed surprised at some of the answers they received, and may well comment on the legal vacuum in their Report But in any event it seems quite wrong that the allocation of documents on which international hauliers depend for their livelihood should be issued on such a casual basis.
At least the Food Offices, in deciding who should get bananas, were administering a law which had been approved by Parliament. IRFO's task should be eased by putting it in the same position over permits.