Before the Storm
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by JAiVUS
his announcement at the end of March, 1961, of le appointment of a committee under Lord Rochdale
■ inquire into the efficiency of the major British ports, Minister of Transport described the members he had en as "dispassionate." He had deliberately excluded representation of interested parties, including the emers and the trade unions. The intention, he said, to have an all-embracing investigation, for which an the terms of reference were "extremely wide."
ie claim made by Mr. Marples was not universally pted. For example, the National Union of Enginemen, rnen, Mechanics and Electrical"Workers passed a reso n expressing dissatisfaction and disappointment at the nce of trade union representation; but as the resoluwas inspir by the apparent relationship between the iintrnent a the Rochdale Committee and redundancy derseyside, it nicely illustrated the Minister's wisdom xcluding s ctional interests.
e has estab ished as strong a case as possible for mainng, as he undoubtedly will in due course, that the rt of the c rnmittee, published last week, is completely irtial. Th re is no hope of general consent. Sooner ater, the r port is bound to become the subject of ical controversy. Many of its far-xeaching proposals virtually press-button signals for party warfare. One only to quote the rejection of further nationalization he docks in favour of a less centralized National Ports hority, -an4 the unwavering acceptance of the fact the shift f oin rail to road transport is here to stay.
rred conti riany of lb
whic ers waiting extreme s
DADLy speaking. road operators and users are likely nd themselvcs in agreement with the report. They must 11 the morp careful to oppose the suggestions of bias will inevitably be made. The committee took evidence the wide range of organizations and individuals, ining port anthorilies and users, employers' associations trade unions. They have taken account of all the As put to them, and have turned no suggestions down out good reason.
n many cOntroversial issues, their attitude has been lcrate, to say the least. One accusation that must have 'tally in the evidence was that the workers ports adopt .almost intolerably restrictive have the effect of leaving vehicles and their helplessly for hours, or even days, at a time. urce of complaint is the regulation that in
e ports, drivers are forbidden to load and unload even n dock labour is not available, and the ban extends to cies with part loads that could be put into a shed in w minutes with no difficulty.
he committee are agreed that there is " a substantial unt of truth "in many of the complaints of restrictive :flees, and say that these must be eliminated if other )osals in the report are to bear fruit. The point is put fly and mildly, no doubt in the hope that it will be ;n in the same spirit. No attempt is made to elaborate iuoting particularly flagrant examples. Very much the
e approach is made to the equally thorny subject of hanization. There must be more of it, says the report, " it must not be stultified by rigid adherence to tradi." The risk of some reduction in the size of the labour ;e is admitted, but is not considered serious.
The 'committee may have felt some relief that labour problems and mechanization at the ports have bben the subject of detailed consideration in a whole range of earlier reports, going back to the report of the Royal Commission on Transport in 1930. Perhaps tacitly, the need to elaborate further is not thought necessary in the latest report with its wide terms of reference. The conclusions and recommendations are for the most part not remarkable, although they do include a proposal for setting up a Port Industry Research Association. This appears to follow a recommendation made by the Federation of British Industries in a statement to the committee last December.
So far as can be seen, the committee themselves evolved the idea of appointing a somewhat more controversial body, to be known as the National Ports Authority, although not dissimilar proposals have been made in earlier reports. The chief factor in making up the cornmittee's mind was the multiplicity of interests concerned in the work of the ports and the frequency with which these interests came into conflict.
In general, road users should welcome the new Authority, if it is possible to follow the ideal set out by the committee. that there should be central planning without centralized operational control. Organizations representing road operators would be able to give regular consideration to port and dock problems, and could put forward their suggestions and complaints to a body that would often be in a position to take practical action upon them: The members of the Authority arc not to have sectional or regional interests, but are to have a varied background of experience in various fields, including inland transport. it is reasonable to suppose that a body constituted in this way would come to conclusions very much on the same lines as those expressed by the Rochdale Committee, so that operators need not be concerned that their interests would be jeopardized.
In some respects, the committee have actually gone beyond proposals submitted to them. A notable example followed the abortive attempt of the Port of London working party to find a solution to the problem of the congestion caused by a large concentration of traffic at the docks at certain periods, especially just before the end of the loading period of a ship. The same subject was dealt with in a number of the reports submitted to the committee by trade associations.
In a passage that is likely to be quoted extensively in the future, the committee examine the possibility of giving incentives to or imposing penalties upon traders who involve lorries in delay. The present system of averaging road haulage rates is considered unfair, and there is no way in which the shipping company or the port authority can help, except by exhortation, which has not proved very successful in the past. Therefore, say the committee, "road transport interests should consider most carefully whether a system of demurrage charges could be introduced " to penalize the offenders.
The same idea has often been discussed verbally by hauliers, but for obvious reasons few of them have been willing to commit themselves publicly. Demurrage has been considered almost a rude word, when applied to road transport. Now that it has found its way into print, and in an official publication at that, the opportunity of using it freely is too good to be missed.