Permits: a raw deal
Page 92
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• "The severe shortage of permits for Germany and Italy is holding the industry back." So says Russ Peters (CM, January 17), and as chairman of the RE-IA International Group, he should know.
As the Department of Transport official responsible for dealing with permits between 1970 and 1982 I know there is no easy solution — but is the Dip doing everything possible to ease the problem? Junior Transport Minister Peter Bottomley says it is. I doubt it.
In the first place, how did we get into this mess? As usual, with the best of intentions.
Permits first appeared on the British scene 20 years ago. In 1967 the AngloGerman road transport agreement came into force. Until then a haulier sending a lorry to West Germany had to apply direct to Cologne for a licence while German lorries coming here had to go through the carriers' licensing system. This was complicated and extremely time-consuming.
The EEC agreement exempts lorries of each member state from the road haulage licensing system of the others, Instead, hauliers need permits which they obtain from their own authorities. Germany insisted on limiting these by an annually adjustable quota, but the first year's quota was more than enough for the traffic levels of the time so on balance, the new arrangement seemed better than the old.
So far, so good — but not for long. With hindsight it is clear that a fundamental mistake was made at this time.
ENORMOUS GROWTH
No one foresaw the enormous growth in international haulage by ro-ro ferry. In 1963, 17,000 lorries of all nationalities crossed the Channel and North Sea. Ten years later this had risen to 290,000 and the quota negotiated in 1967 soon proved much too small for the demands of Britain's rapidly growing international haulage industry.
The quota was subject to annual re-negotiation to meet the growth of traffic, but Germany's policy was strongly pro-rail — and if there had to be a growth in international haulage between Britain and Germany, the Germans wanted it carried out by their own hauliers, who were using only a small proportion of their quota.
So increases could only be won by hard negotiation, and by attempting to meet German wishes — for example, promoting the use of the road/rail "piggyback" sys tern, or increasing German hauliers' share of the market by co-operative arrangements with British hauliers. By these means the quota has now been raised to over ten times its initial level, but it has never been sufficient to meet the overall demand.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation did not become apparent immediately, so the same mistake was made when the agreements with Italy and France came into force in 1969 and early in 1970 respectively. Both initial quotes were too small. Recent negotiating successes have enabled the DTp to take French permits off the ration — but the Italian quote has always been below British demand. This led MEP Bill Newton-Dunn to protest to Peter Bottomley on behalf of a constituent who has lost business because he cannot get enough Italian permits (CM, January 17).
In his reply Bottomley told Dunn: "We use every opportunity to protest at the inadequacy of the quota for Italy." Do we really? Last month John Moore and some of his junior ministers were in Brussels for the meeting of EEC Transport Ministers. So was the Italian Minister. Here was one of Bottomley's "opportunities to protest". So did Moore or one of his juniors buttonhole the Italians to complain about the permit shortage? Presumably not, since Bottomley does not mention such a protest in his letter, written after the Brussels meeting. If not, why not?
The FTA's Caroline Trewhitt alleges that the Italians are being difficult about even arranging a meeting to discuss the quota. If that is true (and it used to hap
pen a lot in my day) the Brussels meeting would have been an ideal opportunity to protest about that as well. Bottomley's silence seems to indicate that no protest was made. Again — if not, why not?
I can guess at the real answer to those questions, though it is not one that will issue from Marsham Street. Moore, who chaired last month's meeting, had devoted his six months as president to the politically popular topic of cheaper air fares (we totally failed to achieve anything, but that's another story). I believe he simply didn't want that meeting cluttered up with other topics.
TOTALLY CLEAR
He could not keep the agenda totally clear of road haulage matters, however. A proposal to increase the number of EEC permits had to be discussed, and Britain got less than any other country — a miserable 12.9%. Of the countries causing our current permit problems, Italy got 33.4% and Germany 27.6%.
The formula under which the increases are applied works against British interests. That alone costs us 168 permits. Last month several countries argued successfully that they should receive special treatment, in addition to the "formula" increases. Belgium, for example, gained an extra 60 permits.
In Brussels last week I asked a Eurocrat who had been present at the ministers' meeting whether Britain had also made a case for better treatment. I was assured that there had been total silence on the topic. If that is so — and I have no reason to doubt it — is it not disgraceful?
Extra EEC permits can be used for journeys to any member state. An extra 60, as obtained by Belgium, would have gone a long way to relieving the shortage of Italian and German bilateral permits.
Bottomley's letter to Dunn ends: "We have been fighting long and hard for the liberalisation of road haulage." Long, certainly — but hard?
One wonders if Dunn's haulier constituent, forced to give work away because of permit shortages, would agree.
11 by Reg Dawson