Common Market Will Affect Everyone
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A:THOUGH designed specifically to discuss the problems involved in the transport of engineering goods to Europet a conference held by the British Engineers' Association in London on Tuesday contained a large measure of explanation and discussion of the effect which the European Economic Community would have on this country, whether Britain was a member or not.
In his opening speech, Mr. E. N. Griffith, president Of the Association, said that present trends made it clear that manufacturers must re-examine the arrangements at present employed for transport of goods to Europe. The export figures for engineering goods confirmed the fist growth of the European market Continental customers would have a wide . choice of their sources of supply. They would expect speedy, reliable delivery of goods at their own front door. Transport arrangements could mar prospects for future orders if they were not satisfactory. He concluded: " Manufacturers rely upon the providers of transport services to enable them to meet the exacting requirements of their European customers."
The main paper of the day was presented by Mr. J. W. Bannard, assistant transport adviser, Unilever Ltd. Mr. Bannard gave a comprehensive picture of the way transport policy and legislation were being developed, within the E.E.C., pointing out that everything was still very much in the formative stages.
Mr. Bannard devoted the last part of his paper to his own comments on the proposed common transport policy within the E.E.C. There were two ways in which users could endeavour to influence the common transport policy, even though this country was not a member of the E.E.C. Influence could be brought to bear through international associations such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the International Road Transport Union. The I.C.C. had succeeded in having the views of users heard at Brussels through its committee of European transport users; the Traders Road Transport Association was pressing the I.R.U. to appoint a liaison committee to work with the E.E.C. Later, if Britain joined the Common Market, contact with the Ministry of Transport would become of first importance.
Liberal Proposals The E.E.C. Commission's proposals were much more liberal than might have been expected. Hardly any reference had been made to co-ordinating transport in the restrictive sense, and no inclination to follow the present restrictive U.S.A. policy. The Commission had, on the contrary, stressed some very liberal and praiseworthy principles. These included: healthy competition; charges which reflected-the cost of the service; equality of treatment; financial autonomy; a large measure of freedom for individual undertakings; freedom for the user to choose the form of transport required; and freedom to operate transport on own account (subject to reservations about ta xation), n28 The Rome Treaty had specifically laid down two other principles, namely, compensation for losses arising through the meeting of certain obligations which the transport provider might have to meet, and that transport charges should not be used to subsidize particular industries or undertakings. All this showed a considerable leaning towards the commercial rather than the public service concept.
The ways in which the proposed common transport policy might affect British operators if this country joined the Common Market could come about in 11 ways.
(1) For consignments exceeding five tons and carried for more than (a) about 60 miles in this country or (b) for 20 miles to or from another member state, the professional Carrier would have to keep a document showing full information about charges, rebates, etc., so that it can be spot-checked to discover infringements of discrimination or forked tariff requirements.
(2) The possibility of C-licensed transport being subject to a special tax, whilst remaining free.
(3) The need for the Government to notify proposals which might interfere with the attainment of a common transport policy and not to bring them into effect without consultation.
(4) E.E.C. licensing of international transport and gradual replacement of a national licensing system by the Community one.
(5) The right of operators to establish themselves in other member countries.
(6) The need for applicants to enter road haulage to provider guarantees of professional qualifications and financial stability.
(7) The use of forked tariffs for transport charges, both national and international, with publication of the maximum and minimum rates. Special contracts would be allowed on a very limited basis.
Harmonization of taxation and other. fiscal matters.
Harmonization of technical legislation relating to the construction and use of vehicles.
(10) Harmonization of drivers' hours, etc.
(I 11) Co-ordination of investment.
Many of the proposals applied to national, as well as international, transport, so it was clear that even operators who did not carry to the Continent would be affected. The proposals about forked tariffs and published rates constituted the principal worry to British transport users,
the great majority of whom considered that providers should be free to determine their own rates. It was desirable that the very wide differences in costs, particularly in road transport, should be reflected in the charges. Further, the large number of relatively small units in road transport would make enforcement difficult.
The E.E.C. was in some difficulty here because, eventually, .there would be no customs tariffs within the Market and artificial differences in transport rates could not be allowed to distort the position. It was sensible to discourage cutthroat competition and the acceptance of return loads at low rates. --Further, the position was relative to each country. What would be a measure of restriction in one might represent a substantial easing of control in another.
Tariffs and Rates
However, he thought that users in this .country should, at the present stage, firmly oppose the E.E.C. Commission's proposals for forked tariffs and publication of rateS.
It was known that there were different views within the Six on the width of the forks and, further, the Commission had expressed the view that it was important to ensure that there was a knowledge of rates actually charged and that the problem should be studied exhaustively in order that the practical means of solving it could be found. The Commission had suggested the transport .industry should be consulted; surely so should the user.
Users would be very interested in the definition of " transport on own account," when it was given. There was no reference at present to hired vehicles being included. The question of hiring was of considerable importance because, to the extent to which it was permitted as "transport on own account," it would escape the control of charges and probably the quota system.
The proposals for community licensing did not envisage abolition of. control. A point of interest was that they might eventually ease the British notion of "normal user." In no country in the Market was transport nationalized, and attempts to renationalize road transport or control C-licence work might prove difficult, Other papers at the conference were given by Mr. R. D. Mason, special duties manager of Pickfords heavy haulage service; and Mr. S. A. Claydon, Continental traffic and shipping manager, Eastern Region, British Railways.