AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

topi

4th June 1971, Page 51
4th June 1971
Page 51
Page 51, 4th June 1971 — topi
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Market values

by la nus

CARIB BEAN sugar and New Zealand butter have occupied most of the shop window in the Common Market discussions. Some of the other issues are regarded as bargaining counters or even as loss leaders. Transport, it seems likely, is one of a third group that will be taken for granted. Britain will fall into line with what the Six have already agreed, with the chance only of exerting some influence when entry has been agreed. Road operators will make some gains from British membership. The flow of traffic to and from the Continent will increase with closer trade ties. International operators will expect a share in the Community quota. At present it provides for 1200 permits in a year, entitling the holders to make any number of journeys between all or any of the Six countries.

FRANCE and Germany have the largest share with 286 permits each. The UK can hardly be offered fewer. There are already separate bilateral agreements with each country in the Common Market. Operators sending vehicles into France already have the choice of seeking ordinary permits, permits for road-rail journeys on piggyback or permits from a co-operation quota which requires the provision of a return load for a French vehicle. An alternative sometimes possible is to route the journey through the Netherlands. The Anglo-Dutch agreement sets no limit on the number of vehicles passing between one country and another. This liberalization, it must be supposed, is the ultimate ideal for the whole Community. There is still a long way to go. It is even possible to envisage that, once the UK joins the Common Market, there will be pressure to modify the agreement with the Netherlands so as to bring it more into line with some of the other bilateral arrangements.

TIES may be one of the few points on which the negotiators will seek an assurance. For the most part, the common transport policy which has been drawn up in accordance with the Treaty of Rome is regarded as sacrosanct, although the timetable for many of the provisions has not been kept and the remaining provisions are merely scheduled for action at an unspecified date. Following this year's Budget, some operators had hoped that transport costs might not attract the new value added tax. Unfortunately for such hopes, imposition of the tax is included in the common transport policy. It also stipulates standardization of working conditions, although not of wages. The rules for drivers' hours may cause some difficulty. British operators who send a driver into the Common Market with his vehicle have already encountered the provision which limits him to an 8-hour driving day and to 450km travel in any one day. Most of the Common Market countries, however, have accepted what is known as the Geneva agreement for journeys which extend beyond the Community borders. This agreement allows a 9-hour driving day for an interim period until the end of 1973. The expectation is that British operators will at once have to face a reduction from 10 to nine hours for journeys within the UK as well as international traffic. At the end of 1973 there will be a further drop to eight hours.

APART from stipulated periods of continuous rest, there is no limk on working as distinct from driving time. A driver may be on duty for 13 hours a day, including rest breaks and no more than eight hours' driving. Many operators believe that this provision will give them greater freedom and flexibility than they have at present.

Fair competition and controlled expansion are the basic principles of the common transport policy. Although stated in this way they may seem acceptable to British operators, more detailed study presents a different picture. Under the Transport Act 1968, control over the growth of road transport was abandoned. An operator's licence is granted to any applicant who proves himself worthy of it. The Community does not believe in this kind of freedom. its constituent countries keep the distinction between road haulage and operation on own-account and it will be upheld when the time comes to merge the various licensing systems.

RELEVANT to licensing is the persistent effort by the Community to create an elaborate rate structure, with maximum and minimum charges no more than 23 per cent apart. Other provisions for taxation, state subsidy, allocation of infrastructure costs, financial stability of the railways, and so on, are partly inspired by the ideal of fair competition. No country is to gain an advantage by hidden or open concessions which enable its operators to

provide transport on the cheap.

Quantity and financial control are the means envisaged to maintain the balance. When it comes to the point, it may be agreed that only one is needed for the purpose. In that event, the forked tariff is the more likely to be abandoned, if only because of the difficulties in the way of its application. Inevitably the pressure will increase for control by licensing. British operators may find themselves returning to something very much like the system which was established in 1933. The Geddes oracle will after all have spoken in vain.

ANOTHER problem lies in the future. The 1968 Act provided for the compulsory fitting of tachographs in commercial vehicles. The Common Market also has this in mind. Installation is to be compulsory in new vehicles from August 1 1975 and in all vehicles after April 11978. Trade union objections prevented the last Government from taking the matter further and the present Government has no plans for tachographs. Operators have mixed opinions while union opposition continues. A somewhat difficult decision will have to be reached if and when the UK enters the Community.

AT the moment there is little enthusiasm. One reason for this, in the field of transport as elsewhere, is the irritating realization that the British will be called upon to conform to a set of rules which they have played no part in shaping. Many hauliers might prefer to go back to carriers' licensing, but they do not wish to be indebted to Europe for the reversal of policy. Most operators see the 8-hour driving day as ultimately inevitable and indeed desirable, but they wish the step to be taken in their own good British time.

HEY are apprehensive about what can happen with the railways. In France and in Western Germany more goods travel by rail than by road, and it is no coincidence that both countries have imposed rigid controls and burdens on long-distance road transport. If they urge the same policy within an enlarged Community, British operators may find unpleasant repercussions at home. There are already too many people prepared to advocate greater use of the railways for carrying freight. To counter-balance the Common Market rules there are not many home-made products to offer. Certainly there are some operators who would like to suggest exporting the Road Transport Industry Training Board and perhaps the Road Haulage Wages Council. No reasonable offer would be refused, but it is not likely to be made. Welcome from the other side would be support for the increase in permitted vehicle weights. As compensation for the amenity interests that are bound to object, the French might even be persuaded to send across the Channel the eating places that have become so well known under the sign of Les Routiers.


comments powered by Disqus