1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
topic
Page 94
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Transport problems in the Market
by janus
A. T this present moment of time it seems extraordinary that during the long-drawn-out passage of the Transport Bill through Parliament hardly any consideration was given to the possible
effect of Britain's entry into the Common Market. Possibly the formidable obstacle presented by General de Gaulle had persuaded the politicians that the application for entry would never be accepted and that the prospect could therefore be discounted.
Somewhat later in the day and at more or less the same time the two road transport associations have begun to realize what may happen. At the annual dinner of the Road Haulage Association this week the chairman, Mr Noel Wynn, in his last public statement in that capacity, gave a warning—mild in comparison with the language used by some of the interests affected tut none the less a warning—that at some stage in the Common Market negotiations the Government would have to reckon with the problems and the opinions of road operators.
MR WYNN had calculated that 2s in every X of expenditure by trade and industry and the public went into road goods haulage. The inference was left to be drawn that the future of this industry might therefore be much more important than that of other more vociferous interests. Mr G. F. Page, president, Freight Transport Association, at the FTA annual dinner last month, took an even more moderate tone. "Wholesale changes in the legal framework of road transport," said Mr Page, "might well be part of the price of going into Europe and indeed might be a price we should willingly and rightly pay."
If Mr Wynn was a shade less conciliatory the points that worried him were broadly speaking the same as those that worried Mr Page. It is barely a month since hauliers ran the gauntlet required of them before they could sport their 0-licence discs. For most C-licence holders the ordeal is still to come and it will continue until almost the end of the year.
This process is only the first step. Many months will pass before the effects of the change from one licensing system to another becomes at all clear. The first appeal against the refusal of an 0 licence has only just been heard and there will be many more before broad principles are established.
The first objections against 0-licence applications have been lodged and there is even more uncertainty about their effect and the extent to which the various organizations and interests involved will choose to use their powers of objection. Operators and their associations are keeping a careful watch on the transactions in traffic courts on 0-licence applications and concern has already been expressed about the ease with which 0 licences can be obtained, at least in some parts of the country.
As if the situation were not confused enough there is still what Mr Wynn has called "the spectre of quantity licensing or special authorizations." The Government at any time has the power to make this problem disappear. There is no assurance that the power will be used or on the other hand that quantity licensing will be put into effect in the near future. Like the Common Market, it is yet another of the incalculable hazards that lie ahead for the road operator.
Quantity licensing is more in line than 0 licensing with the system in many if not most Continental countries. The principle which governs it is the need to protect the railways against undue competition. This consideration has already proved a stumbling block in the attempt by the EEC, not merely to propound a common transport policy based on resounding principles such as freedom of transit and non-discrimination, but actually to put that policy into effect. The arguments may still be raging if and when Britain is finally accepted into the Community.
N some of the Common Market countries the railways are subsidized so that they can carry goods at low rates to and from remote areas such as Brittany and southern Italy. Although subsidies of this kind seem to involve discrimination there are no signs at present of a serious effort to abolish them. The supplementary principle, familiar to British operators under the name of "co-ordination of transport," could presumably be invoked to meet objections to rail subsidies or other State assistance, particularly when, as with quantity licensing, the object is to avoid a railway deficit. It will not be so easy to evade the central licensing issue. The common system of carriers' licensing proposed by the European Commission seems to be based on principles peculiar to itself. For one thing it is suggested that there should be a restriction on the total amount of road haulage to be licensed at any time. This seems an even more severe restriction than the British system of carriers' licensing which puts an obligation on hauliers to refute any objection that the facilities are already adequate for whatever services they propose to provide.
It seems also to be an immutable part of the Common Market transport policy that the distinction should continue between hauliers restricted to a kind of national quota and operators on own-account who will remain free to carry their own traffic in exactly the same way as C-licence holders in Britain. In this situation the concept of 0 licensing is a complete anomaly.
Another item in the Common Market transport policy will present equal problems. It arises from the need to avoid discrimination and hidden subsidies. The solution is thought to be a common rates structure to apply throughout the EEC. If hauliers and other providers of transport are not allowed to charge less than a certain rate, or more than another rate not too' much different from the first, there can be no suspicion that the customer is receiving an unfair advantage especially against a competitor from another Common Market country.
NATIONAL tariffs are not unknown and where they have been in operation for many years, as in the US, they appear to function reasonably well. Whether they fulfil the purpose for which they are designed is another matter. Where no tariff exists the problem of building one is enormous as the Common Market countries are already finding.
When the Geddes Committee was considering carriers' licensing one or two proposals were put forward for a system which would replace the old restrictions with a scale of charges to which every operator would be obliged to conform in return for complete freedom to run whatever vehicles he liked. Unfortunately for the proposers they thought it only reasonable to outline a formula on which the rates could be calculated. The attempt produced so many complications that perhaps wisely the Geddes Committee made no attempt to follow this particular path.
If membership of the Common Market means a compulsory rates system and reversal of the licensing route so clearly marked by the Transport Act 1968, operators are fully justified in protesting strongly and in making sure that their claims for consideration are not overlooked. After all they will have enough to cope with as a result of what may be accepted as inevitable changes on other points such as drivers' hours and records.