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 
topic
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tell me not in mournful numbers
by Janus
natural that the hauliers in the ports should handle both the outward and the inward traffic. French operators travelling into the Netherlands must have found difficulty in getting return loads and have been correspondingly discouraged. The co-operation quota has been a boon to them as well as to the Dutch hauliers who have picked up bonus permits.
ONLY sympathy can be felt for the officials who have had to spend so much time in argument about the Anglo-French quota for international journeys by road. Even the endless talks between East and West on disarmament and kindred topics can seldom have seemed so futile.
To its credit, the British Government— irrespective of the party in power—has consistently held to the opinion that the most sensible system would allow the vehicles of one country to enter another with the fewest • possible restrictions. The aim should be freedom rather than quotas. Gallic logic comes to a different conclusion.
In fairness, it has to be said that the French have a problem which does not affect the UK. International transport is part of the export drive. Each journey by a British vehicle into France produces for the operator revenue which would otherwise be spent abroad. The Anglo-French balance of trade is already substantially to the advantage of the UK. The even more substantial preponderance of international journeys by British operators distorts the balance further.
THERE is at least one other objection. British vehicles travelling into France increase congestion and wear out the French roads. This applies whether or not the destination is in France or a country beyond. The same point has been raised in the UK. Complaints of the inconvenience and nuisance caused by foreign vehicles played a significant part in the campaign to prevent an increase in lorry weights.
The traditional European solution to these problems is the bilateral quota. It appears to have worked reasonably well. In most cases the volume of traffic between the two countries concerned is roughly the same in each direction; the quota does no more than underline the equality or provide an additional safeguard.
Where the balance is uneven, the quota has to be propped up by other means. The recent announcement on the Anglo-French agreement contains a reminder that for some years the ordinary quota fixed between France and the Netherlands has had to be supplemented by what is called a cooperation quota.
UNDER this arrangement, a Dutch operator who found a load for a French operator earned for himself a permit over and above the normal quota. The system was designed to operate in both directions, but there have been few, if any, cases in which a French operator has performed a similar service for his Dutch counterpart.
This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that the number of French vehicles requiring to take traffic into the Netherlands each year must be negligible. Dutch operators regularly exhaust their ordinary annual quota almost before the French operators have begun.
There is no lack of cargo from the Netherlands, much of it from the Dutch ports. It is HETHER the system will work as well in the UK is another matter. The two Governments are approaching the subject cautiously, as is clear from the low figure of 2000 co-operation journeys fixed for 1971. The Dutch arrangement provides for two or three times as many extra permits.
The initial difficulty must be to define the circumstances in which it can be held that a return load has been provided. The problem may not have been so acute in the Netherlands. For example, a haulier handling traffic passing through Rotterdam would have considerable discretion in determining how the traffic was to be carried. If he handed it to a French haulier, there would be clear evidence of a normal sub-contracting operation.
Rates and conditions of sub-contracting, and especially the commission to be charged, may not always be easily settled. As a change from the normal relationship, the foreign haulier is doing a favour to the native and might expect some consideration. He would certainly be liable to haggle more fiercely than usual about the rate he is to receive.
Another issue may arise as a result of operators' licensing which has abolished the distinction between traffic on own-account and for hire or reward. The trader with the traffic will be in the best possible position to offer it as a return load and thereby obtain a spare permit for his own use. Such a development would be to the ,detriment of the British haulier who might otherwise expect to handle both loads.
Obstinately, the Continental countries persist in their attempt to adapt their own longstanding arrangements to their relationship with the UK. Only in a few cases, such as the Netherlands and Sweden, is it realized that the development of roll-on roll-off services has changed the situation. Where two countries are linked by land, the only barriers are artificial. Even as narrow a division as the Channel produces a need for special vehicles and for equally special interworking.
BECAUSE the UK is the focal point for the ferry services, British operators are bound to be the most concerned in their development. The principle of equality which the Continental countries have tried to apply in their agreements with each other—and not always successfully even then—ought to be irrelevant in discussions with the latest recruit to international road transport.
Arguments about wear and tear on French roads and congestion in French villages are no more relevant than similar arguments in the UK. They have no point at all if the suggested remedy is to transfer the source Of the annoyance from British to French vehicles. The debate between the economy and amenity transcends frontiers.
MANUFACTURERS use international road transport because they find it most effective. Some part of the benefit must be felt in the country of origin and the country of destination. For every permit that is refused there must be some increase in the price of a commodity.
It is on this basis rather than on a calculation of quotas that future Anglo-French agreements should be discussed. The events of the past 12 months should have taught the lesson. The very modest quota at the beginning of 1970 had to be substantially increased on two occasions and new figures have had to be devised for 1971. The events show a commendable elasticity in the approach of the French authorities. They may come to accept that, when an estimate has to be revised so frequently, the fault may lie in the very principle of having an estimate in the first place.
Operators should spare a thought for the officials who have had to administer the system as well as those who negotiated it. In an attempt to keep within the quota, the Northern traffic area office has been forced to turn down a proportion of the applications for permits. The task must have been an invidious one. It is a tribute to the officials that they carried it out with comparatively few complaints. This does not invalidate the contention that the task has been unnecessary.