HC Deb 28 November 1974 vol 882 cc945-62

8.47 a.m.

The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley)

I beg to move: That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1255/74. This debate, although rather later than we expected, is taking place at the request of the Scrutiny Committee to enable the House to make known its views on the Commission's proposals. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the Community quota system as it now exists and as it should develop.

As the House knows, most international road haulage—about 95 per cent.—takes place under arrangements based on a bilateral agreement. They vary in form but normally they prohibit or severely restrict third country traffic. For example, a lorry registered in country A may not pick up in country B for delivery to country C. That often means uneconomic running. In 1969 the original Six introduced the experimental Community quota system which permits traffic to be picked up within one Community country and taken to another. It also permits the quota to be used on more than one occasion. That was a small-scale experiment in the liberalisation of international road haulage operations.

It was of small scale because initially it gave us only 1,200 permits throughout the Six. That represented about 3 per cent. of intra-Community road haulage. Most of the journeys continued and still continue to be carried out under bilateral agreements. Even if the issue of Community quotas runs to the extent recommended by the Commission they will still amount to only 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the intra-Community traffic at the end of 1976.

The whole of the United Kingdom share can be set out by giving the figures. When we acceded to the Community originally we had only 99 permits. From April to December 1973 that allocation was increased to 114. From January to June of this year we had 129 permits and at the last meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers I managed to get an increase of some 75 per cent., raising the number to 227.

One of the difficulties in the earlier stages was that some members of the EEC linked a proportion of the Community quotas with the then Government's refusal to go along with the Commission's recommendations on the weight and dimensions of lorries.

I made it very clear in June that I stood by the situation laid down by the then Labour Opposition on 29th November 1972 when my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment moved a motion That this House, mindful of the environment, is against bigger and heavier lorries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 511.] That motion was carried without a Division and, as far as I recall, without a dissident voice being raised. I made it clear to my Community colleagues that that was the position as I saw it and that if it came to a debate in the House on the subject, I would expect the House to reach a similar conclusion as that which it reached in November 1972.

There is no question of the extra quotas which I achieved in June having been obtained by any concession whatever on the question of weights and dimensions. As far as I know, the matter is not on the agenda for the next meeting which is proposed to take place on 11th December. It is essential to have a meeting before the end of the year because the Community quota system would otherwise come to an end. The Commission proposes that the system should continue for two more years and will give an annual increase of 15 per cent. to the Six and 20 per cent. to new members.

The Government's attitude is that the extension of the number of quotas is a step in the right direction—but it is only a step. It would be wrong if the system lapsed on 31st December 1974 because my view—and I think it was the view of my predecessor—is that we should like to see a substantial liberalisation of international road haulage. We welcome the proposals, as have the Scandinavians—and indeed the Benelux countries where there are no restrictions on numbers, and where the arrangement works on a reciprocal basis. Therefore, it would be unfortunate if the Community quota system were to come to an end.

The bilateral arrangements can be illustrated by some figures. I wish to refer to the major bilateral arrangements which we have been able to make for next year. We do not yet know what the Community quota will be for 1975. The present quota which ran from June is 227, which is 75 per cent, higher for the first half of the year. Against that we have already reached agreement with France on a general quota of 29,000 for 1975, which is 25 per cent, up on this year. We have also increased the co-operation quota, where the journeys are partly carried by French vehicles, from 5,500 to 7,000. In the case of West Germany we have reached agreement for a 15 per cent, increase for the first half of next year to make 5,710 permits available, and there is provision for a further 5 per cent, increase from 1st July next, bringing the total for the year to 5,960. Also, in this case the co-operation quota goes up from 500 to 700.

The only country in which we have not been very successful—there are special difficulties here—has been in the case of the Italian quota. We have not yet reached agreement for next year. A new Minister of Transport has been appointed by the Italian Government and I shall be making early and strong representations to him, because I have received from hon. Members complaints and instances of difficulties caused to firms in their constituencies because we have been unable to provide as many permits for journeys to and through Italy as we would have wished. As the House knows, the quota for 1974 was no greater than in 1973—although there has been a big increase of trade—and, indeed, is less than it was in 1972. I shall certainly do all I can to improve that bilateral agreement.

At the meeting on 11th December or whenever it takes place, while making it absolutely clear that the Government's position about the dimensions of vehicles remains unchanged I shall certainly press for a substantial increase in the number of Community quota permits allocated to this country, and I should like to go with the feeling that these two objectives—remaining firm on the dimensions issue and seeking a further and substantial increase in the number of quotas—have the support of the House.

For that reason I welcome this debate, although we could all agree that we would have preferred it to take place at a rather different time in the parliamentary timetable.

8.58 a.m.

Mr. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The Minister need not fear the withdrawal of the instruction which was given at the end of 1972, and in so far as his second objective is the best of a bad job he probably need have no anxiety about that either.

This Community draft regulation is, however, a typically ironical Community production and it illustrates the wide gulf between profession and practice in the European Economic Community. After all, the underlying principle on which the Community is constructed is the principle of market conditions, freedom of exchange regulated by competition and the classic theory of widening the area of free movement and improving the quality of competition. And yet we are presented with a document of this sort which represents exactly the opposite principle.

In my opinion it is bad enough inside any one country for road transport to be regulated bureaucratically as to its quantity. I am not concerned with regulations relating solely to safety of road user, and so on. I am concerned purely with the economic aspect of the quantities and loads carried. That is bad enough inside a single country, but here, in the area which is supposed to be engaged in breaking down the barriers to competition, we find a fully-developed quota system in action, with the allocation of the quotas carved up on the best bureaucratic principles. These are intended-otherwise they are of no effect—to defeat market methods of allocation and replace them by arbitrary allocation. So we have the most brusque contrast that can be imagined between theory and practice. It is clear that neither the British road haulage industry nor the right hon. Gentleman likes this international quota system of allocation, and it is difficult to see how they could.

But then there is the second irony which the regulation exhibits, that the reality lies somewhere remote from what the Community and the Commission purport to be doing and to be imposing by regulation. As the right hon. Gentleman made dramatically clear by the figures he quoted, the reality lies in the bi-lateral arrangements made between member countries. They are not made between member countries because the countries are members; they are made between the countries because, given the different forms of restriction in the respective countries, in order to maintain a reasonable volume of road traffic between them for ordinary commercial reasons they have to come to an agreement.

They would have come to a similar agreement—for all I know a better agreement—if there had not been this dream world superimposed upon them of a bureaucratic Community quota system. So here we have the double myth of the Community, the contrast between professions and practice, and the contrast between Community theory and the reality, which has little or nothing to do with the Community.

The fact is that road traffic between this country and Western Europe would develop, and would probably develop more satisfactorily, if the Community had never existed. Whether we are in the Community or not, little or no obstacle would be offered to that development, which must clearly have a long way to go in the coming years.

But we are now in the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he echoed every word which I have spoken, would find himself up to the knees in the existing Community system, and no remit which this House could give him would enable him to escape from it. I deduce from that a very broad and brutal conclusion. That is that the sort of negotiations which we need to have with the Community, the sort of terms which we need to get from the Community in large and in small, are not to be obtained by saying "We are renegotiating, but meanwhile we play along within the rules." They are to be obtained only on the strength which is given by the electoral authority that the Government have for a fundamental renegotiation. Let them use that, and they will very soon find that far more freedom of trade will be opened up to this country in Western Europe than the Community rules will ever achieve.

These are the reflections—either sad or hopeful, according to taste—which the regulations may well inspire.

9.4 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am glad to speak after the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because, while I agree with some of the comments he made, I find the case he has put ironic. He charges the Community with not practising what it preaches, but I suspect that the reasons for this are reasons of economic constraints which inevitably make themselves felt in areas where free competition without restriction is perhaps the ideal.

It was, I believe, a very conservative administration in the early 1930s which introduced control and regulation in this country as to quantity and routes and installed a quasi-judicial procedure under the Road Traffic Acts which interrupted the theoretical free flow of competition since men and vehicles were literally running themselves into the ground in fatal accidents because of the fierce and bitter competition in the road transport industry.

Mr. Powell

What the hon. Gentleman says about the history of this matter in the United Kingdom is perfectly true, and that is why as long as I have been in politics, some 30 years, I have publicly and consistently condemned the legislation of 1930 and 1933.

Mr. Spearing

The House will be interested to hear that, but the right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to confuse what I understood from my right hon. Friend the Minister to be two subjects. I understand that the regulation we are considering deals with B and C countries, whereas the second half of my right hon. Friend's remarks was concerned with bilateral quotas, which I do not see referred to in the regulation.

Mr. Mulley

The bilateral arrangements are, as the word suggests, negotiated, and sometimes the negotiations are long and difficult, but, as "bilateral" indicates, they are carried on between the two countries concerned. I mention the matter first, because it will be a source of satisfaction to the House that substantial increases have been agreed for next year which will very much help our road haulage industry and its trade, and, secondly, so that the House, in judging the document, may realise that it is an important but not significant part of the total international road haulage business. It was put in only for reasons of perspective. Bilateral quotas are not discussed in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming the matter. It may well be correct with regard to bilateral quotas and bilateral agreements. I do not think that it is necessarily correct with regard to second and third country quotas, which are the subject of the regulation.

I conclude from what my right hon. Friend has said that bilateral quotas were not only in existence but were negotiated before this country acceded to the treaty. Therefore, should we remove ourselves from the EEC, similar bilateral arrangements would persist and would continue on a bilateral basis whether or not we were in the Community. Bilateral traffic is by far the largest section. The rest is only 7 or 8 per cent, of international trade in the Community. Therefore, were we to withdraw from the EEC, the loss of the quotas would not be a matter of great moment.

I fear that much of the growth to which my right hon. Friend has referred is not perhaps as healthy as some of us would wish. It has been pointed out to me that the loss of entrepot trade with the rest of the world from South Coast ports and, particularly, from London, may have found its way into TIR lorries crossing the Channel. Therefore, large lorries which hon. Members see en route for Dover or a roll-on roll-off ferry boat may not represent trade specifically between this country and one of the EEC countries. Such trade may be going to Antwerp or Rotterdam where it will be swiftly loaded upon an international ocean-going freighter which may at other times have come to British ports. Some of the growth in the bilateral rather than the regulation traffic is of that sort. In quoting increased trade figures between ourselves and the EEC countries we must remember that there will be an element of indirect entrepot trade which previously came direct by sea.

I am sorry that the Explanatory Memorandum is not so detailed as it might be. My right hon. Friend put the regulation into perspective and told us of its purpose, which was not to be divined from the memorandum. I hope future memoranda will contain more detailed information. The regulation refers to figures that appear "appropriate".

What is the criteria on which an increase in quotas is based in global terms and nationally? According to the regulation, quotas are allocated to specific carriers. Who checks the lorry permits of specific carriers, and on what basis? I presume that is done by the erstwhile Ministry of Transport within the Department of the Environment, but on what basis? Do operators make application, and on what basis is a limited number of quotas farmed out?

According to the parent regulations the records are complex and must be returned within a fortnight. Are the records collected, and is a summary of the non-bilateral traffic issued under the preceding regulations? Many people would be interested in the records and were we to secede from the EEC for these purposes there is no reason why our public records should not maintain the traditions of the past.

We cannot take a strong objection to the regulation because it applies to a relatively small proportion of the international traffic, and the bilateral quotas, which are strictly outside the EEC structure, would still be maintained were we to secede from the EEC.

9.13 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

In recommending the regulation to the House, the Minister rather apologetically prefaced his remarks by saying that there had been only a small liberalisation of road haulage. There is no doubt that the dead hand of continental bureaucracy is stifling transport firms in the United Kingdom.

My concern is with Northern Ireland, which depends on being able to move its products. They have to be moved considerable distances and, being on the periphery of the Common Market, Northern Ireland suffers sadly from a great number of difficulties. It is a hardship that the United Kingdom quota should still be relatively small. The result is that the number of permits available to the Province for inter-Community traffic is so small that industry and road hauliers suffer.

I have had complaints about this. I made representations to the authorities, but all I received was the reply that they were bound by the regulations of the Community and by the Council of Ministers, and that nothing could be done about it. As far as I can see, the only people who will benefit, or at least largely benefit, are the road hauliers from the countries on the Continent. How many permits have been available for Northern Ireland since we entered the EEC? How many permits will be available for Northern Ireland next year and in 1976? I hope that the Minister will endeavour to see that more permits are granted to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mulley

I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to press his constituency and regional point, but until we have the decision of the Council of Ministers twelve months from now, I shall not know how many permits I shall be getting for 1976. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Kilfedder

That will not be of much comfort to my constituents.

9.16 a.m.

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)

This is an important debate because, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, it touches on some elements of the Community's transport policy and suggests that here, as with the common agricultural policy, the Community does not think that the market should reign supreme without certain measures of control.

To us on the Labour benches, this is a broad principle which should be accepted, although we need to study the means of intervention proposed in order to ensure that, if the market has adverse economic or social effects, they will be improved by intervention. This instrument is only one part of what one hopes—although there is not much sign of it—is a developing transport policy in the Community, a policy which is specified in the Treaty of Rome. Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the thinking in the Council of Ministers on this question?

We have been told that the new members of the Community are to receive a 20 per cent, increase in their quotas this year because they started with rather low quotas, while the other members of the Community are to receive quotas of 15 per cent. Why has the figure of 15 per cent, been chosen? Is it because it is the rate at which international road traffic is growing? If so, what census information is there to prove that it is an appropriate rate? I understand that the Commission has considered having a thorough review of the matter? What has been planned in this respect?

My right hon. Friend has just referred, in answer to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), to his uncertainty about the 1976 figures. I thought that at one time the Commission wanted to put forward figures for a two-year rather than a one-year period, so there would be 15 per cent, growth in 1975 and a further 15 per cent, in 1976.

It has been suggested that the French presidency of the Council of Ministers would be looking towards a solution for only one year and would like to see an increase in quotas across the board of 20 per cent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist such a proposal. It seems to me that, given the very low level of quotas on which we began, as did the other new big members, we ought to have, despite the substantial increase which my right hon. Friend obtained earlier this year, a faster rate of increase than existing members.

9.20 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

I wish to add my comments to what has been implied by hon. Members on both sides of the House, indirectly, in welcoming this debate. On Monday, in the other EEC "take note" debates there was a deal of very valuable philosophising. For that reason, it is likely that hon. Members will welcome information today and be grateful if we stick to the specific subject under discussion.

From the Opposition Front Bench, we thank the Minister for his comprehensive report and his explanation of this draft regulation, and we have in mind especially the fact that time is getting short for the mid-December meeting when the draft regulation has to be ratified by the Transport Council.

The House will be glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) with us again today. There were those in this House who suggested—and it was reported in the Press, though the names of individual hon. Members were not mentioned—that the Scrutiny Committee was getting into difficulty with its enormous work-load and that morning sittings of the House would be necessary. Et voila! We have one, even if in unpredictable and different circumstances.

Again on behalf of the House, if I may anticipate it without overdoing it, I wish to express our gratitude to the Scrutiny Committee for having recommended this draft regulation for debate.

Although the draft regulation covers a small part of the total volume of road haulage by everything except own-account operators in the Community, this is an important subject in view of its implications for the present, for next year, and for the longer term.

I shall confine myself to echoing some of the misgivings which have been expressed on both sides of the House. However, I shall not take them too far, bearing in mind that this is part and parcel of the way in which the Community works.

We are now seeing that there is not only a developing intimate relationship between the Floor of the House and the Scrutiny Committee but an increasing understanding in this House of how the Community works, how the Council of Ministers works, and how these regulations work.

From the point of view of our road hauliers, there are very important issues at stake. In terms of the relationship, in so far as there is one, between the bilateral quota arrangements and allocations of Community quotas in terms of volume number and percentage increase, the bilateral quotas are much more important and relevant to our road hauliers and those of other member nations than the Community quota.

One hon. Member referred to 7 per cent, or 8 per cent. Other hon. Members have suggested something less. But the quota is very small beer, although the intrinsic nature of the quota is very much more important because of the greater productivity in a Community heavy lorry journey than in a bilateral heavy lorry journey.

Having suggested that these matters are important for our road haulage industry and that there are misgivings, with the industry and Members of this House wondering about the future of the arrangements and how they will develop, perhaps I may put one or two matters to the Minister in the hope that he will have a chance to deal with them later in the debate. For example, what are the implications for the common transport policy as a whole as it develops in future? These quotas form a very small part of the total picture.

We on this side of the House would like to know the Government's attitude to a developing common transport policy in the Community. I am well aware of the scenario of negotiation, or renegotiation as some hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer as the title, but, despite that, this is a matter of some interest. Indeed, I think it has been alluded to by the Scrutiny Committee itself.

The draft regulation also underlines the interim nature of the regulation of these quotas. As the Minister rightly said, there is more to come in future. We assume that this is a developing, dynamic situation, whatever anxieties we may have about the small size of the increase.

What is the reason for the difference? What is the reason for the 15 per cent, to existing members and 20 per cent, for new members? Can it be better explained? Is it accepted by the administration in this country? What is the right hon. Gentlemen's attitude to this matter? What is the Government's attitude to bilateral quotas which have been mentioned several times in the debate?

The Minister rightly paid tribute to France for what had been agreed and negotiated after difficult negotiations. We understand that the Government have gone through difficult negotiations on this matter. The French situation, with the big increase in the quota allocations, is very satisfactory in the circumstances.

Aside from whatever hon. Members may feel about the system and about the allocations, whether a free regime, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, would be better or not, this is the system in both the bilateral quotas and the Community quotas that we have in Europe, and, for better or for worse, the position for France is indeed satisfactory. So is the German situation.

However, it is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he is concerned about Italy and that he hopes for something better. The road haulage industry in this country is rightly alarmed about Italy. I know that there has not been a proper Government there for some time and I understand the political difficulties in that country, but what looks like being the outcome, with a severe reduction in the quota, is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage the anxieties in our road haulage industry.

Looking at the 1975 and 1976 European quota figures, I think that the Minister would agree that the United Kingdom is not doing well. I know that a 20 per cent, increase is allowed for the three new members, but we are the biggest of those new members both in size of gross national product and in the highly developed state of our road haulage industry. Comparing the 1975 figure of 272 for the United Kingdom with 392 for France and 409 for Germany, is that relationship fair?

Despite an improvement relatively in percentage terms for 1976, because of the five points difference in the rate of increase, 318 authorisations for the United Kingdom, compared with 443 for France and 463 for Germany, is still inadequate unless the longer-term development of the system and the increases make up and compensate for that difference. Again, I allow for the fact that this is very much a minority proportion of total journeys by heavy lorries in the Community.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to this matter in his opening remarks, but perhaps he will enlarge, at least briefly, on when he intends to press, not only in the mid-December meeting, but subsequently, for better treatment for this country on those authorisations.

Finally, referring to what has been said about the method by which these quotas are allocated, I should like the Minister to explain in more detail, if it is possible and feasible, the method of allocation. I believe that there is a new Department of the Environment office established not only for the bilateral quotas but also to deal with the Community quotas and the way in which they are farmed out to United Kingdom hauliers. Again, I exclude the "own account" operators in this respect. What does the Minister think about the system and how it will develop? Does he regard it as satisfactory?

Speaking for the Opposition, I hope that the Minister will resolutely resist the attempt by certain countries and certain interests to mix up tariffication weights and measures and other related matters with the question of quotas and allocations. I hope that he will again give us further reassurance on that.

Mr. Mulley

This has been a valuable debate, not least because both the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) took part. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for his kind remarks. As in his case, in order to be be here at this time of the morning, most of us have had to be here all night as well.

I would go a long way with the right hon. Member for Down, South in favour of a more liberal system in the EEC for international road haulage. Indeed, I have ventured to make some remarks in both the Council of Ministers of the Community and the wider European Committee of Ministers of Transport on exactly that theme. Although I did not state the proposition with the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, I shall fortify myself for the next council meeting by taking a copy of today's HANSARD with me.

Certainly I accept—this is our great interest in the Community quota system—that there is a great need to go much further. Many of our friends in the Community find it difficult to move as fast and as far as we would like to go. However, there is between the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries, including one EEC member, absolute freedom of movement on a reciprocal basis.

I also agree that the issue and supervision of the terms need overhaul. Indeed, I have had it in mind to press for a thorough overhaul of the whole system. In this context, it may be that, despite what my hon. Friend said, one year might be more desirable for the extension of the present system than two, so that after a year we could see how it was working.

There were questions about the 15 per cent, growth rate. I gather that this has no specific statistical basis. That of course is another reason why we need to have a major review of the freight market and the system.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I am sorry that we did not give enough information in the memorandum that we submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. We shall certainly see whether it is possible to give more in future, although I sense that they have a large number of documents to deal with and that perhaps they would not want too lengthy communications from Ministers. Certainly we shall try to remedy that if it is felt that we have omitted essential information.

My hon. Friend seemed to think that the bilateral arrangements went on indefinitely. They have to be renegotiated every year. Although I said that some of the negotiations were very long and difficult, I should not want the House to feel that we had any undue difficulty with either France or Germany this time. I pay tribute to my officials involved in these negotiations. It has been a very hard job, but we have been very pleased with the way in which these negotiations have worked out.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Harrow, East asked about how the national allocations were worked out as between the individual countries. I do not know that there is any very logical basis. Although I share completely the hon. Member's concern that we should get better terms, I must point out to him that the present unsatisfactory position arises to a large extent because of the very low number of permits—119—I inherited when I became Minister in March. As already in a very short time I have achieved a 75 per cent, increase, I do not think that it becomes the Tory Party to be too critical of me as though it were my responsibility.

One of the reasons for this was the fact—it was made pretty open—that within the Council of Ministers there was this link between the number of permits we got and our willingness to go along with Commission proposals on weight and dimensions.

In June I was happy to have the link broken. It is on the record of the countries concerned that they no longer want to link the two matters. My view is that, generally speaking, it would be wrong to link Community quotas with this, that or the other consideration that might come before the Council. I should be unwilling to go along with arrangements of that kind, although I do not unduly criticise my predecessor, because I am sure that he was not a party to the linking. It was a unilateral act on the part of the other countries concerned.

I was asked about the allocation of Community quotas within this country when we get them. It has been a very difficult business because the number is so small. The next allocations will be sent to those who already have quotas and have used them. This takes up the point about the records which has been mentioned. The purpose of the record is that it is a requirement of the Commission in issuing the quotas and, unless we can show that we make good use of the quotas, this is held against us in the assesment for future allocations. The hauliers who can show that they have used quotas heavily will get them renewed. The additional permits which we hope to get will go to hauliers who make a case that they have capacity for making the fullest use of them.

These quotas are different from the bilateral permits which are only for a journey between Britain and another country, which may involve returning empty, and which can be used only once. The Community quotas, if we are to get the best value from them, should be used very frequently, and, if used economically, should involve carrying goods between more than two of the Community countries.

We have an International Road Freight Office of the Department of the Environment in Newcastle. The allocations are based on criteria which we have agreed with the two major road haulage bodies—the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. It is a difficult job, but I believe that my officials do their best in the difficult circumstances to make a proper and fair allocation, but, as is usual when things are in short supply, it would be impossible to satisfy everybody's desire and expectations. It would be wrong, if not impossible, to make the allocations on a regional or geographical basis. The quotas must be allocated to hauliers who have traffic travelling to the countries concerned and who would make the most use of them.

I do not have with me the exact figure of the number of permits that were issued to Northern Ireland. I will have that figure procured and sent to the hon. Member for Down, North.

I cannot give the House any information about the number of quotas we shall get in 1976, because we are having the debate before the Council of Ministers' meeting, so that I can go there fortified with the views of the House. It may be, although I hope it is not the case, that there will not be any next year because the system may not be renewed. I stress that the draft regulation before us is the proposal of the Commission. I do not know and I cannot know until the Council of Ministers takes place what the reaction of the other members will be to the 15 per cent, for the original Six and 20 per cent, for the new members.

I accept that there is a need for as many additional permits as we can get, but we must accept that we are in a different situation from road haulage journeys to Europe from the Continental States. A lot of our journeys to the Continent go by national transport on this side, on to ships, and then on to national transport on the other side. These journeys do not need quotas. Between the original Six there are road frontiers, and those States probably have a greater case for them.

We shall not know, however, until the meeting takes place, exactly what views and pressures will be exerted, but certainly my aim will be to get an increase in the total system and an increase, if at all possible, in the British proportion of it.

The common transport policy is in one sense disappointing, yet in another sense it is understandable that the Community has not gone very far in working out national transport policy. In my view an extension of this system would be one way of moving in that direction. I think that it will be helpful to quote from this debate so that I can show my colleagues that we feel that we should have a bigger share of the Community quotas and that the House still feels the same as in November 1972 that we are not interested in a change in the weight and dimension of vehicles.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1255/74.