The way to new hours rules
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE COMMISSION's formal proposals for amendment to European Economic Community Regulations 543/69 and 1463/70 have taken even longer to appear than the long-promised increase in British speed limits. Many people must have given up hope that they would ever materialise. They have emerged at last, their progress apparently spurred on by the French lorry blockade.
The merits (or otherwise) of the proposals will no doubt be the subject of much debate over the next few months. Here I shall concentrate on the procedures which have to be followed before new rules can be formally adopted. The Brussels legislative machine is very different from that of Westminster.
It also helps to see the proposals against the historical background. in 1977 the Council of Ministers agreed a package deal which introduced some changes into the Regulation. Most changes were minor, but one gave the Commission power to authorise the phasingin of the hours rules for Britain over a further three years. This resulted in the gradual reduction in daily driving time from 10 to eight hours through three phases, ending in December 1980.
This phasing-in did not apply to the tachograph. In retrospect it is remarkable that other EEC governments and the Commission went to so much trouble to assist Britain.over Regulation 543/69 while the Minister of the day was openly refusing to comply with its close relative, Regulation No 1463/70.
Britain had sought some fairly fundamental changes in the 1977 package. The "fixed" week (which paradoxically allows more flexibility in weekly rest days) and the abolition of the harsher regime for drivers of heavier vehicles were high on the list. But in order to get the vital phasing-in period for the basic rules we had to settle for only a few minor changes.
Britain maintained the pressure for more fundamental change. But two years of intensive negotiations on this subject had bored the other Governments. They would not agree to any further discussions until the existing Regulation was being applied in Britain. That meant the position was frozen until 1981.
In the intervening years the Commission concentrated on trying to improve the way in which the existing rules are applied (or not applied) in some countries. All countries have to submit an annual report to Brussels on their enforcement activity. These make it clear that some countries make little or no effort. So teams of Eurocrats started to tour the member states to see for themselves what went on. There were also threats to bring some countries before the European Court. These threats had some effect, especially with Ireland. They also raised the level of interest in bringing the Regulation into line with reality.
So when 1981 arrived there was a more positive climate of opinion in favour of changing the rules. The Commission's Directorate-General of Transport recruited an additional staff member to carry out the review. Meetings were held with bodies representing operators and trade unions (separately and together) as well as the 10 Transport Ministries.
It soon became clear that the only thing on which everyone agreed was that "something" should be done. When it came to defining "something" everyone had different ideas. Even within the Commission itself the Directorate-Generals of Transport and of Social Affairs were reported to favour different approaches.
British hauliers do not normally think of France as a helpful country. Nevertheless it was thanks to France's Transport Minister that the proposals emerged when they did.
France holds the Presidency of the EEC Council until June 30, and President Mitterand is anxious to see progress on a broad front, not just on burning issues like Britain's financial contribution and wasteful agricultural spending. So at French insistence the proposals were rushed out, after much midnight oil was burned, especially by the translators.
They were to have been discussed informally by Ministers when they met on March 22. In the event the inquest into the lorry blockade took up the whole day. So the subject was postponed until Ministers met again informally in Paris earlier this week.
Presumably Ministers will indicate the main features they want to see in the amendments. But Ministers do not carry out the detailed negotiations. They gratefully remit these to a body known as the Council Transport Working Group — inevitably known as the TWG.
This consists of the 10 Transport attaches — civil servants maintained permanently in Brussels by each EEC country. They are supported as necessary by specialists in the topic under discussion who fly out from national Transport Ministries when their topic is on the agenda. The Commission officials responsible for the proposals are also present. The Group is chaired by the Transport attache from the country holding the Presidency.
This is the body which will try to hammer out an agreement. In some ways it resembles the Committee stage of a Bill going through the British Parliament. But there are at I ast two major differences.
The first is the ndemocratic nature of the pro eedings. Commons Com ittees consist of elected MPs; o one on the TWG has been e ected. Moreover, Parliamentary Committees me t in public with every word said ecorded in writing and publ shed. The TWG, like the Co ncil of Ministers itself, i in permanent secret session.
However the p oceedings are not entirely outs de democratic control. The Gov rnment will soon deposit a emorandum in Parliament stati g its attitude to the proposal. Eit er House (or both Houses) ca ask for a debate. In any a ant the House of Lords Europe n Committee is already exa mini g the whole subject. So Mini ters will be made aware oft apolitical pressures.
Moreover, the normal consultation pro esses will ensure that the Tp officials participating in tie TING discussions kee in close touch with operators' associations and trade unions. These bodies will also do their own lobbying in Whitehall and B usseis. The DTp will also keep in ouch with special interest roups like farmers, the dai trade, the electric vehicle ildustry, the British Horse Sobiety and the hundreds of oth r groups who — often to their urprise and always to their d spleasure — found themselv s affected by this legislation.
It is impossibl to predict how long it will all takie. If Ministers give clear leads, few major changes — say, tie fixed week, the abolition of tie special regime for heavy vehicles and the longer drivin day — could be agreed by the end of the year; quite quickly by EEC standards.
If the political will is not there the discussions could drag on interminably. But at least they have started.