CONTINENT CUT-OFF?
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DEN IS QUIN, director-general of the Bus and Coach Council, is vexed with the European Economic Community. He describes the changes to the drivers' hours rules agreed last month (CM, November 23) as a "fiasco".
I seem to recall that he has said the same thing about every change in the hours law, both British and EEC, since the 1968 Act. Certainly the BCC was much more strident than even the Freight Transport Association in describing the present EEC rules as "unworkable" before they came into effect here.
These rules have now been in full force since the end of 1980. And those five years have seen the fastest growth ever in the long-distance market, which was forecast to be one of the major sufferers.
The growth, which stemmed from de-regulation, was in spite of the eighthour day and all that goes with it, not because of it. But that is a long way from "unworkability".
I don't mention this to "get at" the BCC's energetic director-general. He has to show his members that he is active in their interest. Moreover I, too, am critical of some aspects of the changes adopted and especially their increased complexity.
The EEC Commission seems ashamed of the changes. Its London press office issues a weekly "summary of past and future events". Normally this reports the outcome of every important meeting taking place in the previous week. But the Transport Ministers' activities do not rate even the briefest mention, despite a blank half page waiting to be filled.
No doubt, like most legislative changes, there will be teething troubles for some months after the new rules come into force on September 29. After that things will settle down until someone has another bright idea for further amendment.
But the whole episode sheds light on the British attitude to the EEC, and the effect which demonstrations of this attitude, such as that by Quin, have on the perception of Britain by other EEC members.
We tend to think of ourselves as the "good guys" of European transport, enforcing Community laws even when we disapprove of them. British Ministers — of all parties, not just the present bunch — never seem to tire of preaching to their less enlightened brethren about the virtues of liberalisation and the abolition of restrictions. We are on the side of the angels — in theory.
But in reality? It looks very different from the other side of the Channel. To many, Britain seems hypocritical.
Most obvious is Nicholas Ridley's adamant refusal to accept the 40-tonne limit which will come into effect in the Continental EEC countries next year. We know why he does this; so do his EEC colleagues. "Political difficulties" (a politer term than "political cowardice") is something with which his fellow Ministers in all democratic countries are familiar. They will have understood the necessity to mask this with references to the poor state of Britain's roads (though in the seventh year of the present Government the blame for that state of affairs is increasingly hard to slough off).
But no other EEC Government has a parliamentary majority anywhere near as large as that enjoyed by Margaret Thatcher. If Ridley cannot get 40 tonnes approved now, what hope will there be after the next election? It seems certain that, if any party has an overall majority, it will be minikule?
Yet foreign hauliers coming here have either to keep within the 38-tonne limit or risk prohibitions and fines. Indeed, if they operate road trains the limit is still 32.5 tonnes, despite the fact that Mr Ridley himself admits they are less damaging to roads and bridges.
A more sensitive man than Ridley might decide that, in these circumstances, the prudent course would be to keep quiet about the removal of artificial restrictions to movement. Instead he never misses an oppoitunicy to throw this particular stone despite the fragility of the glass-house in which he But worse is to conic, and in a context much wider than transport. Earlier this year the Commission produced a visionary proposal for a Europe without frontiers. This was drafted by Lord Cockfield, a former Conservative Trade Minister, and the Prime Minister's nominee to one of Britain's two Commissioner posts.
Obviously transport would be one of the main beneficiaries of a frontier-free Europe, though Lord Cockfield's ideas go well beyond that. But the British are one of the main objectors. The best (or worst) example is the attitude taken by Home Office officials to the suggested abolition of checks on the movement of persons. "Britons do not have to carry identity cards. So as an island we rely on border controls."
Now there is a good deal in this. To throw away the natural advantage of our island situation should not be done lightly. Rabies and terrorism are two important arguments in favour of the slaflis quo.
But other countries have similar good reasons (or reasons that seem good to them, at least) for their restrictions. France does not see why it should buy out the private contractors who benefit from autoroute tolls. Germany does not see why its toll-free autobahns should be used by unlimited numbers of foreign lorries in transit.
Most countries' negotiators at least acknowledge the substance of such claims, while still trying to persuade those who make them to give way. But the British have a reputation for airily dismissing them, and at the same time refusing even to consider changing their own ways.
If this worked to our advantage it might be tolerable. But no one can claim that these tactics have served us well in the EEC, in transport or in any other field.
There is a case for getting out of the EEC. There is a case for staying in and making the best of it. But there is no case for whingeing about every detailed matter that does not suit us. I fear that Denis Quin's complaints will be seen as falling into the last category.
• by Janus