AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Europe's transpori politicians have faille(

11th December 1982
Page 16
Page 17
Page 16, 11th December 1982 — Europe's transpori politicians have faille(
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A realistic policy blueprint remains a lonc way off. A special correspondent explain! how the traditional EEC negotiating game played. The Common Market is the loser,

IF THE Common Market dream had come true, it would now be possible to pick up a load in London, bear left at the first roundabout in Dover for the Channel Tunnel and then keep straight on for eight countries — with never a care for passports, customs forms and the other red tape of the EEC.

The dream is all there, written down on page 277 of the Treaties Establishing The European Communities, just as it was drafted years ago by statesmen like Dr Adenauer of West Germany and Robert Schuman of France.

It says: "The Council shall ... lay down common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a member state or passing across the territory of one or more member states."

Any long-distance driver who ever waited for a grumpy customs officer to open his office on the Italian border or fumbled for his T2 documents by the light of a torch at Aachen knows that the words are not worth the paper they are written on.

The truth is that despite 160 or so measures decided in Brussels over the years, the politicians have failed the transport industry. Europe still has no transport policy and the commercial advantages of the enlarged market are not fully exploited.

Pressure on the politicians to act is growing. In September MPs in the European Parliament, showing healthy signs of rebellion and disregard for national feelings, voted overwhelmingly to take EEC Transport Ministers to the EEC's Court of Justice for failing to fulfill their duty laid down on page 277.

The EEC's Economic and Social Committee (ESC) also shows signs of impatience. This is a group of trade unionists, businessmen and people representing other interests whose job is to examine and advise on all EEC proposals.

In a 2 1-page "opinion" published in October, this body says new life should be breathed into the EEC's transport sector and it calls for a realistic blueprint which could be used as a guide for action in the 1980s.

Alas, the brave words will not be matched by deeds until the basic political attitudes of the 10 member countries on transport questions can be reconciled.

Although the line-up can change on some issues, there are roughly two opposing camps in the EEC on transport: one is formed by those Continental countries whose transport philosophy is still steeped in 19th Century wagonlits mysticism, and who accordingly give priority to the railways as a carrier of goods; the other camp is occupied by countries like Britain which see the future more in terms of the lorry.

Although the Germans invented the autobahn in the 1930s and pioneered the first motorway pull-ups, their transport policy of the past 13 years has concentrated on taking goods off the road (in the interest of the environment and traffic safety) and switching ,them to rail.

Left-wing France, under the new Communist Minister of Transport, M. Fitterman, and with the strong backing of the rail union has also embarked on a strident pro-rail transport policy which is squeezing private road hauliers.

The third member of the railway lobby in Brussels is Italy, which, although less rigid in its policy than Germany and France, still attached priority to improving and developing its rail system.

Britain is the major lorry country backed by the other EEC newcomers — Ireland, Denmark and Greece — plus the Dutch whose international lorry fleet plays a key role in communications on the Continent.

In any debate on transport in Brussels, Luxembourg and Belgium tend to sit on the fence, although the Belgians of late have shown signs of protectionism to try to limit the growing financial deficit of their railway system.

It is a short-sighted, selfdefeating policy: with more legal restrictions being heaped on road hauliers, an increasing number of EEC firms are running their own-account transport operations in order to find a way round the rules.

Unable in most cases to pick up return loads, these are comparatively uneconomic operations which waste energy.

The clashing of philosophies within the EEC on transport policy has paralysed decisionma king in nearly every important area: lorry weights and sizes, harmonisation of national taxes on commercial vehicles, EEC financial aid to remove bottlenecks, and price policy.

Horst Seefeld, the German MP who is chairman of the European Parliamen Transport Committee, says o that past 25 years that policy I been limited to taking decisic on trifling measures and in long run he sees the very ex ence of the Custom Union danger.

"The EEC Council of Minis is not really a Europ( institution; it is a piece machinery to protect nati( egoism," he declares.

Both the Parliament and Economic and Soc Committee's report put harmonisation of soc legislation at the head of t list of measures urger requiring approval.

Legislation dealing v driving hours, rest periods manning of vehicles has, course, already entered force, but the rules are not lat applied properly in all men states.

Brussels complains that in West Germany, where co have power to levy really IN fines and police carry quent checks, are the social vs respected.

ralks are now underway in issels .on changing the rules driving time and the hograph, making them more axible with possible emptions for local road insport within a 3 0-mile lius. There is a possibility of a ift proposal emerging next -ing.

rhere is also a need for ■ rking conditions within road nsport to be harmonised with ise in the railway industry and and waterways. The EEC set s as an -aim in 1965 — but ice then the Council of nisters has let the dust collect the documents.

'ailure to harmonise lorry ights and sizes, reflecting en more deeply rooted Ilings than the railway-lorry it, is another key issue which Jst be solved before a mmon transport policy :omes realistic.

Elle long and laborious search a compromise which led to I EEC Commission's 40-tonne ro lorry proposal looks a Ididate for the archives after tam n opted for 38 tonnes in vember.

rhe Commission, which had ped to nudge Denmark and Iland down to 40 tonnes at camber's meeting of Transrt Ministers, sees no chance of tting them down as low as 38 mes.

io, for the time being at least, lorry-axle weight impasse

II continue to haunt the oams of DG 7 (the transport rectorate at the EEC mmission).

Fax harmonisation is as 'portant as the more blicised weights issue in order avoid distortion of npetition between transport ns in the ten EEC countries. The long queues of nmercial vehicles often seen liting at border crossing Ints all over Europe are the act, result of differences in :ional fiscal systems.

nternational drivers need rical training to handle all the )er-work involved, and it is no nder that some firms have m driven to offering bribes to aoms officials for preferential atment to avoid tying up exlsive vehicles for hours.

kccording to one calculation, time-consuming EEC border Awls add about five to seven per cent to the cost of the goods being carried and increases industry's annual bill by something like £250 million per year.

It is 17 years since the EEC Council declared: "With effect from January 1, 1967, the provision regarding the dutyfree admission of fuel contained in the fuel tanks of commercial motor vehicles and inland waterway vessels shall be standardised."

It is eight years since the Brussels Commission drew up proposals to put this into effect.

But the fuel-tanks of every lorry are still subject to checks at the German and French borders to ensure they are not exceeding the duty free allowance of 50 litres (Germany) and 200 litres (France).

The first stage of a scheme whose eventual aim is to ensure that all countries levy the same level of road tax on commercial vehicles has also failed to get off the ground.

It is held up because one country —.Italy — will not agree. Rome, playing the traditional EEC negotiationg games, is blocking the measure as a bargaining point to back its case for a fairly high lorry weight limit.

The Commission proposes that all the red-tape should be swept aside by the introduction of just one document which will cover all border procedures, reduce costs and let the driver get on with his job.

Better still, says Brussels, would be to settle all the paperwork at a customs office either at the destination or before departure.

This would be a real bonus, particularly to smaller hauliers who are obliged to rely on import-export firms and agents to arrange border clearance.

The Commission say this reduces their profit and makes them hesitate to extend their operations outside their own countries.'" Finally, much of the frustration at borders could be eased by an EEC-wide agreement to keep all important crossing points open day and night instead of closing some at midnight (compelling drivers to wait in their cabs until early next morning),

Health checks, which some countries insist on carrying out systematically instead of confining to spot-checks, are another cause of delay, especially when the vet has been called away to attend an urgent case and cannot be found.

The Economic and Social Committee also draws attention to the need for a common system of charging infrastructure costs and a common policy to eliminate bottlenecks in the EEC's transport network.

A Channel tunnel is at the top of most priority lists, closely followed by better communications between Italy, ,Greece and the rest of the community via the nonmembers Austria, Yugolsavia • and Switzerland.

The pounding given to roads in these transit countries by heavy EEC traffic has been a frequent cause of friction between governments.

Special tolls and taxes on foreign lorries entering the country and other forms of discrimination have been used, notably in Austria where the authorities are trying to induce the EEC to help pay some of the cost of building a new NorthSouth motorway, the IKPA project.

Greece's membership and the likelihood that Spain and Portugal will follow in the 1980s makes it necessary to develop a transport plan for the Mediterranean area which will include better facilities at ports. So far EEC Transport Ministers, pleading poverty, have not agreed to assist nonCommunity projects on the grounds that the little money available should be reserved for EEC infrastructure.

Yet they have been tight-fisted even at home. In the end, Euro MPs were driven to defy their paymasters and they voted 10 million units of account (about E6 million) for infrastructure projects in the EEC's supplementary budget for 1982.

The search for a fair system of charging infrastructure costs so that each form of transport — railways, roads and inland waterways — shoulder a roughly comparable burden has been long and elusive.

European Governments have been unsuccessfully grappling with this as long ago as the 1930s and a proposal tabled by the EEC Commission in 1971 also failed to bring a solution any nearer.

Any formula agreed in Brussels will probably mean imposing higher charges on the waterways which are more heavily supported than either the railways or roads.

' Haulage tariffs are another area where a divided EEC is a long way from following the common policy laid down in.the EEC Treaties.

Member countries are at loggerheads over whether to retain the system of fixed tariffs which were laid down in 1968 for the EEC's six original members.

Britain, Denmark and Ireland never accepted this system on accession, arguing that haulage rates should be left to market forces.

By and large the EEC Commission agrees that the fixed rates are too rigid and hard to enforce without an elaborate policing system.

There is now a five-five split on the issue (Holland and Belgium have gone over to the British view); the problem is likely to remain unsolved and become another nail in the coffin of the CTP.

The Economic and Social Committee's report concludes: "The Council must at long last make a serious attempt to meet its Treaty commitments ... it should urge the Commission to submit a realistic blueprint for transport policy in the 1980s as quickly as possible and by the end of this year at the latest."

Transport Ministers have a chance to respond at their December meeting in Brussels. But national political pressures will be too great for any initiative. The muddle will continue.


comments powered by Disqus