FTA says it again: take no action on *hos
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
GWU general secretary ack Jones told Minister for ransport Fred MuIley last ionth that even if tachoraphs were fitted, his iembers would refuse to perate them. This was svealed in a Freight Transart Association press stateient on Monday. In the statelent, the industrial strife 'hich would follow attempts enforce tachograph use is ted as one of the reasons ,hy FTA members are again sing advised to take no 3tion to equip vehicles with 3ompu1sory" tachographs.
This renewed "do nothing" commendation from the (A national council followed ie January meeting in which le Association, the Road aulage Association and the :MU met the Minister to (press their views about the EC tachograph regulations.
The FTA says that the dele3tion represented to the I inister that action should be iken to dispense with or 3fer the application of iese regulations on the illowing grounds: 1, In its present economic ate, the country cannot ford the massive cost volved in compulsory tachoaphs, 2, They are certain to lead serious industrial strife; ick Jones made it clear that, 'en if tachographs were fitted, drivers would refuse to operate them.
3, It is now physically impossible for all the relevant vehicles to be fitted by the operative dates.
4, It is both unreasonable and stupid to undertake the very substantial investment involved so long as UK membership of the EEC remains uncertain.
As reported in CM on January 17, Mr Mulley expressed sympathy with the delegation but, says the FTA, while sympathetic to the difficulties, he envisaged serious political problems in making any move in advance of the EEC referendum. But he undertook to discuss the matter with his Government colleagues.
Adds the Association: "It is impossible to forecast what this will produce, if anything, but the FTA takes the view that the ball is now firmly in the Government's court to find a way out of the impasse "The decision must clearly be one for individual companies, especially as there is a risk that they may be in breach of the law on 1 January 1976. But the Association takes the view that the risk is minimal, whereas the overwhelming logic of the facts of the case set out above point to there being at least a deferment of the regulations."