Sins of commission
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Thanks to the recent European election campaign almost everyone will know of the very limited powers of MEPs. Outside the narrow world of the Eurospecialists, when the results are declared this weekend the main British interest will be the lessons (if any) they hold for the relative standing of the political parties in the United Kingdom.
MEPs have a poor public image. They spend a lot of time abroad, and the great British public tends to equate foreign with exotic, if not actually sinful. There are rumours of expenses fiddles, junketing and worse.
But the transport industry ought to be wary of dismissing the European Parliament too lightly. It could be argued that it played a large part in forcing the ten Transport Ministers to reach so many agreements in principle at their meeting last month (CM, May 19). For their unprecedented action in bringing Ministerial sloth before the European Court of Justice is widely thought to have forced Ministers to drop some of their resistance to progress.
Since 1979 the reports of the first elected Parliament's Transport Committee have been almost universally in line with the British interest in less regulation. The fact that the Committee's Chairman, Horst Seefeld, came from the country with the most restrictive policy did not prevent the Committee from urging bigger quotas, more duty-free fuel entry, and much else which would ease the lot of the operator. Let us hope that that new Parliament's Committee, when established, will be as liberal.
However, influence is one thing; actual power is another. And while the Euro-election campaign was in the public eye much more important discussions were going on in private.
They concern the composition of a very small EEC body — the Commission itself.
Although not as all-powerful as sometimes presented by antiMarketeers, the fourteen men (never a woman — yet!) have exclusive possession of a most important opportunity. They alone can initiate Community legislation.
The Commission is often called "the civil service of the EEC". This is a misleading oversimplification. It is much more like a Cabinet. Responsibility for particular policy areas is shared out among the Commissioners in much the same way as Ministries are shared out among politicians in national Governments. Transport, which has a whole chapter to itself in the Treaty of Rome, is one of those policy areas.
There have been three Commissioners responsible for transport in the twelve years since Britain joined the EEC. First (1973-76) came an Italian, Signor Scarasia-Mugnozza. In 1977 he was succeeded by the Irish Commissioner Richard Burke. And currently the Greek Commissioner, Giorgios Contogeorgis, holds the transport portfolio.
All three transport Commissioners had at least one quality in common. That is a total lack of experience in transport policy. True, the same thing can be said of most British Transport Ministers when they are first appointed. But once in post they have to be seen to do well, at least in the eyes of the Prime Minister. Otherwise they are out at the next re-shuffle. So they tend to try hard. Commissioners, however, once appointed, are there for four years and are virtually unsackable.
Moreover, few EEC Commissioners come from the top drawer of political life. And the few men of some stature who are appointed tend to be sent to Brussels to avoid domestic political embarrassment. Harold Wilson was delighted to be able to exile Roy Jenkins in 1976, and thereby put him out of the running to succeed as Prime Minister later that year. More recently it has been rumoured that Mrs Thatcher is considering sending Cecil Parkinson in the same direction, though for rather different reasons.
Without descending to personalities their closest friends would hardly argue that Messrs Scarasia-Mugnozza, Burke and Contogeorgis have been among the brightest lights on the European stage.
So EEC transport policy has suffered from being in the hands of men of small political stature with no experience of the subject. To that must be added a reluctance to take on the transport job. And they all appear to have developed little interest in the subject once it was landed on their plates.
The low political voltage of successive transport Commissioners was not the main cause of the slow progress in getting a sensible European transport policy. The chief blame for that lies at the door of Transport Ministers, much more concerned (at least until last month) about what they perceived as domestic political advantage than with making progress in Europe. A transport Commissioner with the combined virtues and talents of Albert Schweitzer, Bertrand Russell and Rumpole of the Bailey would have been unlikely to persuade Norman Fowler to accept 44 tonne lorries, or his German equivalent to abolish permits.
But a Commissioner of strong personality, with energy, and above all a clear interest in the subject, would have helped. At the very least he could have complained publicly about the problems which led to February's lorry blockades. This might have shamed Ministers years ago into taking some paces down the road on which they took their first few steps last month.
Later this month, at the European Summit, leaders of the ten EEC Governments will meet. Public attention will be concentrated on the question of Britain's claim for a fairer financial deal. But the leaders will also discuss the appointment of the new Commissioners who take office next January.
Among the possible candidates there must be many former Transport Ministers with the knowledge and experience which would enable them to continue last month's momentum. Belgium and the Netherlands are the most likely sources. (Though David Howell's name has also been rumoured to be in Mrs Thatcher's mind!) It is probably naive to hope that the new Commissioners will not be appointed on the same basis of political expediency as their predecessors. But the ten Transport Ministers should try to ensure that the next transport Commissioner is of a higher calibre than his recent predecessors. And since Britain has more to gain than most countries from a sensible EEC transport policy, Mr Ridley should take the lead in pressing for this.