Albert Coppe indicts governmental attitudes to transport
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• In a strongly worded article in the journal European Community Mr Albert Coppe, European Commissioner for transport, has attacked selfish nationalism which is preventing progress on European transport policy. Road transport features the highest degree of "walling-off' between the member countries, says the Commissioner.
"At one moment," writes Mr Copt* "we had a golden age but by 1966 it was over, and present views tend to be far too nationalistic, even in the inner circles of government. There is not enough political will for movement towards integration. Because the transport industry is so closely bound up with the economic life of each member country, national interests speak with a particularly loud voice.
"At present more than 15 Commission proposals on transport are before the Council. Some proposals have not been examined, let alone adopted, by the Council of Ministers, and political reasons are behind this. The Council has adopted some, and held up others. In addition, the Commission still has to submit proposals as a result of undertakings it gave, or of requests made to it by the Council."
Alignment of conditions of competition was essential if transport was to cease being among the most heavily regulated industries. Alignment of operating conditions and the organization of the market were two other major areas requiring attention.
According to Mr Coppe there had been some results in aligning conditions of competition, particularly where State intervention was involved. He instanced the regulation on the public service obligations of the railways and other means of transport; the regulation on standardizing railways' accounts — a major step forward because this was the first time member States' attitudes to the financing of their railways had been codified; and the regulation on national aids for transport co-ordination. In addition, the Council had agreed on measures to help allocate infrastructure costs, and a regulation which defined permissible vertical and horizontal agreements in the transport sector.
In the social field, the regulation on harmonization of working conditions was a first step towards increased welfare in the industry.
Road transport had received priority over other means of transport because it was the biggest sector and the one with the highest degree of walling-off between member countries. "The Council regulation of 1968 on the Community quota for trucks which may carry freight across frontiers within the Common Market is not a very bold one, but it is at least a beginning. It brought 15 per cent of such traffic under Community arrangements, and road haulage vehicles within this quota no longer have to put up with international transport formalities when crossing borders in the Community.
"Since 1968 the Commission has been trying to broaden the quota of 'community licences' in order to meet the increased demand, but it remains at 1200. These were valid for a transition period of three years, which was then extended by 12 months. If the logjam is not ended, what has been achieved may be in serious danger by the end of next year."
Regulation on transport of passengers by road, wrote Mr Coppe, had freed most coach and bus charter transport and this was of much assistance to tourists; but the regulation on rates to be charged for international road journeys had not yet been applied. The Commission was using its powers under the Rome Treaty to act against States which infringed these regulations. In the last resort, the Commission would take the matter to the Community Court of Justice, as it did in the dispute over the European Road Transport Agreement.
Mr Coppe stated that some of the Com, mission's proposals had been held up because divergencies between the attitudes of member States were so great that the Council could not even get round to discussing them. Yet, in more than one case, the proposals were put forward at the request of the Council, following the Council's agreement in 1965 on the general principles of a common transport policy.
For example, at the Council's request, the Commission prepared a proposal on access to inland waterways. The Council decided to put it into force only on the Rhine and Moselle, and then decided that even this step would have to await the completion of negotiations with Switzerland. The Community had been negotiating since then. but the member States had still not managed to reach a common position.
The Commission had also put forward a proposal at the Council's request, and on the lines of the 1965 agreement, on access to the road haulage market, but this proposal had not yet been examined by the Council.
A third proposal held up, went on the Commissioner, covered an overall fares structure for transport — except for road haulage where a regulation had been adopted but had not yet been applied. "Some member countries now are opposed to the Council examining this proposal, claiming that its provisions are no longer essential for the achievement of the common transport policy. On this point, therefore, some governments have obviously changed their views since 1965."
The Commission's proposals on unified competition had also been held up in the Council. These proposals concerned the reform of the system of taxation of goods vehicles; abolition of discrimination in transport charges and the conditions under which transport companies worked; abolition of double taxation on goods vehicles; and the regulation of weights and dimensions of vehicles.
"The whole motor vehicle industry is anxious to see the Council decide which type of goods vehicle should have ensured access to all Community countries, but the Council has not yet reached a unanimous decision on whether it should be the 11tonner or the 13-tonner. (The Commission has recently proposed 11.5 metric tons as the maximum weight per axle.) Mr Coppe noted that the Commission had submitted a major proposal for the continued overleaf