AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

HOURS-TIME TO REASON WHY

22nd June 1985, Page 48
22nd June 1985
Page 48
Page 48, 22nd June 1985 — HOURS-TIME TO REASON WHY
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?

IT IS difficult not to feel some sympathy for the 10 European Economic Community Transport Ministers as they assemble again in Luxembourg on Monday morning.

Only a few weeks ago it looked as though their May meeting would be the last until December. Above all, it looked as though the most tedious, detailed — some would say nit-picking — item which has plagued their agenda for the past few years would finally be resolved. In other words, Regulation No 543/69 (on drivers' hours, in case anyone needs reminding) would be amended in the desirable directions of greater simplicity and flexibility.

Ministers expected to rubberstamp a deal which had been agreed by their civil servants during years of difficult discussion. But it was not to be. Transport Commissioner Stanley Clinton Davis thought that the deal went too far in reduced rest periods, and threatened to block it. So for the past month the civil servants have been back at the drawing board.

Ministers will be faced with the result on Monday. If they fed resentful they will have some justification. They have already laid down general principles on which amendments were to be based. They should not have to get involved in multi-lingual discussions about how many hours rest drivers of doublemanned coaches should take during the holiday months. That type of topic is hardly exciting to civil servants, but they at least become specialists in it. Ministers have higher priorities — or should have.

A concrete-and-glass reminder of one of those higher priorities will be easily visible to Ministers. The European Court of Justice is situated in Luxembourg, immediately opposite the 22-storey Kirchberg building where the Ministers will meet. Last month, at the instigation of the European Parliament, the Court condemned Transport Ministers because they had not instituted the Common Transport Policy demanded by the Treaty of Rome.

That judgment was delivered, with a distinctly un-judicial sense of timing, on the day before the Ministers' May meeting. This got it maximum publicity, but also gave the Ministers an excuse for not considering it in detail. Instead yet another group of civil servants has been considering its implications. Their report, too, will be on the Ministers' agenda on Monday.

Incidentally, sonic readers may be thinking — or perhaps even hoping — that the Ministers are meeting in Luxembourg rather than Brussels so that the Court can more easily clap them in jail. Not so. Ministerial meetings in April, June and October are held in Luxembourg to compensate the Grand Duchy for its loss of the headquarters of the Coal and Steel Community when that merged with the Economic Community. Don't say that this page is not full of useless information?

However, over this weekend Ministers will be reading their briefs for a highly contrasted agenda.

On the one hand is the serious constitutional matter which must inevitably affect not only EEC transport policy but the whole structure of the Community. For the MEPs' case was only incidentally about transport; the real point was the struggle for EEC legislative power. Clearly this is Ministerial material, where their political motivation and experience are relevant.

On the other hand is the very important, but, essentially technically detailed, subject of what should be drivers' maximum working times and minimum rest periods. Ministers should certainly lay down basic principles. But within those guidelines it ought to be possible for the industry to agree on the details.

At one stage it looked as though this had happened. The Economic and Social Committee announced that it had agreed a compromise acceptable to both sides of the industry. But this was denied by the British trade associations, who were not involved in the discussions.

Legislation which so closely affects the working lives of drivers and the finances of their employers is obviously going to be viewed very differently on either side of an industry negotiating table. Any agreement between them would be hard to achieve.

The alternative will be a hasty compromise cobbled together by Ministers ignorant of, and bored with, the subject — probably in the middle of the night, in traditional EEC fashion. Neither side of the industry wants that. But in the absence of agreement within the industry that is what they will get.

On second thoughts I exaggerate. There is another option. That is to leave the present rules unchanged. I leave it to readers to decide which would be preferable.


comments powered by Disqus