SIT TIGHT ON 40
Page 76
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The road transport lobby should not push too hard for a 40-tonne weight limit — it will come anyway, argues Reg Dawson, civil servant turned industry commentator • In any gathering of members of the road transport industry there is a natural tendency to take a purely technical view of the 40-tonne lorry question, dismissing the wide variety of reasons underlying opposition as all stemming from "environmental loonies". The industry has made the lorry safer and more environmentally acceptable; it has hung anti-spray devices, rear guards and side guards on them; roads suitable to take them are growing in length and number; operating centres are now subject to uniquely stringent environmental controls; and everyone admits that the industry now pays many millions a year more than the track costs imposes.
What more is there to do? First, forget all those items I have just listed. The 40-tonner problem is mainly political.
So, you, as representatives of the industry, must do whatever you can to make the Secretary of State for Transport feel confident that he can lay before Parliament the necessary amendment to the Construction and Use Regulations without, at best, an embarrassing backbench Government revolt.
Of course, the Transport Secretary will make approving noises about all of the industry's technical achievements. But he will see his task in negative terms — as having to persuade enough MPs, especially in his own party, that 40 tonnes ought not to be opposed.
It is tempting to disparage this attitude, but in a democracy politicians have to be responsive to the worries of the electorate. Surely, if asked, the bulk of the electorate would be hostile to 40 tonnes.
So, should yoy mount a campaign to convince them otherwise? That was the Freight Transport Association's plan, but it has been put on ice. It should stay there, for three reasons. First, it wouldn't succeed; the general public is against lorries. Second, bringing the question into the open in the present political situation might force politicians into unhelpful attitudes. But, most dangerous of all, it would mean that when the Minister eventually seeks Parliamentary approval, he will be seen as acting under pressure from the hated "road haulage lobby".
So, you should not even try to sell 40 tonners. Instead, you should market them. In other words, you should adopt a strategic, not a tactical posture. The legal reality is that you are eventually going to get 40-tonners without even trying. The relevant sections of EEC Directive 85/3 are: • First, Article 3(1), which says: "Member states may not reject or prohi bit the use on their territories in international traffic of vehicles registered . . in any member state for reasons relating to their weights and dimensions provided that such vehicles comply with the limit values. . . in Annex I."
Annex I specifies a maximum gross permitted weight of 40 tonnes on five or six axles for artics and road trains, and a 10-tonne single non-driving axle. It leaves open the drive axle weight.
This comes into force next week, on July 1 — but not, of course, in the British Isles. For the Directive's preamble includes the following:
"Whereas the state of certain portions of the road network in Ireland and the United Kingdom does not make it possible at the present stage to apply all the provisions of this Directive".
And: "Whereas in view of the require ments for substantial improvements to the relevant portions of the road networks which will take a certain number of years to complete".
Article 8(1) in effect allows the British Isles to retain 38-tonne and 32.5-tonne limits for artics and road trains respectively, although para 2 of that Article then goes on as follows: "Before June 30, 1986, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report on the development of the circumstances which have justified the derogation referred to in the first paragraph. The report shall be accompanied by a proposal concerning: (i) the duration of the derogation, and (ii) the procedure for periodic reviews of the circumstances justifying continuation of the derogation.
The Council shall decide on this proposal by February 28, 1987 at the latest." It also adds that the decision on this proposal for ending the derogation shall be taken unanimously by all 12 ministers. Nicholas Ridley made much of this when commending the deal to the House of Commons in December 1984.
The Directive makes three things absolutely clear about the exclusion of Britain and Ireland:
0 first it is justified solely on the alleged state of the roads;
second it is only temporary; and third steps must be taken to bring th( two countries into line with the other 10.
As usual in the EEC, the timetable should be ignored.
Now, while Britain has too many poor roads and bridges, it is obvious nonsense to say that most of the network cannot cope with 40 tonnes. There are enough vehicles running illegally at that weight — and more — today.
The Commission understands the real nature of the problem. Arms will be twisted to ensure that the required report goes as far as it decently can to put off the evil day until after the British general election.
The pretence that Britain's roads can't take 40-tonners cannot be maintained for long, however. Indeed, if they are not to undermine the case the Conservatives will have to be very careful about what they say in their manifesto about the road building achievements.
So eventually — let's say in 1989 — there will be a formal Commission proposal that the derogation should end on a specified date — let's say December 31, 1990. Most other transport ministers will be inclined to support this simply to get it off the agenda.
The British public's hostility to heavy lorries is unlikely to have moderated by then. So the British minister of the day will be tempted to use the veto, but he will hit a legal snag because the derogation is specifically tied to the allegedly poor state of the roads. If the Commissio thinks that the roads are now able to takc 40 tonners it could challenge a British us( of the veto in the European Court of Justice.
Now that might suit the British rniniste very well. He could then go to Parliamen and say: "I don't want to force these monsters on to British roads, but the EE says I must". Most Government MPs would accept that, though a few professional anti-marketeers would no doubt, vote against. That, after all, is what happened over the tachograph.
Another possibility is that Britain migh. be given some additional money from the EEC's infrastructure fund to remedy the defects. This would enable the minister to tell MPs that if they rejected the C am U amendment they would be depriving the country of Brussels gold.
The best the industry can do in the meantime is nothing. The public is increasingly cynical about claims by special interest groups.