THE WEEK
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Crisis in EDC common transport policy
Commission acts to re-launch transport plans, but technical unification may be dropped. Unions talk of 'anarchy'
• Just at the moment when Britain is moving more firmly towards membership of the Common Market, the lack of progress on a common transport policy within the EEC has brought Community politicians and civil servants into an open clash.
Some national representatives allege that a crisis in transport matters threatens to damage other aspects of Community progress. Plans to "re-launch" the common transport policy and elicit more support from member governments have been announced—but there is now a real possibility that the move towards common standards on vehicles and other technical matters may be abandoned. Meanwhile an organization representing the trade unions has protested at the lackadaisical attitude towards social conditions—especially working conditions for transport employees — in the EEC, and has alleged that the situation in some areas amounts to anarchy.
Danger signs The transport policy row blew up when the transport committee of the European Parliament (on which all members of the Six are represented) put a statement and two pointed, questions to the EEC Commission
— the supranational executive body—as follows:
"The common transport policy continues to be seriously delayed in relation to many other sectors of Community policy. Does the Commission not think that if this situation continues or worsens it could endanger the process of Community unification begun in the context of the economic union? What initiative does the Commission intend to take, and how soon, to meet the serious situation in which the common transport policy is at the moment, in line with the powers and responsibilities which are given to it by the Treaty of Rome?"
In open session in Luxembourg last week, the Dutch member of the European Parliament, M. Posthumus, introduced these questions with a speech in which he said that a transport policy crisis had been developing in silence, without anyone seeming to take any notice; it was now getting so serious that it threatened to paralyse important aspects of Community life. And he urged that the Commission member responsible for transport, M. Coppe, should drop all his other tasks for six months—such as social policy and the preparation of budgets—and devote himself exclusively to transport.
M. Posthumus claimed that there were important differences of view between member States about transport policy, and some clearly did not even want a common policy. The practice of following a national line could overflow into other sectors of EEC work. He thought there was a lack of political will on the transport front: about 20 proposals from the Commission were still before the Council of Ministers, yet the Council had not had a single meeting on transport this year and was not likely to meet before the autumn. Even the Commission was partly to blame; nothing concrete had been done at Community level.
Replying for the Commission, M. Coppe said there were still 19 transport proposals before the Council of Ministers, and the difficulties came from the national outlook of the member States. A certain political will to create a common policy had existed in 1965-6 but it then disappeared. He hoped to take steps to help resurrect this in the coming months.
M. Coppe complained that even measures which had been legally introduced as a result of the 1965-6 decisions were not really being applied and enforced. Although the Commission had fallen a little behind on some of the drafts, however, the transport crisis was a political one.
The first essential for a re-launch of a common transport policy, said M. Coppe, was a reinforcement of the will of the member States to act in common and get away from the purely national outlook. He had, he said, already started a "tour of capitals" to try to clear up misunderstandings and obstacles, in talks with Ministers of Transport.
If political will was to be effective, he asserted, concrete measures would need to be taken. For example, in future the Ministers 'must give definite instructions to the experts; the proposals had tended to be taken apart and fragmented by the experts.
He was adamant that in transport "the search for unanimityon technical questions must be abandoned." The Treaty, he said, stipulated unanimity only for decisions which were liable to affect seriously the standard of living and employment in certain regions. Trying to achieve unity on details of implementation simply burdened the administrators and caused delay.
M. Copp& said that co-operation between the institutions involved in the Community's direction must be improved. The AETR affair—the dispute between Council and Commission about whether AETR (ECE) rules for drivers hours, or the EEC's own regulations, should b e adopted—had adversely affected relations between the Council and the Commission.
Re -launch--then action
The EEC Commission now believes that a re-launching of the common transport policy is possible and it is asking for a detailed debate with the Council once the "tour of capitals" is over. The Commission then plans to draw up an "action and priorities" list to push unification along, and to pursue the non-enforcement of measures which should already be applied by member countries.
Initiative by the Commission can also be expected on co-ordinating the investment in railways, roads and canals; on road safety policy harmonization; on research and development; on the organization and size of companies engaged in transport; and on ports policy.
Although the European Parliament adopted no resolution after the debate, the Council and the Commission both came in for heavy criticism, and there were many calls for urgent action.
Fuel tax (Boaster • A later session of the parliamentary members adopted a draft resolution by M. de Broglie which criticized the Commission's proposals for bringing the EEC's hydrocarbon fuel taxes into line. He claimed that this would cost Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland 1000m dollars in lost taxes over three years. Germany alone would lose 350m dollars.
It was decided to call for examination of the prospects of harmonizing hydrocarbon taxes within three years, to the extent of bringing them within a bracket of 2 dollars to 5 dollars a ton for both heavy and light fuel oils.