Why EEC shoull change gear...
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CRITICISM of Common Market transport management comes from Transport Minister William Rodgers and two of his top civil seri/ants in just-published evidence given to a House of Lords Committee.
When he answered questions put to him by members of a sub-committee of the House of Lords' Select Committee looking at EEC transport policy, Mr Rodgers complained about the effect of changes among European Transport Ministers.
The ministers had been pursuing specific and, in his view, fairly limited topics, and they found it very difficult to change gear and begin to discuss the principles which lay behind European transport policy, said Mr Rodgers.
He thought they were inhibited by one or two additional factors. On average, three Ministers changed every year, and so there was not the continuity of experience found in Britain. That made a considerable difference, because you did not know your fellows, you did not know the business.
Ministers became more dependent on their officials than they did at home, which made it difficult for them to have confidence in each other and raise their sights in the way necessary to carry the discussion forward.
The second factor was that Britain's problem in the Community at the moment was that we were thought to be difficult customers, unwilling to accept the Community obligations.
Some British proposals were looked upon with askance, as if they were means of getting round our proper obligations in the Community.
He had found that it was very difficult to make a proposition for changing a particular regulation because the custom was to ask "Where does your interest lie?" — and the interest of the United Kingdom was thought to be in blocking the progress of the Community. So it was very difficult to get proposals considered on merit.
This country was thought to be resisting, say, harmonisation — in his view for good and sufficient reasons — but the truth was that almost all the members of the Community were busy resisting any course which they thought could have an adverse consequence for them.
But although all nine Ministers were there to ensure that their own national interests were taken proper account of, the Commission should be producing the sort of papers the British civil service could produce and, under guidance from the Council, should bring forward a policy.
As we joined the Community late, we had been obliged to move in a relatively short time a distance to which our partners had twenty years to adjust, pointed out Mr Rodgers.
This had created problems — and he thought there was no doubt at all that sometimes these things brought bloodymindedness on the part of our partners, and caused them to say "you have obligations and you must honour them outright."
They were not disposed to be sympathetic to the idea that adjusting in five, seven or eight years was a difficult exercise. They said "You chose this option. You didn't come in at the beginning; you chose to come in late. So you must now pay the penalty."
So there were complaints about our obligation under the Treaty, or as a result of membership, which he instinctively felt should be accepted, although in the knowledge that what we were being asked to do was either nonsense, or something which we needed time to adjust to.
We were being pushed by the Commission — not perhaps too unfairly — in the very direction which the council wanted us to move.
If we were thought to be very Community-minded, some things might be more easily forgiven, suggested Mr Rodgers. But he thought the Community was disposed to believe that every action of the UK was part and parcel of its obscurantism.
Reviewing the arguments for and against the tachograph, Mr Rodgers commented that he would not say that some of the resistance was not because the tacho would catch people out when they were breaking the law, or that it would reveal that they had dropped off for an hour or two to visit their girlfriends.
But although there was some resistance which could not be explained or excused, he thought there were fairly rational arguments.
Lord Hinton of Bankside recalled that he had tried to put tachographs into a fleet in 1935 when they were first invented, and he just couldn't get away with it.
There had not been any doubt that the lorry drivers were completing journeys within the time allowed and parking 10 miles outside to build up overtime, and they did not want it stopped — so the resistance went back 43 years.
Mr Rodgers added that he did not think the new European legislation about drivers' hours, certainly as applying to passenger traffic, was relevant to Commu purposes at all, and woulc expensive.
There was, he said, dis] as to the extent to whiclternal harmonisation necessary to the Treaty, there he had his own e increasing doubts.
Peter Lazarus, the then puty Secretary at the De. ment of Transport, told sub-committee that hE lieved the single most pre; domestic need so far aE United Kingdom was cerned was to improvE prospects for hauliers tr ling abroad, and in parti to achieve a larger numt permits.
He did not believe that chances of achieving su( in the limited number of or major importance to th could be at all high unIE was believed that we doing our bit to imp transport circumsta generally.
Equally it had to be bell that we were prepared to a constructive role in a nal approach to some o key issues put forward b Commission, including haps the general proble transport infrastructure.
A lot of our lorries wan, go there, and we had a insufficient number of mits.
He also thought it was to be helpful if the probl weights and dimensio lorries could be sorted c was in the interests of tomers here that there s be cost-effective use of k but our present rules to extent militated against• From the point of vi our manufacturers, it w sirable that there shoulc single market rather several different marke Lazarus pointed out.
This was undoubtec irritant in our relation: the French, and therefor were going to make pr generally in fields of it once to us, this one wo better out of the way. was not going to be eas