BY JANUS
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Back to square one
fThere are bound to be people within the EEC who remember that proposals within the 44-tonne limit were on the point of agreement by the Community some ten years ago, before the UK joined 9
SIR ARTHUR Armitage should be pleased that he did not extend to overseas interests his invitation to give evidence to his inquiry. As it was, the response from hundreds of separate sources in his own country should have been more than enough to satisfy him.
Now that his report is published and the flow of evidence is being followed by a complementary flow of comment, European organisations or individuals may be tempted to join in. It would be instructive to learn what foreigners make of the inquiry as well as the conclusions, Though all the recommendations on vehicle weights and sizes are important, the one that has drawn most attention is the proposed 44-tonne limit on articulated lorries with six axles. There are bound to be people within the EEC who remember that proposals with this same maximum —though different in other details — were on the point of agreement by the Community some ten years ago, before the UK joined.
In this country, vehicle manufacturers and many operators were optimistic that the Government would keep in step with the EEC and introduce appropriate regulations. Apparently, the Department of Transport approved, and legislation could be a formality.
The Government still thought it desirable to seek the views of various organisations on proposals that were spearheaded by the manufacturers. The opposition was disconcertingly strong, especially from environmental interests.
It was reinforced by the knowledge that the UK was applying for EEC membership. Opponents of entry, whatever they thought of the proposals in isolation, were seizing every chance of showing the Community in a bad light.
On these grounds alone, they were able to win substantial support. They roused the latent hostility to foreigners. Whatever the size and weight of vehicles on the Continent, British roads must not be polluted by anything heavier than the current maximum of 32 tons.
It was too late to change the established rules and regulations of the EEC, but agreement on vehicle weights was still under discussion when the British application for membership was lodged. British Ministers and officials were allowed to take part in the debate.
By that time, public agitation about the proposals had influenced the Government. There were good reasons in any case for lodging strong objections to demonstrate, for the benefit of the people at home, that British willingness to join did not mean tame acquiescence on every item.
Transport Minister John Peyton attacked the EEC proposals fiercely and effectively. He earned wide praise as the champion of the 32-tonner and the slayer of the juggernaut. In the applause, the grumbles of the manufacturers and operators were scarcely heard. The British onslaught succeeded. The EEC negotiators, previously so near agreement, followed their usual practice in the face of sustained hostility, and withdrew. Inevitably, the issue went off the boil, though the problems remained.
Exactly what went wrong must have puzzled many Europeans. They had not been conditioned to regard the lorry as an environmental and social problem, as the target of a crusade. It no doubt causes as much annoyance on the mainland as in the UK, but the annoyance was accepted as the price for the benefits.
This naive attitude could not long withstand the virus of protest, which knows no frontiers. The organised opposition that had shattered the cloistered calm of the civil service and overcome the Europeans in their own stronghold, did not stop there.
Similar opposition has since been mobilised within the EEC. The negotiators who returned empty-handed from Brussels found growing hostility rather than sympathy. They had still to pursue the task within an enlarged Commi nity. Some measure of harmon sation had to be achieved in if field of road transport, if only 1 standardise the requirements fc vehicles on international wor whether or not the country thE were visiting had its own high' or lower limits for domestic jou neys.
Next time round the mo modest target was set of tonnes. Once again, the roE transport interests campaignE for acceptance; once again the were even stronger protes from now familiar organisation such as Transport 2000 and ti Civic Trust.
Though more sympathet than his predecessor, Transpc Minister William Rodgers Si hesitated. He was able postpone a decision by the su gestion of an inquiry, to whit his sucessor Norman Fowl gave body with the appointme of Sir Arthur.
But this time — by a proce which I hope nobody will ask r to elucidate — the EEC 40-ton limit had again been raised to tonnes. After somewh prolonged immersion in a sea evidence, Sir Arthur has come the conclusion that 44 is inde the appropriate figure, thou. he does not accept every det in the EEC plan.
After more than a decac therefore, the EEC finds its back more or less where started. For there is no gu. antee that the Armitage Rept will become British policy. must be discussed in PE liament. Powerful lobbies are ready forming to persuade or timidate MPs — or strength their predilections.
The EEC proposals may ev be found less acceptable on I mainland than they were I years ago. The protest virus n tured in the UK is now wt established in other countri From the European standpoi the old accusation of perfidic Albion could seem well justifif