Len Castleton slams EEC 'shambles' and red tape
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Epropean Economic Community's transport policy was described as a shambles by Mr Len Castleton, the outgoing president of the Freight Transport Association, on Monday. He was speaking at the Association's annual dinner in London to an audience of some 900 members and guests who included Transport Minister Mr Fred Mulley, senior civil servants and more than a dozen MPs.
Mr Castleton said most transport men felt some disquiet on the EEC and were asking themselves: "Where is the grand design for a European transport policy? Where is the plan that will open the door to a vast increase in freight trade across frontiers? — Nowhere in sight!"
Instead we were faced with a shambles of things like compulsory tachographs — "and I stress the word 'compulsory'" which would cause nightmares to many and headaches to all, and with all the nitty gritty details about drivers' hours, including costly and unnecessary requirements for two drivers on journeys over 280 miles; with a system of controlled haulage rates which no one had yet worked out how to apply to Britain. The latter was, he said (to loud applause), the worst example of bureau cracy he had ever encountered.
There was a nod of agreement from TGWU secretary-general Mr Jack Jones when Mr Castleton went on: "They are also trying to saddle us with a quite absurd embargo on virtually every driver productivity scheme introduced by enlightened management with trade union co-operation." As for the EEC version of the transport manager's licence, called "Access to the Profession", this would be as irrelevant as it was unacceptable if applied to ownaccount transport.
The cardinal error was the assumption that a common transport policy required complete uniformity within the member states. There was no reason for applying international rules to domestic transport which never crossed a frontier.
He did not underestimate our EEC obligations or the difficulty of changing them but there would never be a better opportunity than now, when the policy itself was being re-appraised.
Unless we changed the transport policy, trade and industry would be hog-tied with a policy every bit as damaging as would be wrong decisions in agriculture, regional policy and the rest. It was time that transport had some priority. Turning to rail, Mr Castleton said the FTA regarded the "100-company exercise" as most important. It would identify specific flows of traffic which might be attracted to rail given the right facilities and service. It Would not transform the road/ rail traffic balance but it demonstrated industry's genuine desire to make the maximum sensible use of rail. It was perhaps the only practical way of achieving this.
Mr Castleton condemned the false war-cry of "energy conservations* which the anti-roads lobby was now using. The country was beginning to suspect the unreality of extremism in conservation and environment, and to realize that our survival depended on a restoration of economic values.
While we might find new sources of power for vehicles, there was no sign of a substitute for the road vehicle on even the most distant horizon; transport was absolutely vital to our national future and we must invest accordingly.