LOOKING AT LEGISLATION
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
KEEP AN EYE ON BRUSSELS
NOW that the changes to the EEC drivers' hours rules have been agreed, hanhers attention will switch from Brussels to Whitehall. We shall have to wait to see whether Nicholas Ridley will comply with the Freight Transport Association's demand that the remaining parts of the 1968 Transport Act limiting spreadover and duty should be revoked.
But domestic as well as international hauliers should keep an eye on Brussels. At least two topics affecting hauliers and coach operators whose vehicles never leave Britain are simmering away and likely to boil up during this year.
First, however. 1 should mention another aspect of drivers' hours, and not further amendments but enforcement.
After agreeing the amendments which will come into force in the autumn, the Ministers turned their attention to applying the rules. They adopted a formal Resolution which stated that "Tlw aims lof Regulations 543/69 and 1463/701 can only be attained if the Regulations are correctly implemented, which, in particular, implies regular checks and effective penalties where provisions thereof are not observed".
The resolution pointed to the necessity to ensure -homogeneous and effective implementation" to avoid distortions of the conditions of competition between transport undertakings, and made 17 specific suggestions.
Most of these are consistent with British practice. A few novelties involving the actual checking process, include: • Issuing drivers with a certificate after each check; • The Commission to produce a multilingual document giving the most usefill expressions used in checks in all the nine EEC languages; • International drivers to be given a certificate by their employers where they have not driven on one or more days for which they would normally be expected to produce a tachograph chart. There is also a reference to the need for "the adoption of effective means of prosecuting non-resident drivers . . . and of recovering tines imposed on such drivers". This reflects concern in the Commission that Britain relies too much on prohibition rather than prosecution where foreign drivers are concerned. The Resolution also commends "the possibility of temporarily immobilising vehicles if their drivers are likely to represent a risk to road safety". So presumably it wants both sanctions to be imposed.
This Resolution does nothing more than lay down guidelines for EEC states to consider. But it probably indicates that, loving cleared its desks of the amendments, the Commission will again turn its attention to trying to improve enforceniient.
Almost four years ago a team of Eurocrats visited all Common Market countries (except Greece, which was then still in a transitional period) to inspect how things were done. Another round new seems likely. And while Britain's enforcement system is certainly accepted in Brussels as one of the best, it would be surprising if the team found nothing to criticise in the licensing field.
The major controversy seems likely to arise in the licensing field. Last year the EEC Court of Justice fOund the Transport Ministers had not produced the transport policy which the Treaty of Rome required. They had failed MI two specific counts.
One of these concerned drawing up common rules for international transport to, from or in transit through other member states. This is at least on the way to being solved. There are still hurdles which some Ministers will find it difficult to leap, hut a start has been made.
But almost nothing has happened to progress the other matter. The Treaty says that Ministers must "lay down conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State'', usually known as Cabotage. At present even the most liberal transport agreements forbid this absolutely. The Commission made a rather halfhearted proposal a few years ago whicl would have given sonic limited cabotal rights to vehicles travelling back empt). after making a delivery in another EC country. The idea was cut down empt) running, which the Commission estimates at between 16 and 30 per ceni of journeys.
The original proposal attracted little support, and the Commission returned to the drawing board. Their amended ideas will be discussed by an official working party of civil servants from ti 12 EEC countries, probably later this month.
The British Government supports th principle of liberalising cabotage. Lord Brabazon, then a Government transpo: spokesman, revealed this to a rather shocked RHA conference last October Even in the haulage business it is no difficult to see all sorts of practical problems. There will inevitably be complaints about "pirate" foreigners running overloaded or badly maintaiin vehicles but outside the 0-licensing system.
But the cabotage provision in the Rome Treaty also covers passenger transport. Are British bus operators going to be faced with foreign. as well as native, competition under Mr Ridley's new Act?
The potential for trouble in this seen almost infinite.
I suspect that what finally gets onto the Statute Book in Brussels will be much less sweeping. Thi: Treaty does not say that there must be total freedoi for cabotage, only that the EEC must lay down the conditions under which i can be carried out. This could be nothing more than the removal of any legal impediments to foreigners getting national licences in other countries, under the same conditions as natives.
Since there are no such legal impediments in Britain, that would cause no problems. But the Governmei may want to go much further, and thai would cause a row.
• by Keith Vincent