§ 17. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he is having with the road transport industry over his decision to implement the tachograph regulations.
§ Mr. William RodgersI shall shortly begin consultations with both sides of the industry on the arrangements and timetable for implementing the tachograph resolution.
§ Mr. McNair-WilsonMay I press the Secretary of State to share with the House his thoughts about the time scale for the implementation of the EEC directive? Does he think that the implementation will be completed within two years, or perhaps three years?
§ Mr. RodgersI should be happy to share views, but I have none at the present time. As I made clear in announcing the Government's decision in the light of the views of the European Court, consultation will take place. This consultation must be with both sides of industry—they are anxious to have it—and with the Commission itself. That consultation will begin quite soon, probably after Easter. At that point I shall be able to report to the House on what the timetable is likely to be.
§ Mr. McNamaraCan my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to treat this matter as one of great sensitivity? It is an important matter that involves not only economic but important social and industrial relations interests. The matter must not be rushed. It must be taken with extreme care.
§ Mr. RodgersMy hon. Friend is right to refer to the great sensitivity of the issue. The decision on the matter of 453 principle has been taken by the Government, but, clearly, the views of all those who will be directly affected must be taken into account. This will affect not only the programme for implementation but the timetable, too. I can give that plain assurance.
§ Mr. MartenIn view of the judgment of the European Court, am I right in assuming that the Minister will have to introduce into this House an order or similar instrument to implement that judgment? What would be the constitutional position if the House were to reject that order which the European Court had asked us to introduce?
§ Mr. RodgersThat is a situation with which we should have to deal if and when it arose. The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said in reply to a supplementary question at our last Question Time, it will be for the House finally to decide, in the light of the Government's decision on the European Court's ruling.
§ Mr. GrimondHas the Minister made an up-to-date estimate of the extra cost that the introduction of the tachograph may impose on the transport industry? If so, what is the likely effect on the cost of transport to the user?
§ Mr. RodgersIt is difficult to say precisely what the additional cost will be. That will depend, in part, on whether the tachograph contributes to higher productivity. The additional gross capital and operating costs will be relatively small in relation to the overall investment in the industry and its operating costs in other directions.
§ Mr. JayAs we have so often been told that any EEC member State may veto a decision affecting its vital interests, why did the Government not veto the application of this decision to Britain?
§ Mr. RodgersAs my right hon. Friend knows, there is a distinction between Community law that we accepted on joining the Community and did not seek to renegotiate and the proposals that now come before the European Council. It is open to the Government, as to other Governments, to veto proposals that are new. There is no question but that we inherited a tachograph obligation when we joined the Community, and we did not seek to renegotiate it.