2. We consider that the following raises questions of legal and political
importance, but make no recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:--
Department of Transport
(17912)
5875/97
COM(97)25 |
Draft Directive on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator
and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of qualifications. |
| Legal base: |
Article 75(1); co-operation; qualified majority voting. |
Background
2.1 The minimum entry requirements for admission to the occupation of road haulage
and road passenger transport operator were consolidated in Directive 96/26/EC[3]. They relate to the repute, financial standing and professional competence
of operators.
The proposal
2.2 As the Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Mr Watts) says in his
Explanatory Memorandum (dated 12 March 1997):
"In summary, the proposal is intended to harmonise and raise the requirements for
financial standing and professional competence and thereby remove imbalances between Member States
in the competitive positions of the transport businesses concerned. With the prospect of
unrestricted haulage cabotage[4] from mid-1998, it seeks to create
a standard of entry to the occupation of transport operator that all Member States will be able to
recognise with confidence."
2.3 The Minister says that the main changes from the existing requirements are:
"(a) removal of the EC weight threshold for goods vehicles, of
6 tonnes maximum permissible weight, below which the present Directive does not apply;
(b) reduction of latitude in determining mandatory loss of good
repute, by setting criteria of a single serious offence, rather than offences, and of repeated minor
offences rather than repeated offences. Offences relating to protection of the environment and
professional liability are added as infringements;
(c) the present minimum financial requirement, in terms of capital
and reserves, of 3,000 ECU per vehicle is increased to 9,000 ECU for the first vehicle (from
approximately £2,250 to £6,750), and is augmented for each vehicle authorised after the
first by 5,000 ECU (approximately £3,700) for goods vehicles over 6 tonnes or passenger
vehicles seating more than 20 people, and rather less for smaller vehicles;
(d) a specific check would be required to be made every two and a
half years on the ability of operators to meet the minimum financial requirements, and a five-yearly
check that the requirements of good repute and professional competence continue to be met;
(e) removal of the distinction between the national and international
categories in determining professional competence -- all operators would be required to have
knowledge of national and international transport operations;
(f) introduction of an optional oral examination, and in addition
to the existing multiple choice written examination a further compulsory written test, to establish
professional competence. The proposal is very prescriptive about the modified composition of the
written examination, and specifies a high pass mark".
The Government's view
2.4 Although the Minister recognises that action at Community level is necessary to
create a fair basis of competition for international road transport operators, he has concerns about
the proposals as they stand. He suggests that the case for Community action is not obvious in
respect of purely domestic transport continuing:
"... although some lowering of the EU threshold of 6 tonnes might be appropriate --
in Great Britain the goods vehicle operator licensing system has a threshold of 3.5 tonnes -- it
seems unnecessary to impose the full panoply of the Directive requirements on small local transport
in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes. Further erosion of the discretion to determine good repute
would directly affect the decision on whether or not to issue or withdraw an operator's licence,
which remains with the Traffic Commissioners or Department of the Environment (Northern
Ireland)."
2.5 The Minister also has reservations on some of the specific proposals. He
considers that:
-- total removal of the weight threshold, extending the Directive to any vehicle
operated for hire or reward, would impose a significant extra burden on the industry to little
effect;
-- the increase in the minimum financial requirements and the introduction of
a stiffer examination would impose significant new burdens on potential new entrants and small
businesses, and regular checks that the minimum financial requirement continues to be met would be
inconsistent with the recent streamlining of procedures in the UK;
-- the proposal for enhancing the examination to establish professional
competence would not in fact achieve the stated objective of establishing a uniform pass standard.
2.6 On the financial implications of the proposal, the Minister says:
"The proposal would increase costs for those at present subject to operator licensing
and extend these to all involved in the carriage of goods by road in motor vehicles for hire or
reward. If half the number of small vans on the road were used for hire and reward work another
million or so vehicles would be brought within operator licensing, more than double the present
number. Small businesses would be most seriously affected, especially those with vehicles to which
operator licensing does not at present apply. It would also have significant resource implications
for the Department in coping with a substantial increase in the number of licence holders and
vehicles. Furthermore, although the costs of administration and enforcement of operator licensing
are self financing through the fees charged to operators, the expenditure involved scores as public
expenditure. A full Compliance Cost Assessment is in preparation and will be submitted
shortly."
Conclusion
2.7 We note that, while endorsing the desirability of harmonised minimum standards
for road transport operators, the Minister has serious reservations about this proposal. We take
it that he will be pursuing these in the course of negotiations, and we would in particular support
his concern on the question of subsidiarity in relation to the application of the proposal to small
local transport.
2.8 We also note that a full Compliance Cost Assessment will be submitted shortly.
When this further information is available, we shall consider whether to recommend a debate. In
the meantime, the document is not cleared.
3.OJ No. L 124, 23.5.1996; (15085) 11505/93; see HC 48-x (1993-94), paragraph 11
(2 March 1994). Back
4.Literally the coastal shipping trade, but used more broadly to refer to the
carriage of goods between locations within a Member State. Back
|
