6. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of a
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum. We maintain our opinion[9]
that it raises questions of political importance, and continue to make no recommendation for its
further consideration at this stage:--
Department of Transport
(16829)
12173/95
COM(95)550 |
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No.
3821/95 and Directive 88/599/EEC on recording equipment in road transport (tachographs). |
| Legal base: |
Article 75; co-operation; qualified majority voting. |
Background
6.1 The tachograph uses electrical signals from the gearbox to produce on a paper
chart a record of a vehicle's movements. This can be used to monitor drivers' hours, and hence --
in theory at least -- as a basis for enforcement. There have however been serious problems in
putting the theory into practice. Briefly, there have been two alternative proposed solutions.
The first (known as option 1A) would provide for the fitting of an "add-on" to the
tachograph to record drivers' hours data on a smart card. The second (option 1B) would provide for
the approval in due course of fully digital systems which would replace the tachograph.
6.2 In his Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum received on 18 March, the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Transport (Mr Bowis) says:
"The add-on device had certain advantages over the tachograph. It would have provided
unambiguous identification of the driver using the smartcard and enabled enforcement agencies to
read 28 days of data from the card at the roadside. But some Member States saw the add-on as a
transitional stage and wished to move directly to replacement systems.
"Discussion in the Transport Council of the amended Commission proposal foundered upon
arguments about whether to adopt the 1A of the 1B solution. A majority of Member States are opposed
to the retention of the tachograph but the problem is that secure replacement (1B) systems, of which
only some prototypes exist at present, will require further research and development by
industry".
The present proposal
6.3 The Minister tells us that option 1A has now been dropped. The present proposal
is for an amending Regulation to require the fitting of digital systems to both new and existing
vehicles and to provide a new technical annex containing a functional specification for digital
tachographs. On the timetable, he says:
"The regulation provides for completion of the technical specification by July 1988
and, subject to that date being met, for the installation of digital tachographs in new vehicles
from January 2000. Retro-fitting digital tachographs to existing vehicles would have to be
completed by 2005."
The Government's views
6.4 While recognising the need for a better system, the Minister is concerned that
"the security of digital replacement systems is unproven". Moreover, he points out that
the proposed Regulation would be unusual in leaving most of the technical content to be defined
subsequently. The Government takes the view that:
"...any regulation which provides for a direct move to digital systems which would
replace the tachograph must provide adequate safeguards to ensure that such equipment is secure.
Moreover, it does not accept that Member States should be committed now to fitting this new
equipment to new vehicles within 18 months of an agreed technical specification. Whilst it is
acceptable that an Article IIIA Committee should be delegated to work up the specification, there
should be some fallback in the legislation if the issues cannot be resolved satisfactorily within
that timescale. It may also turn out to be necessary to amend further the text of the Regulation
to take account of matters arising from the specification."
6.5 The Minister also takes the view that the proposal would have significant
financial implication for the motoring manufacturing , road freight and bus industries. And he
considers that the proposed timetable for implementation is unrealistic.
Conclusion
6.6 In our last Report on this proposal, we said:
"It is difficult to see that these amended proposals take the debate any further
forward. The case for monitoring drivers' hours is accepted. The susceptibility of the existing
monitoring equipment to fraudulent manipulation is also acknowledged. There is a general conclusion
that more effective equipment is required and that data recorded by the equipment should be
available for checking. But how this can be achieved so as to be certain that fraud can be
eradicated seems to be no clearer now than at the time of the debate in European Standing Committee
A in February 1995.
"It seems bizarre that the Commission should be proceeding with the proposal when the
equipment which will be required to implement it is still not available. Further discussion will
clearly be necessary. We think the House would wish to know how this saga develops."
6.7 The solution still does not seems to have been found. Once again, therefore,
we make no recommendation for further consideration at this stage, but ask for a further
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum when acceptable solutions seem to be in view.
9.(16829) 12173/95; see HC 51-ix (1995-96), paragraph 4 (14 February 1996). Back
|
