5 Road user charging
| (24818)
11944/03
COM(03) 448
| Draft Directive amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (presented by the Commission)
|
| Legal base | Article 71(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | HM Treasury and Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Ministers' letters of 4 and 15 March 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), para 19 (15 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 Directive 1999/62/EC (the Eurovignette Directive) sets out
rules governing the use of tolls, user charges and vehicle excise
duties on heavy goods vehicles. The Directive does not require
Member States to introduce charging. The Commission's 2001 White
Paper, "European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide",
concluded that Community action should be gradually taken to replace
existing transport taxes with more effective instruments, including
charges; and that external costs (for example the costs of accidents)
should be integrated into infrastructure pricing. In October 2003
we considered the current proposal to amend the Eurovignette Directive
to develop further the harmonisation of lorry charging that has
been achieved through that legislation. We said then
that this document raises important issues both in relation to
road use charging itself, for example a "common methodology"
to determine a rate structure or the possibility of additional
environmental charges, and to the question of an appropriate legal
base and hypothecation. We also said we wanted to see the outcome
of the Government's consultations and a Regulatory Impact Assessment
of the Commission's draft Directive.[9]
The Minister's letters
5.2 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of
Transport (Mr David Jamieson) writes with a summary of the outcome
of the Department's consultations. A majority of the 35 responses
were from local and national environmental bodies with the bulk
of the remainder coming from the haulage industry, motoring organisations,
local government and devolved administrations. Most respondents
felt rates should be left to the discretion of Member States,
and, if there were to be a common methodology, the industry representatives
insisted on consistent application and an upper limit on rates.
On environmental charges most respondents, especially the environmental
organisations, felt there should be an environmental element in
charges, although there were differences as to how much flexibility
Member States should be allowed in this and to what extent externalities
should be charged for.
5.3 Mr Jamieson says that the Government does not
intend to produce a separate Regulatory Impact Assessment of the
Commission's draft Directive as it will in itself have no impact.
Rather the Government will produce one for the Lorry Road User
Charge (LRUC) it is introducing.
5.4 Mr Jamieson tells us of negotiations on the draft
Directive since October 2003. He says:
"The meetings of the Council working group have
indicated that member states are divided on what they wish to
see in the Directive. 'Transit' countries such as France, Germany,
UK and Austria are keen to see as much flexibility as possible
for member states to implement the Directive to suit their own
needs. Geographically peripheral states including Spain, Finland
and Netherlands would prefer strictly binding rules to ensure
transit countries cannot charge hauliers extortionate tolls for
passing through them. During the negotiation process the UK has
been provisionally able to secure some important gains which are
helpful to our aim of introducing our planned Lorry Road-User
Charge (LRUC) scheme on schedule. In particular, the latest Presidency
text would not require hypothecation of revenues from tolls and
charges and offers more flexibility in terms of the tolling rate
structure and modulation of tolls."
He adds that the Presidency hoped to achieve agreement
on a general approach at the Transport Council of 9 March 2004,
but that unresolved issues might not permit this.
5.5 Mr Jamieson also tells us of discussion in the
European Parliament on the draft Directive. He says a number of
key amendments, including extending the scope of the Directive
to private cars, changes to the minimum rates of Vehicle Excise
Duty, and a recommendation that toll levels should be calculated
with reference to the type of infrastructure upon which the vehicle
is travelling, are under consideration. Consideration in plenary
session is planned for 19 April.
5.6 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Dr Kim Howells) writes to tell us the outcome of the Transport
Council's consideration of the draft Directive on 9 March 2004.
He says:
"Initial interventions from Member States were
encouraging and indicated that a majority of Member States were
prepared to make compromises. The Commission was represented by
Vice-President Mrs Loyola de Palacio. She made it clear that the
Commission could not accept any compromise that did not include
mandatory hypothecation of revenues. This was unacceptable to
the UK and several other Member States, who signalled that they
could not support any general approach while mandatory hypothecation
remained part of the package.
"HM Customs and Excise, who are leading on the
introduction of the UK Lorry Road-User Charge scheme, envisage
using the revenue raised from charging hauliers for road use to
give corresponding reductions in fuel duty to hauliers participating
in the scheme. A revised Eurovignette Directive that features
mandatory hypothecation of revenues would not allow us to introduce
such a scheme.
"As it became clear that a general approach
could not be reached, the Presidency decided to abandon negotiations
at the 9 March meeting, and said that it would need to think about
the next steps."
5.7 Dr Howells adds that the Government is lobbying
the Commissioner, the Presidency and MEPs, urging continuation
of work towards an early agreement on the proposals.
5.8 Neither Minister refers to the question of the
appropriate legal base for this draft Directive.
Conclusion
5.9 We are grateful to the Ministers for bringing
us up-to-date on this proposal. We note that there is still a
need to resolve the hypothecation issue and we ask to be kept
informed of progress on this.
5.10 We should be grateful also if, when the Government
responds, we could hear the outcome of its consideration, referred
to in its Explanatory Memorandum of 19 September 2003, of whether
the provisions of the draft Directive constitute a tax measure
and should be subject, at least jointly, to a tax legal base.
5.11 Meanwhile we do not clear the document.
9 See headnote. Back
| 
