19 Drivers' hours
| (25119)
15688/03
COM(03) 628
| Draft Directive on minimum conditions for implementation of Directive 2002/15/EC and Council Regulations (EEC) Nos. 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities
|
| Legal base | Article 71 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 24 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-ix (2003-04), para 9 (4 February 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 10-11 June 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
19.1 Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 sets maximum limits on driving time
and minimum requirements for breaks and rest periods which apply
to most heavy goods vehicle drivers and about half the bus and
coach drivers operating in the UK. Enforcement is facilitated
through Regulation (EEC) 3821/85, which requires most drivers
to use a tachograph to record their daily activities. Directive
88/599/EEC is concerned with standard checking procedures for
the implementation of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85. This legislation
is concerned with hours driven and was motivated primarily by
road safety considerations. Directive 2002/15/EC, the Road Working
Time Directive (RTD), is sector-specific legislation concerned
with hours worked and originally was motivated primarily by other
social considerations.
19.2 In February 2004 we considered a draft Directive
which would repeal Directive 88/599/EEC and replace it with one
designed to raise the quantity and quality of enforcement checks,
to encourage greater co-operation between enforcement authorities,
and to harmonise certain sanctions. It would triple the level
of drivers' hours enforcement, currently 1% of days worked, to
3% and bring the RTD into the systematic tachograph-based enforcement
regime. We applauded the Government's intention to oppose a move
to a higher than 3% level of enforcement before there is significant
use of digital tachographs and, on subsidiarity grounds, the inclusion
of the RTD in the proposed Directive. But before considering
the matter further we asked for an explicit statement of the Government's
view of the proposed move from a 1% to a 3% level of paper-based
enforcement and a comment as to why the Government believes the
benefits of the proposal would outweigh its costs.
The Minister's letter
19.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Mr David Jamieson) now tells us:
"I can confirm that the Government is opposed
to any increase in paper-based drivers' hours enforcement. Our
view (as set out in paragraphs 9-12 of the EM [of 15 January 2004])
is that any increase(s) in drivers' hours enforcement should be
specifically related to the arrival of digital tachographs which
will not start to be fitted to new vehicles before mid-2005.
Following discussion by the Council working group, the text has
now been amended so that the increase in the enforcement level
from the current 1% to 2%, and then to 3%, would not take place
until 2008 and 2010 respectively. In the Government's view this
is acceptable."
19.4 On costs and benefits the Minister continues:
"On the basis that the increased enforcement
level is related to the arrival of digital tachographs, we would
not expect it to lead to a significant increase in the cost of
enforcement. On the other hand, a twofold and, later, threefold
increase in amount of drivers' hours enforcement should result
in fewer and less serious road accidents. On the basis of the
Commission's estimates, the proposals could help to achieve a
25% reduction in road fatalities and serious injuries across the
EU. Even if this is an over-estimate, it is difficult not to
conclude that the proposal would reduce fatalities and serious
injuries."
19.5 The Minister also says that, in line with the
Government's negotiating objectives, the scope of the current
text has been amended so as to exclude the RTD.
19.6 The Minister goes on to report the outcome of
the European Parliament's first reading of the proposal on 20
April 2004, when it adopted 38 amendments. The Commission has
given no detailed reasoning for its position on these amendments.
The adopted amendments include:
- extending the scope of the
present Directive to include provisions on the "training
of drivers" and on the "driver attestation from third
countries" and including a definition of "driver"
in the draft Directive. These amendments have been rejected by
the Commission;
- allowing the minimum percentage of inspections
to be increased by the Commission, but only following approval
by the European Parliament and on condition that carriers have
a digital tachograph. This amendment has also been rejected by
the Commission. But the Government agrees that any increases
should be conditional on widespread fitment and use of digital
tachographs;
- a reduced level of roadside inspections (at least
15% instead of the 30% proposed by the Commission) and at least
50% of inspections on premises of undertakings to be carried out
in smaller firms of not more than three vehicles. The Commission
has not accepted a lower rate of roadside checks, but it could
accept the 50% of checks in smaller firms. The Council (including
the UK) would be opposed to the targeting of small firms;
- changes in the conduct of roadside checks. The
Commission has accepted specification of when checks can be carried
out on stationary vehicles, but has rejected preventing officers
discriminating according to the type of tachograph being used.
The Council is unlikely to agree to the former, but the latest
Council text includes a non-discrimination clause regarding the
type of tachograph being used;
- penalties for allowing drivers to work more than
10% above the maximum weekly working time of 60 hours. The Commission
has accepted this amendment, but it is unlikely to be acceptable
to the Council; and
- Member States to notify to the Commission one
year after the Directive takes effect the sanctions planned for
infringements. On the basis of this information, three years
after the Directive enters into force the Commission is to present
a report and a draft Directive to harmonise penalties. The Commission
has accepted the obligation for Member States to notify the Commission
of its penalty regime within one year. The Council could probably
accept this. The Commission has rejected the idea of a new Directive
on harmonised penalties and a more uniform interpretation on Regulations
(EEC) 3820/85/EC and 3821/85/EC, but accepted an amendment to
publish statistical data and that sanctions be non-discriminatory.
Sanctions is a contentious issue for the Council and the Government
expects some of the European Parliament text to be transferred
into the proposal to replace Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on drivers'
hours. Depending on the text, the Council (including the UK)
could probably accept this.
19.7 Finally the Minister tells us it is likely that
a political agreement will be sought on this proposal at the Transport
Council on 11 June 2004. He says that, given that the Government's
two main concerns — the timing of higher levels of enforcement
and the attempt to extend this proposal to the RTD — are
addressed in the current text and that any European Parliament
inspired changes are likely to be minor in nature, the Government
is now satisfied that these proposals pose no real problems.
Conclusion
19.8 We are grateful to the Minister for this
information and particularly note the improvement in the draft
Directive in relation to the timing of higher levels of enforcement
and the attempt to extend this proposal to the Road Working Time
Directive. We clear the document.
|
