Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
19 MAY 2004
MR ROGER
KING AND
MS KAREN
DEE
Q200 Chairman: Why do you think that?
Mr King: We believe that there
is an over-arching determination to move goods onto the railways.
We believe that by so doing, or trying to move goods onto the
railways, it will relieve the obligation of Member States to provide
enhanced road infrastructure and also to reduce levels of congestion
and therefore the necessity of having to provide better road infrastructure.
Road charging of whatever kind is the magic ingredient which would
enable Member States to price road transport in such a way that
railways might be attractive as an alternative.
Q201 Chairman: Are you taking this from
your experiences of dealing with the Commission direct or is it
a Government policy, or are you of the opinion that this is an
indication from a committee like COREPER that all governments
agree that precedence should be given to the railway system as
opposed to the road system?
Mr King: I think the International
Road Transport Union, of which we are a member, which has a substantial
number of people in Brussels, takes the view that there is a belief
that the over-arching policy is to make rail more competitive
compared with road. It is difficult to do that at the moment given
the cost of charging for the use of the road system. A "Eurovignette",
which would set out a charging regime for the trans-European road
network at least and possibly a large number of other roads as
well, is a way in which that can be achieved under our belief
that road transport does not cover its social and environmental
costs. The irony of it is that in the UK we probably come nearer
to covering those costs than they do elsewhere in Europe.
Q202 Chairman: So are you really saying
that when you ask for harmonisation you believe that is desirable
but only if it is properly policed and it is genuinely accepted
as being tightly drawn? Is that what you are saying?
Mr King: Yes. We believe there
is ample scope for harmonisation, certainly on costings of road
transport, and you will doubtless be aware of the question over
the high cost of fuel in the UK compared with elsewhere in Europe.
Q203 Chairman: Wait a minute. Are there
forms of harmonisation? Are you suggesting that businesses should
have common forms of taxation right the way across the Community?
Mr King: Well, we believe that
fuel is probably one of those items where there should be.
Q204 Chairman: Other than fuel. Fuel
we understand, but anything else? If you are calling for harmonisation,
are you calling for harmonisation right the way across business
overheads or are you simply saying, "Fuel is one of the important
things and we need it to be harmonised"?
Mr King: No, I think the direct
operating costs, as opposed to the indirect ones, we would want
to see more harmonisation on so that we would have more of a chance
of a level playing field. Employment costs and various other things,
health costs, pension costs, they are going to be the subject
of Member States individual taxation, corporation tax and so on,
but the basic cost of using the roads, accessing the roads, burning
fuel and vehicle excise duty should be within a harmonised band.
It would be absurd to think that aviation fuel was different in
every country, subject to tax, because it would distort the market.
We have the same kind of market in road transport these days.
Q205 Chairman: Are there ways in which
hauliers here have a better competitive position than other European
Union States?
Mr King: Well, we certainly have
a less competitive one as a result of high fuel costs in the UK,
which are considerably more than can be found anywhere else. You
have only got to see what happens in Northern Ireland, where you
can see this in stark reality compared with southern Ireland.
Q206 Chairman: Given that we have already
discussed that, are you in a better competitive position in any
other way?
Mr King: Are we in a better competitive
position? No, I do not believe so.
Q207 Mr Donaldson: You made reference
to the problem in Northern Ireland and you will be aware of a
significant problem with cross-border smuggling of fuel. You have
made some negative comments about the role of the European Union
in undermining the road haulage industry. Do you think the European
Union has a role in terms of harmonisation in dealing with the
problems that arise from differentials in levies on fuel in terms
of tackling the huge problem of smuggling?
Mr King: I believe the European
Commission has attempted to. It has set a minimum rate of fuel
duty and would like to see a maximum amount of fuel duty but Member
States, of course, will not give up their right of setting their
own duty levels so it has not got very far. But the Commission
is well aware that some kind of harmonisation on fuel duties is
long overdue. Now, one way around that is to look at another system
of charging that compensates for fuel duty and lorry road user
charging is certainly the UK's attempt to address that.
Q208 Mr Donaldson: So you would like
to see the EU go further then in terms of harmonisation on this
specific issue, but then are you saying you would like less EU
intervention in other areas that impact on road haulage?
Mr King: We have no problems with
the European Commission setting safety standards and setting standards
for a competitive level playing field. There are obviously standards
of vehicle design and construction which are obviously useful
because we live in a single transport market. The whole of Europe
is like that. So of course we support a harmonisation of as many
areas as possible. Where we have difficulty is when directives
that are set out to harmonise seek to give a great deal of derogation
and opportunities by Member States to introduce additional add-on
taxes and benefits. That does not do a great deal for seeking
to produce a level playing field in costing.
Q209 Mr Donaldson: What impact do you
feel the failure of the EU to harmonise the levy on fuel has had
on the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland?
Mr King: Well, it has placed it
under enormous pressure. Of course, Northern Ireland operators,
being Northern Ireland operators, will go south of the border
and fill up. So to some extent it is the Exchequer or the Treasury
that is forgoing income from duty that it would have got had the
price of fuel remained competitive with that in southern Ireland.
It is to the benefit of the southern Irish government that large
numbers of Northern Ireland hauliers will fill up south of the
border.
Q210 Mr Donaldson: Are they not also
registering their vehicles now south of the border as well and
relocating a large aspect of their operations?
Mr King: I am not aware that that
is something that has been reported back to us as being the case.
Ms Dee: Not in large numbers.
Q211 Chairman: Would you have a look
at that, Mr King, and see whether you have got the statistics
and just give us a short note?
Mr King: Yes, certainly.
Q212 Mrs Ellman: I am not very clear
about your views on derogation. You seem to imply that you supported
that, yet when you commented on the Working Time Directive you
implied there was a problem with derogation, particularly in relation
to the new states. Could you clarify exactly what you mean?
Mr King: We have a Working Time
Directive which sets out a number of objectives the Commission
wanted to see, the average 48 hour week with the maximum of 60
hours in any one week, but 48 hours average working week, not
driving, must be the target from 23 March next year over a 17
week reference period. In the legislation it gave the option to
states to select whether it would be a fixed 17 week reference
period or a rolling one. So the last 17 weeks a driver worked
you would check to see that it averaged out at 48 hours a week.
We have actually successfully got it up to 6 months now, as a
result of the Government conceding that it will accept a workplace
agreement either between trades unions or the work people to have
a six month rolling reference period. We welcome all of that because
it takes a little bit of the sting out of the rather more restrictive
requirements of the Working Time Directive. So to a degree we
welcome that element of derogation. What concerns us is that the
European Commission has produced this legislation, MEPs have looked
at it and the whole ethos of the legislation is to control working
hours but it is almost an impossibility to do that for a mobile
worker driving a truck because nobody controls the influence upon
external factors like traffic conditions, hold-ups, accidents,
delays at depots. It is not something that can be controlled in
that way. We would far rather have seen further attempts to restrict
the driving hours if necessary, because that is checkable and
that is policeable, but working time is something which is going
to be very difficult to enforce, very difficult to understand
and therefore has added considerably to the complexities of operating
a business.
Chairman: Mr King, we have got lots of
questions and you are going to have to be briefer. You can be
ruder but briefer!
Q213 Mrs Ellman: Does that mean that
you are supporting derogation?
Mr King: In this case we do support
it, yes.
Q214 Mrs Ellman: Could you give me cases
where you are not supporting it then? An area where your members
have suffered because of directives?
Mr King: We would not support
a system that introduced road charging which enabled a wide variety
of options for additional charges like extra charges for areas
of environmental sensitivity, zonal charges, regional charges,
variable charges during the course of the day. Those would be
left to Member States to decide and that is something which worries
us.
Q215 Mrs Ellman: So does that mean that
depending on what the issue is your view on derogation would change?
Ms Dee: I think the point is that
we do not support the Working Time Directive. We think that it
would have made more sense on safety grounds to concentrate on
better enforcement of drivers' hours.
Q216 Mrs Ellman: Yes. I am asking you
about derogation.
Ms Dee: Given that we have to
have the Working Time Directive, then we support derogation because
it gives us more flexibility in working with something that we
do not think actually is going to achieve any safety benefits.
So we support it because it will make it slightly less onerous
on our members.
Q217 Mrs Ellman: Would you challenge
the findings of the regulatory review by the Department for Transport,
which showed that the Directive would have improved safety consequences?
Mr King: The only thing I would
say to that is that we have asked the Government for evidence
that the restriction on working hours would improve road safety
in the UK. The Night Time Working Directive was originally going
to limit night time working to 8 hours. We got it to 10 and now,
as I say, it is 12 hours if a workplace agreement can be arranged.
The European Commission said it was to reduce accidents at night.
We said, "Where are the figures for accidents at night involving
commercial vehicles?" and none are actually provided. There
is the number of total accidents but none that shows there is
a rise of accidents because of night driving. So we would question
that. We would also question that if you are going to reduce the
night time working, which is still going to be the case, you will
get more traffic on the roads at day time so any saving of accident
rates will be neutralised by increased traffic flow in the day
time.
Q218 Mrs Ellman: Could you give any examples
of current European legislation which assisted your members?
Mr King: I am thinking hard here.
Ms Dee: It is difficult to find
any that actually have provided benefits, I think. The weekend
ban one I think would help but that does not seem to be making
much progress.
Q219 Mrs Ellman: What are the things
that have been unhelpful, apart from the things you have mentioned?
Mr King: Well, I think we have
covered road user charging, working time, fuel duty. There are
others that are on their way. There is a Training Directive, of
course, which is working its way through, along with several other
directives and rules and regulations. That will not come into
effect for another two or three years, but again it places a huge
cost burden on the industry to train people in an industry where
we do train people. They have to be trained because—
| 
