Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
19 MAY 2004
MR SIMON
CHAPMAN, MR
CHRIS WELSH
AND MR
DAMIAN VICCARS
Q260 Chairman: Anything else?
Mr Chapman: Well, I think the
previous people who gave evidence suggested there would be an
increase in the number of drivers required in the industry and
that would exacerbate the skills shortages that we are already
facing.
Q261 Miss McIntosh: What impact do you
think the co-decision procedure between the Parliament and Council
of Ministers has upon your decision making?
Mr Welsh: Well, it has made it
extremely complex and very, very long-winded. In earlier evidence
you have heard there are some pieces of legislation that have
literally taken 10 years to get through the sausage machine.
Q262 Chairman: VAT took 18!
Mr Welsh: Our experience now is
that the additional legislative procedure of going through a co-decision
is very time-consuming and very, very onus upon business and industry
in terms of being able to influence that process. It is a relatively
new learning experience for everybody but it is certainly leading
to some unexpected circumstances where with proposals that we
previously might have been having to do a deal with just through
the European Commission suddenly common positions come out of
the European Parliament. So we are often having to deal with differing
amendments and pieces of legislation from the different institutions,
which from an industry point of view where we are trying to present
a case in terms of what is best for our members is often extremely
difficult.
Q263 Miss McIntosh: Would you not expect
the European Parliament to be perhaps more receptive to the views
of your organisation and other similar bodies across the European
Union?
Mr Welsh: Well, yes, we find the
European Parliament receptive to our ideas and we can probably
claim some success with elements of legislation that have gone
through the Parliament.
Q264 Chairman: So all elected representatives
are not difficult, Mr Welsh, it is only some of them? Is that
it?
Mr Welsh: No, you are all very
easy to get on with and deal with, madam Chairman.
Chairman: A rapid recovery there!
Q265 Miss McIntosh: I think you have
got perhaps the posting of the UK representation in Brussels in
mind. In your view, how widespread does the European Commission
consult on road transport policy?
Mr Welsh: Well, not as much as
we would like. A classic example probably was with the whole evolution
of the Working Time Directive, which when the social partners
were presented with ideas by the Commission 10 years or so ago
when it was first proposed both sides were very unhappy with the
draft proposals that came out at that time. It is probably fair
to say that both sides had very little impact in altering the
Commission from that original concept that it had about how it
was going to apply the Working Time Directive. So our experience
is that in order to make that impact in Europe you have to be
almost there before the Commission starts to publish the formal
proposal if you are going to influence the type of policies that
come out of the Commission. Equally, with the consultations the
Commission organised in relation to the 1991 White Paper that
we were talking about earlier the Commission called together a
consultation of all industry interests. I took part in that particular
consultation and it is fair to say that business as one across
all different modes of transport said they were very unhappy with
the shape of the policy the Commission was developing, but that
was just ignored and the Commission, after nearly 18 months of
internal deliberation, came forward with their White Paper.
Mr Chapman: Another example, just
to add to your collection, is the revisions to the drivers' hours
rules, which are currently being considered by the Irish presidency
and by the Commission. Again, the unions and the operators were
dissatisfied with the social sector dialogue consultation from
the Commission. The Commission's original draft published in October
2001 fell far short of the original aims to clarify, to simplify
and to update the drivers' hours rules. More recently, the European
Parliament has had its say. They have tabled 243 amendments reflecting
the inadequacy of the original proposals. We have now got the
situation where the Council is unable to reach any consensus,
as it has been unable to do so for about two years, and the Irish
presidency is desperate to push ahead with the dossier and it
is now considering trying to get a vote going through the Transport
Council in June, even though a lot of the mechanisms which really
needed a lot of detailed ironing out are still not in place.
Q266 Miss McIntosh: Do you think a lot
of the problems could be resolved if organisations like yourselves
were more proactive both with the Commission at the time of the
initial draft and with our own home department, in this case the
Department for Transport, through both the organisation here in
the UK and representation in Brussels?
Mr Welsh: Well, we think we do
our job as best we can and we certainly have our office in Brussels
to assist us to do that, but I think the perception we have is
that the Commission had a preconceived idea in terms of the 1991
plan about what it wanted to do, and what it wanted to do in that
case was to get the freight off the road and on to rail and promote
rail, which we supported, but it had under-estimated the scope
for rail to be able to solve the problems that the Commission
Q267 Chairman: Mr Welsh, I think it would
be an entirely laudable point of view were it not for the fact
that the Commission is directly responsible for the rail division
between the infrastructure and the operating in this country,
which is why it is such a mess, and there is frankly no indication
that they are serious about doing any work on promoting it. They
make these comments but they do not seem to have been doing very
much about it and the Working Time Directive, certainly the drivers'
hours, was being discussed not just in 1991 but when I was a Member
of the European Parliament, I can assure you, and that is going
back a bit. Are you really saying that what is happening is that
the Commission is following a political agenda which is not that
of the Council of Ministers?
Mr Welsh: Well, as you know, the
Commission itself has its own institutional powers to decide legislation
and bring forward its own agenda and that is what the Commission
has done. Business is dissatisfied with the current development
of Community transport policy. Recently the Director-General of
DG TREN, the transport directorate, has indicated that he will
review that 10 year plan and has admitted that there are some
shortcomings in the way the Commission has pursued it, or that
there are some unexpected consequences which they had not anticipated.
If that is the case, we welcome that because I think we do need
to stand back.
Q268 Chairman: Yes, but I want to be
quite clear. You are actually saying the Commission is ignoring
the view of the Council of Ministers, who cannot come to a consensus,
it is embarrassed by the decisions taken by the elected Members
of the European Parliament and has now accepted that at least
there is something wrong? Is that what you are saying?
Mr Welsh: Well, I think the Director-General
has recognised that it is time to review his own 10 year plan
and he has said recently to various industry stakeholders, "There
are some problems with the existing plan and we want to review
that." So we will want to take that up.
Q269 Miss McIntosh: Just to pursue that
line of thought, we heard from the previous witnesses that bizarrely
the self-employed driver is excluded from one of the two directives,
the Working Time Directive I think it is. If you take that as
an example, have you put pressure on the Commission, the European
Parliament and the Council of Ministers through our home ministers
here to include self-employed drivers?
Mr Welsh: The issue of self-employed
drivers has not been very prominent amongst the concerns of our
members. Our main concern has been to ensure that the UK Government
adopts the most flexible approach to the application of the Working
Time Directive. The recent announcement that ministers made has
given some confidence that as it concludes it consultation it
will give the required level of flexibility and that has been
welcomed by all sides of industry, including the trades unions
and employers.
Q270 Mrs Ellman: Will the Working Time
Directive improve safety?
Mr Welsh: That is difficult to
say because obviously it has not come into full force. In terms
of the road freight industry, what is more relevant is the drivers'
hours rules because they are the rules that actually have been
designed specifically to look after the social and safety aspects
of the actual driving itself. So we had under drivers' hours rules
effectively a 45 hour week for some considerable time. So the
main issue for employers is how we utilise that time that we have
available for drivers and that is why we require the flexibility
because of different types of logistics operations.
Q271 Mrs Ellman: Do you accept that the
restrictions on drivers' hours have improved safety?
Mr Welsh: We support the existing
drivers' hours regime, yes. I think it has been quite important
in terms of ensuring standards of safety and that those standards
are properly enforced. Yes, we would support that.
Q272 Mrs Ellman: Will the restrictions
have a greater impact on drivers in this country than in other
European states?
Mr Welsh: Again, it is too early
to predict. I think the view is that provided we get the required
level of flexibility for operations that I have referred to earlier
and we have an appropriate light enforcement touch, again there
have been indications that enforcement organisations will focus
on those that are likely to exploit rather than those lawful operations;
in other words it is targeting the use of enforcement.
Q273 Mrs Ellman: What do you anticipate
to be the impact of the expansion of the European Union on this
issue?
Mr Welsh: I cannot really answer
that. It is just too difficult a question to tackle at this particular
point.
Q274 Chairman: You must have made some
estimate because one of the constant complaints of your members
is that they are undercut by drivers who are working for people
able to take them on in what are now the new Member States at
much lower rates of pay?
Mr Welsh: Well, our members are
not just pure road hauliers, they are own account operators and
industry that uses all forms of transport. We would hope that
in fact any benefit there is from enlargement would be that where
we have serious skill shortages in this country, and clearly driving
is one, maybe that could be an attractive career opportunity.
Q275 Chairman: What you are really is
that you have not chosen to inspect too closely some of the effects
which might be deleterious to some of your members as well as
the advantages of the entry of new states? You have done no estimate
of the effect that would have on the terms and conditions of drivers?
Mr Welsh: No, we have not.
Q276 Mrs Ellman: You want to see the
harmonisation of taxes and charges across the Union. Can you tell
us why?
Mr Welsh: I will ask Simon to
deal with that.
Mr Chapman: Yes, we do want to
see the approximation of taxes and charges across the European
Union. I think we feel that the current level of fuel duty that
we have got in the UK is undermining the UK's road freight transport
competitiveness and it is a thorn that has been in the industry's
side for a long time and it is one which we are very pleased to
be starting to address through the introduction of lorry road
user charging. Whilst lorry load user charging in the form that
is being considered by the UK Government is welcome, it does not
get away from the fact that even though foreign hauliers will
begin to pay something towards the cost of using the UK road network,
the UK will continue to be a high-taxed environment in which to
move freight. Effectively introducing lorry load user charging
on a tax-neutral basis will just simply move a tax on fuel to
a tax on road usage. So yes, we do welcome lorry road user charging
but let us be absolutely clear, it is not going to reduce or improve
the freight transport efficiency in terms of cost of the UK operators.
Q277 Mrs Ellman: Do you really want harmonisation
or is this all about having lower fuel duties?
Mr Chapman: Well, I think there
is a good case for having a level of taxation across Europe which
more accurately reflects the costs that trucks impose on the road
network. Now, in the UK we feel that we are over-taxed at the
moment and when we are competing with operators on the Continent
and operating in a single market then we feel that the level of
tax that we face should be broadly comparable with the taxes that
our competitors face.
Q278 Mrs Ellman: What do you see as the
current problems related to introducing lorry road user charging
in the UK?
Mr Chapman: I think the main ones
are in terms of trust and getting the freight transport community,
which is clearly a very practical industry and therefore a very
sceptical industry, to buy into the idea of a road user charge.
So there is the trust element and the Chancellor and the economic
secretary have said that it is going to be tax-neutral. Fine,
but it also needs to clearly minimise red tape. So there is the
trust element, there is also a technology element and the need
for the on-board units and the trucks to be able to integrate
with the other telemetric applications in the vehicles. There
is also the transparency argument and it is absolutely essential
that the operators of trucks are able to make rational decisions
about when and where they move freight in the UK.
Chairman: I want to bring Mr Efford in
before we finish.
Q279 Clive Efford: Your members I think
consign about 90% of freight which travels on rail. Are they saying
to you that they would rather use the roads more? Is that the
reason for your criticism of the Commission's policy?
Mr Welsh: In fact our members
have been using rail more and they want to continue to do so.
In the UK the rail freight story has been one of relative success.
We have seen a 15% increase in the uptake of rail freight.
|