Documents considered by the Committee on 7 November - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


10 Road transport: tachographs and the AETR

(a)

(33048)

13189/11

COM(11) 454

(b)

(34334)

15015/12

COM(12) 589


Commission Communication: Digital tachograph: roadmap for future activities

Draft Decision to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the Group of Experts on the European agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

Legal base(b) Articles 90 and 218(9) TFEU; — ; QMV
Document originated(a) 19 July 2011; (b) 12 October 2012
Deposited in Parliament(a) 27 July 2011; (b) 17 October 2012
DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationEM of 2 November 2012
Previous Committee Reports(a) HC 428-xxxvi (2010-12), chapter 6 (14 September 2011); HC 428-xliii (2010-12), chapter 7 (7 December 2011) and HC 428-xlvi (2010-12), chapter 9 (11 January 2012)

(b) None

Discussion in Council(a) 12 December 2011

(b) Not known

Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decision(a) Cleared

(b) Not cleared, further information awaited

Background

10.1 The tachograph is a driver and vehicle activity recording device, required to monitor compliance with EU legislation on drivers' hours.

10.2 The European Agreement Concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport (AETR)[21] of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) lays down rules on the driving times and rest periods of professional drivers, and covers the use of tachographs. All Member States and 22 other countries (including Turkey, Russia and Ukraine) are contracting parties to the AETR.

10.3 Currently, each Member State is a party in its own right to the AETR and each has voting rights. Although the Commission usually attends AETR meetings, it is as the EU's 'civil service' — the EU is not an AETR member and does not have its own vote. However, in practice, the Member States and the Commission always seek to achieve (at an EU coordination pre-meeting) a single position for the Member States to adopt on issues due for discussion, with the Commission then delivering a unified position on behalf of them.

10.4 In July 2011 the Commission published a Communication, document (a), which was concerned primarily with accompanying legislative proposals to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and related EU legislation governing the use of tachographs.[22]

10.5 In the Communication the Commission canvassed the possibility of it seeking a mandate to secure participation of the EU in the AETR as a contracting party. We have considered the Communication several times and have kept it under scrutiny pending information in regard to the Commission's proposal for a mandate.[23]

The new document

10.6 In presenting this draft Council Decision, document (b), the Commission seeks a mandate from the Council on three issues. The first concerns EU accession to the AETR. The Commission is proposing that the EU itself should become an AETR contracting party. This would enable it to exercise a block vote on behalf of the Member States on changes to the tachograph specification, while still requiring the EU position to be coordinated in advance before the Commission could vote.

10.7 The second issue concerns creation of a Tachograph Committee. The AETR contains a requirement that any changes to the specification of a digital tachograph in EU legislation automatically apply within three months, to all AETR countries. This effectively means that the non-EU members of the AETR (for example Russia) currently have no say in the changes to the specification of the digital tachograph. Those non-EU members, led by Russia, are now objecting to this arrangement and are proposing that changes to the digital tachograph specification are determined by all contracting parties within a new AETR committee. The Commission is proposing that Member States support a proposal for the AETR to be amended by the insertion of provisions which would create an AETR "Tachograph Committee". This would be empowered to adopt the detailed specifications of digital tachographs. The decisions of the Committee would be taken by a qualified majority of two-thirds of those present and voting, with a quorum of half of the contracting parties being required. Assuming the EU had acceded to the AETR as a party, the Commission would be able to deliver a block vote on behalf of all Member States.

10.8 The third issue concerns interconnection of national registers on driver cards.   Each driver of a vehicle that falls within the requirements of the drivers' hours rules has a unique 'driver card' which they must insert into the digital tachograph before driving, which then records driver activity on a chip on the card. These cards are issued in the UK by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and are similar in appearance to a driving licence card. EU legislation requires Member States to exchange data about digital tachograph cards to ensure the uniqueness of the driver card and to prevent drivers being in possession of more than one valid driver card. This data exchange is currently done electronically through the TACHOnet system.

10.9 Directive 95/46/EC, concerned with data protection, allows Member States to transfer personal data to third countries in certain circumstances. The Commission:

  • has advised that non-EU AETR countries should not have a direct connection to TACHOnet, due to potential security issues;
  • was, however, of the view that non-EU AETR countries should apply the EU tachograph rules; and
  • suggested, therefore, that the most pragmatic solution was for a Member State to act as host for any third country wanting to join — it would be for the hosting country to ensure that the third country complies with Directive 95/46/EC and the security rules for TACHOnet, formalised by way of a contract.

The Commission is proposing that Member States propose and support a new article in the AETR to ensure a more effective scrutiny and control of driver cards in the AETR area and that, in order to facilitate the task of control officers, national electronic registers should be established and provision made for the interconnection of those registers.

The Government's view of the new document

10.10 In his Explanatory Memorandum the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Stephen Hammond) first explains that:

  • transport is generally an area of shared competence;
  • there is, however, considerable overlap between the content of the AETR and the EU's rules on tachographs and drivers' hours;
  • the AETR drivers' hours rules apply fully (in place of the normal internal EU rules), as a matter of EU law, to the EU part of a journey starting in a non-EU AETR country and finishing within the EU;
  • consequently, exclusive competence arises for the EU in relation to the AETR, by virtue of Article 3(2) TFEU which provides for exclusive EU competence (to act externally) to arise where entering into an international agreement could affect EU laws or their scope; and
  • case law of the European Court of Justice (Case C22/70) confirms that when Member States signed the AETR they did so on behalf of the EU.

10.11 The Minister then comments that the Commission proposals for EU accession would, if adopted, mean that the Commission would exercise a block vote on behalf of the Member States on changes to the tachograph specification and that no longer would each Member State vote, rather the Commission would vote on behalf of them. The Minister says that the Government's position on this will be outlined to us following further consideration.

10.12 On the Commission's other two proposals the Minister says first, in relation to creation of a Tachograph Committee that:

  • this would result in the specification of the digital tachograph being decided by the wider group of AETR contracting parties, rather than just the Member States; and
  • whilst this may, in time, result in a migration of some decision-making from Member States in Brussels to the AETR in Geneva, this is unlikely to adversely affect the UK and its road haulage Industry.

10.13 On the TACHOnet issue the Minister tells us that:

  • the UK already communicates information electronically with other Member States using TACHOnet;
  • the current arrangement for non-EU AETR countries to access TACHOnet indirectly via an individual Member State may, however, be burdensome for the parties involved;
  • the arrangement for a Member State to act as host for a third country was established to ensure an adequate level of protection of the personal data related to digital tachograph cards;
  • therefore, the proposal to insert an obligation in the AETR for contracting parties to ensure an adequate level of protection of personal data seems sensible; but
  • the Government would need to monitor the proposed Commission study of the technical requirements very carefully to ensure it did not increase financial burdens, by, for example, operating two systems concurrently to support the same function.

10.14 The Minister adds that:

  • the vast majority of UK haulage operations are undertaken under the existing EU legislation on drivers' hours and tachograph rules, that applies to journeys wholly within Member States;
  • the provisions of the AETR (which apply to journeys in AETR countries outside the EU and to journeys starting outside the EU and finishing within it) are therefore of limited interest to the UK haulage industry and the Government has not consulted them on the proposals; and
  • the cost implications for the UK as a result of these proposed changes to the AETR are too small to quantify.

Conclusion

10.15 Now that the Commission has issued its proposal for a mandate in relation to the AETR we no longer need to hold the Commission Communication, document (a), under scrutiny and so clear it.

10.16 As for the draft Council Decision, document (b), we have no questions to ask in relation to the proposals for a Tachograph Committee and the TACHOnet. But we will await the Minister's promised information about the Government position on EU accession to the AETR before considering the document further. Meanwhile it remains under scrutiny.




21   See http://live.unece.org/trans/main/sc1/sc1aetr.html. Back

22   (33059) 13195/11 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 428-xxxvi (2010-12), chapter 6 (14 September 2011); HC 428-xliii (2010-12), chapter 7 (7 December 2011) and HC 428-xlvi (2010-12), chapter 9 (11 January 2012). Back

23   See headnote. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 16 November 2012