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
|
Department | Transport
|
Basis of consideration | EM 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 assessment | Politically 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
|