5 Road transport: dimensions and weights
| (34891)
8953/13
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(13) 195
| Draft Directive amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 19996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic
|
| Legal base | Article 91 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 16 April 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 83-iv (2013-14), chapter 9 (5 June 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | Possibly 5 June 2014
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 Directive 96/53/EC requires Member States to set maximum authorised
dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum
authorised weights in international traffic for heavy goods vehicles
(HGVs), buses and coaches circulating on EU roads. The purpose
of the Directive is to ensure that no-one has an undue advantage
in terms of competition, to help facilitate the free movement
of goods and to avoid damage with overweight vehicles to road
infrastructures across the EU.
5.2 The Commission believes that given the advances in vehicle
and infrastructure technology and general increases in cross-border
road freight traffic, an update to some of the more out-dated
standards of Directive 96/53/EC is necessary. Additionally, a
public consultation in 2012 regarding amendments to the Directive
suggested that continued infringement by over-weight vehicles
needs to be better addressed. Therefore in April 2013, the Commission
proposed with this draft Directive to amend Directive 96/53/EC
to allow manufacturers to develop more aerodynamic, fuel-efficient
and safer vehicles, improve road safety and intermodal transport
and to facilitate improved enforcement of vehicles that infringe
the maximum weights and dimensions of the Directive.
5.3 The draft Directive would:
· allow
an increase in length of up to two metres at the rear of the vehicle
and an unspecified length at the front for the new aerodynamics,
for a transitional period;
· give
the Commission powers to adopt delegated acts specifying the detailed
technical requirements, which would replace the transitional provisions;
· allow
an increase in weight by one tonne for hybrid or electric lorries
and coaches, to account for their heavier powertrains and battery
components, whilst not allowing for any increases in loading length
for HGV's;
· allow
an increase in weight by one tonne for all buses and coaches,
to accommodate the increased average weight of passengers and
their luggage, of new mandatory safety equipment and of new Euro
VI engines (engines meeting the latest emission standards);
· allow
an increase in maximum length of vehicles involved in intermodal
transport of 15 cm to enable them to carry 45 ft containers;
· pave
the way for such enforcement mechanisms as on-board weighing systems
linked to digital tachographs and weigh-in-motion stations on
main roads, so, it asserts, allowing more consistent controls
between Member States and having a positive effect on competition;
· require
Member States to establish a system for pre-selecting and targeting
checks on vehicles or combinations of vehicles to ensure compliance
with the Directive's requirements and stipulate a minimum threshold
of one weighing per 2,000 vehicle kilometres for doing this;
· harmonise
technical specifications of on-board weighing equipment and require
Member States to improve data exchange at EU level regarding offences,
with the Commission adopting Delegated Acts harmonisation of technical
specifications of on-board weighing equipment; and
· categorise
infringements according to their severity and state the sanctions
incurred.
5.4 When, in June 2013, we considered this proposal
we said that, although its objectives might be laudable, there
were clearly problematic elements drawn to our attention by the
Government which needed to be addressed during Council working
group consideration of the draft Directive. We were particularly
concerned by the Commission's liberal approach to making policy
with significant national impact through delegated legislation.
So before we would consider the proposal further we asked to
hear about progress in negotiation on the issues drawn to our
attention and about the Government's more developed analysis of
the financial implications. Meanwhile the document remained under
scrutiny.[20]
The Minister's letter of 16 April 2014
5.5 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Department for Transport (Stephen Hammond) writes now about
recent developments and progress in negotiations on this draft
Directive, saying that:
· the
Lithuanian Presidency decided not to open discussions on this
proposal, and negotiations therefore did not start until mid-January;
· the
Greek Presidency is now devoting significant working group time
to the dossier; and
· it
hopes to achieve a political agreement at the Transport Council
on 5 June.
5.6 The Minister reminds us that the Government's
main concerns regarding the proposal are:
· the
lack of alignment with current type approval processes in proposed
new vehicle design regarding aerodynamics and safety;
· lack
of detail regarding proposed new cab design;
· that
the proposed new front and rear aerodynamics may be implemented
by the Commission by means of delegated acts;
· proposed
onerous and prescriptive means of tackling enforcement and setting
the levels of enforcement and penalties for Member States; and
· empowerment
of the Commission to adopt delegated acts in setting the technical
specifications of the proposed on-board weighing equipment.
5.7 He says that these concerns are shared by the
majority of Member States and are being addressed in working group
negotiations.
5.8 The Minister continues that:
· discussions
are still in progress, but it looks likely that these will remove
the Government's major concerns, regarding more alignment with
type approval processes, significantly scaling down (or removing
altogether) the enforcement proposals, which would otherwise impose
unjustifiable, additional, significant costs and workload on the
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the freight and
logistics sector;
· there
is also general support for removing the provision that would
allow the Commission to adopt delegated acts regarding the proposed
new front and rear aerodynamics and instead cross-referring these
to existing type approval legislative processes;
· since
the proposal would only set the maximum weights and dimensions
of vehicles and does not include vehicle design, this would ensure
that it is done through the correct process and existing channels;
· several
Member States have requested more detailed analysis from the Commission
in relation to the proposed new, more aerodynamic cabs, given
that there is still a lack of detail regarding this other than
conceptual drawings of the new cabs in the Commission's impact
assessment;
· Member
States have supported the proposal to allow for an increase in
the length of vehicles involved in intermodal transport by 15cm
to allow them to carry 45ft containers — a proposal which
the Government welcomed;
· during
negotiations, it has become evident that Member States have differing
views as regards whether they would prefer to use on-board weighing
equipment or weighing in motion technology — the former
would impose a greater cost burden for the UK;
· there
is, however, broad consensus on adopting a technologically neutral
approach, whilst ensuring that those Member States using on-board
weighing equipment do not impose this equipment on foreign hauliers;
· regarding
the proposal to delegate power to the Commission in relation to
the proposed on-board weighing equipment, Member States have requested
that this be undertaken by way of implementing acts under the
examination procedure, which would ensure that Member States have
more input into the process through a committee of experts; and
· opinions
vary amongst Member States on the issue of cross border movement
of longer and heavier vehicles and this will be discussed in more
detail towards the end of the negotiations.
5.9 The Minister also reports that the European Parliament
has also been considering the proposal and that the lead TRAN
Committee has recently adopted its report for consideration at
the April plenary. He says that amendments in the TRAN report
include proposals to:
· mandate
safer lorry cabs and improved aerodynamics;
· support
an increase in weight for heavier powertrains of less polluting,
alternatively fuelled vehicles;
· allow
the 15cm increase in length for lorries that transport 45ft containers,
to enable these to be transported legally; and
· request
that the Commission undertake a review of Annex I of the Directive
and, if deemed appropriate, make a legislative proposal with an
impact assessment and report back by 2016.
5.10 The Minister comments that:
· the
Government is pleased that the European Parliament is largely
aligned with Member States as regards opening up the scope of
alternatively fuelled vehicles that may benefit from an extra
tonne in weight for their heavier powertrains;
· it
has concerns, however, about the European Parliament's amendment
on mandating of safer lorry cabs, which is outside the scope of
this proposal;
· it
also has serious concerns about the European Parliament's proposal
for a review of Annex I, since this could impact on the Government's
options following the outcome of its current Longer Semi-trailer
Trial, a 10-year trial which began in January 2012 and which covers
semi-trailers exceeding the dimensions laid out in Annex I of
the Directive;
· a
review would also risk unnecessary closer scrutiny of cross border
operation of vehicles higher than four metres between the UK and
Ireland;
· the
current height limit for cross border movement is currently four
metres, however, the Commission has approved the cross border
movement of vehicles with derogations from dimensions in Annex
I between two neighbouring Member States whose national practices
are similar; and
· additionally,
the Government considers that the proposed review of Annex I is
unnecessarily bureaucratic given that it should be for Member
States to decide what analysis to undertake in relation to their
own national practices.
5.11 Referring to recent media reporting that the
Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) were lobbying for
amendments to the draft Directive which would require all new
goods vehicles to adopt a new, safer design, the Minister says
that TfL successfully urged MEPs to support some of them. He comments
that the Government, however, did not support the amendments because:
· the
General Circulation Directive, Directive 96/53/EC, sets the maximum
weights and dimensions that are permitted for vehicles in circulation
within the EU — it does not specify the design of vehicles;
· the
Government fully supports the changes to the General Circulation
Directive proposed by the Commission, which would allow additional
maximum length for more aerodynamic and safer vehicles —
this is an essential step towards the outcome that the Government
and the Mayor wish to see of improved goods vehicles design and
it will be supporting amendments to strengthen references to the
key safety objectives of these proposals;
· this
Directive is, however, only part of the wider legislative framework
— it sets rules on maximum weights and dimensions for the
circulation of vehicles, but it is EU and UN-ECE type approval
legislation that specifies the standards for vehicle design, which
would need to be amended in order to specify any changes to the
design of HGV cabs and which is outside the scope of the General
Circulation Directive and the current proposal.
5.12 Finally the Minister says that his department
is preparing a paper which will set out further cost and benefits
analysis of the proposal which he will send us in due course,
as well as keeping us informed of further developments.
Conclusion
5.13 We are grateful to the Minister for this
account of negotiations so far on this draft Directive. However,
before we consider the proposal further we should like to have
the further report the Minister promises as well as the Government's
more developed analysis of the financial implications we have
requested previously. Meanwhile the document remains under scrutiny.
20 See headnote. Back
| 
