News
BackAs far back as July 2008, the European Commission had presented a new draft Directive, which proposed that in future environmental costs should be considered in the HGV toll. Since then, European Parliament and Council debated, as to which external costs should be included in the toll calculation. However, now that the joint position has been adopted in the Council, it becomes apparent that the inclusion of environmental costs has been put on the backburner.
In 2008, the Commission proposed that air pollution, noise and congestion should be included into the toll calculation as external costs. In the 1st reading in 2009, MEPs were still considering whether CO₂ should be reflected in the toll; however, the majority of MEPs voted against this. In the end, the European Parliament confirmed that noise and air pollution and with a small majority congestion too should be included as external costs in the toll calculation. However, the Council in its joint position refused to include congestion costs and proposed instead a variation of infrastructure charges, which should reflect congestion costs.
There are also other points, where Council and European Parliament disagree: whilst the European Parliament supports an appropriation of the toll revenue, the idea is rejected by the Council. The parliamentary rapporteur MEP Saïd El Khadraoui of the European Social Democrats suggests an orientation towards the Emission Trading Scheme as a compromise: according to this, 50 percent of the revenue would be appropriated. In addition, the Council intends to exempt EURO V until 2013 and EURO VI HGVs until 2017 from being charged external costs. The European People’s Party, liberal MEPs and Conservative representatives could also imagine this, but not so the other fractions.
The position of the Council in respect of the toll mark-ups for external costs is far less positive in sensible regions. Whilst the European Parliament proposes a multiplier of 5, the Council has decided in favour of a multiplier of 2.
It was therefore little surprising that MEP El Khadraoui informed at the start of the 2nd reading in the European Parliament that difficult negotiations with the Council would be ahead. And in fact, the Council text was only adopted with a majority of only 3 votes; excessive demands by the European Parliament might result in the Council no longer finding a majority and that the draft Directive fails. The MEPs are aware that major changes will no longer be possible. The European Parliament must take its decision by 16th June. As it is usual the case, there will be informal discussions with the Council whilst the debates in Parliament are still going on. It is still too early to say whether the 2nd reading will result in a decision or whether a 3rd reading will be necessary. However, what is already clear is the fact that the Directive only covers a small part of the actual external costs and that further revisions of the Directive will be necessary to take all environmental costs into account.
There are also other points, where Council and European Parliament disagree: whilst the European Parliament supports an appropriation of the toll revenue, the idea is rejected by the Council. The parliamentary rapporteur MEP Saïd El Khadraoui of the European Social Democrats suggests an orientation towards the Emission Trading Scheme as a compromise: according to this, 50 percent of the revenue would be appropriated. In addition, the Council intends to exempt EURO V until 2013 and EURO VI HGVs until 2017 from being charged external costs. The European People’s Party, liberal MEPs and Conservative representatives could also imagine this, but not so the other fractions.
The position of the Council in respect of the toll mark-ups for external costs is far less positive in sensible regions. Whilst the European Parliament proposes a multiplier of 5, the Council has decided in favour of a multiplier of 2.
It was therefore little surprising that MEP El Khadraoui informed at the start of the 2nd reading in the European Parliament that difficult negotiations with the Council would be ahead. And in fact, the Council text was only adopted with a majority of only 3 votes; excessive demands by the European Parliament might result in the Council no longer finding a majority and that the draft Directive fails. The MEPs are aware that major changes will no longer be possible. The European Parliament must take its decision by 16th June. As it is usual the case, there will be informal discussions with the Council whilst the debates in Parliament are still going on. It is still too early to say whether the 2nd reading will result in a decision or whether a 3rd reading will be necessary. However, what is already clear is the fact that the Directive only covers a small part of the actual external costs and that further revisions of the Directive will be necessary to take all environmental costs into account.