MEPs’ vote ambiguous on Eurovignette Directive

Publication date: 12 March 2009

MEPs’ vote ambiguous on Eurovignette Directive

The report by Saïd El Khadraoui (PES, Belgium) on revising the Eurovignette Directive, as it was adopted on 11 March in the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, sends an ambiguous message to the Council
of Ministers. An ambiguous message about the charges that MEPs want to see reflected in the new directive (revision of Directive 1999/62/EC), which would allow member states to introduce road tolls aimed at charging heavy goods vehicles some external costs generated by transporting goods by road.

The question being asked after this first-reading vote (co-decision): what about the costs relating to congestion? The amendments adopted by the MEPs are contradictory and require clarification at the second reading. The revolt came from the EPP-ED. During the parliamentary committee vote, on 11 February, the group tried, unsuccessfully, to remove the different parts of the proposal to do with the costs linked to congestion being able to be taken into consideration when calculating the tolls. In the plenary, however, the EPP succeeded in getting amendments passed that remove entire sections of the text relating to congestion... but not all of them.

And so the definition of ‘congestion’ disappeared from the amended text, and congestion no longer appears in the definition of external costs and the calculation method provided in order to include this type of costs in the tolls has
been removed. The Transport Committee’s amendment on cars having to pay a ‘congestion charge’ if heavy goods vehicles have to also disappeared. On the other hand, MEPs kept the principle according to which congestion costs can be taken into account when calculating tolls on congested roads (which meant that the EPP-ED voted against the amended proposal).

In the end, there is a text that allows states - it is not an obligation – to introduce road tolls reflecting the external
costs generated by transporting goods. Congestion does not appear in the definition of external costs, unlike air pollution and noise pollution, but one article suggests that the charges for external costs can include congestion. A cost calculation method is provided for air pollution and noise pollution, but not for congestion. During the debate on the eve of the vote, MEPs called on each other regarding the supposed cost of the revised directive. “Up to a few euro per kilometre,” estimated the EPP-ED’s Corien Wortmann-Kool (Netherlands). “Eighty-two eurocents at the most,” retorted Saïd El Khadraoui, “at the absolute maximum and only for the few kilometres of congested roads”. Except for this point on congestion, MEPs confirmed the Transport Committee’s vote.

Source: Europolitics