Brussels, 30/03/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 30 March, new German Secretary of State for Transport Engelbert Lütke Daldrup, citing the economic and financial crisis, “the effects of which are being felt on the transport economy”, said that the current situation did not lend itself to decision making on the Eurovignette (the revised directive on the taxation of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain road infrastructure). “Further charges are not acceptable. Let us concentrate on the response to be given to the financial crisis,” he said in a policy debate at the Transport Council. The United Kingdom and Malta indicated that they would support this position, preferring to push back discussions until the crisis had been pushed back, as the Maltese representative said. While restating their commitment to the polluter pays principle introduced by the draft directive, delegations, despite the compromise tabled by the Czech Presidency of the Council (see EUROPE 9871), were divided on the main points of the proposal.
Several delegations expressed doubts over the congestion charge (one of three external charges proposed), which would mean a charge on heavy goods vehicles related to the amount of traffic on the road. The Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Slovakia, Portugal and Sweden opted for an approach that included vehicles other than heavy goods vehicles, which account for only 10-17% of traffic, according to the Slovakian Transport Ministry. Denmark, while subscribing to that approach, was prepared to back the Czech Presidency compromise, which would, inter alia, delay application of this charge by four years. France and Hungary could also, in a spirit of compromise, support the Presidency proposal. Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani said that the four-year delay in introducing the congestion charge seemed “excessive”. The Commission would be prepared, however, to discuss the issue. Belgium said it was ready to work to find an agreement. The Belgian delegation, which dearly wants the cost of congestion to feature in the text, felt, however, that a two-year delay would be better. The Romanian delegation felt that it would be better to further develop public transport, rather than concentrate efforts on heavy goods transport. Supported, by Malta, Ireland and Latvia (which argued that any new charge would further penalise road hauliers supposedly currently paying Russian charges) and Lithuania, the Romanian delegation opted for the removal from the proposal of the charge related to congestion. Then United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden maintained their opposition to the use of revenue in the transport sector, while Italy (and Sweden) wanted to restrict the scope of the directive to trans-european transport network roads. (A.By./transl.rt)