ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTIONS IN THE MEMBER
STATES
(19735)
5086/99
COM(98) 772
|
Draft Council Recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 175 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| SEM of 29 November 1999
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 34-xiii (1998-99), paragraph 9 (17 March 1999)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 13-14 December 1999 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared (decision reported on 17 March 1999)
|
Background
9.1 In 1996, a Commission Communication[48]
noted the wide disparities between Member States' environmental
inspection activities, and recommended the establishment of guidelines
to reduce these. This recommendation was subsequently endorsed
by the Council[49],
and last December, the Commission produced the current proposal.
This would establish minimum criteria for environmental inspections
carried out by Member States' national agencies on all industrial
establishments, including nuclear installations, whose emissions
are subject to licensing, authorisation, or are otherwise regulated
under Community law.
9.2 In an Explanatory Memorandum of 11 February
1999, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Meale) said
that the Government welcomed the proposal, which it did not see
as having any financial implications for UK industry, and considered
that a non-legally binding Recommendation of the sort proposed
was appropriate, given the different administrative structures
and systems that exist within the Community . However, he added
that the Government would be concerned to ensure that the regulatory
régimes of the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety
Executive and local authorities were not undermined, and to press
for the scope of the Recommendation to be limited to installations
covered by environmental legislation. He also pointed out that
the civil nuclear industry is covered by a separate treaty (the
Euratom Treaty), and that the Government believes that references
to the nuclear industry should therefore be excluded from the
present measure.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 29 November
1999
9.3 In her Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 29 November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms
Beverley Hughes) says that, in the subsequent negotiations, the
Government has managed to achieve a more clearly defined scope
for the proposal, and to modify some of the bureaucratic detail
required. She adds that it has also achieved changes which will
ensure that the UK can continue its "successful" risk-based
approach to environmental inspections, but that the question of
whether nuclear installations should be included in this measure
has still to be resolved.
9.4 The Minister goes on to say that, although
the European Parliament adopted 15 amendments at its Plenary Session
in September 1999, the Commission has not yet published a revised
text, and is unlikely to do so before the Environment Council
on 13-14 December. However, in an em, the Commission has apparently
indicated a willingness to accept five of the Parliament's amendments.
According to the Minister, these would clarify the role of the
European Environment Agency (EEA), and encourage the Commission
to co-operate with the Agency, IMPEL (the Community network for
implementation and enforcement) and others to draw up minimum
criteria for the qualification and accreditation of inspectors.
The rejected amendments would in the main have changed the proposal
to a Directive, which the Minister says would have run counter
to the view of a large majority of Member States, including the
UK.
9.5 The Minister has also attached to her
Explanatory Memorandum a Regulatory Impact Assessment. This says
that the burden of the proposal would initially fall on the relevant
regulatory bodies, whose costs will depend on the outcome of the
negotiations. Some of these, such as start up costs, will be met
by grant in aid from the Government, but the remaining implementation
costs will be passed on to business in the form of higher licence
and other fees. The increases in 2001/02 would vary from 1.5%
to 2.2%, depending on the area of activity in question, with increases
in 2002/03 ranging from 1.3% to 2.8%. Again according to the activity
involved and the nature and size of the undertaking, there would
also be a considerable range in the annual charges for business,
with the increases possibly running from £100 or so for a
small facility to nearly £7,000 for a major installation.
9.6 Against this background, the Minister
says that the Government, which is "strongly committed to
the effective implementation and enforcement of environmental
law throughout the Community" is satisfied that the various
changes and clarifications to the text will ensure that the proposal
does not undermine the regulatory régimes within the UK,
and will keep any additional costs to a minimum.
Conclusion
9.7 We are grateful to the Minister for
this further information, and, although we note there is some
uncertainty over the position of nuclear installations and the
European Parliament's amendments, we understand that, after the
Environment Council has reached a Common Position — which
the Presidency hopes to achieve at the meeting on 13-14 December
— the proposal will go back to the Parliament for a Second
Reading. In the meantime, we are content to reiterate our earlier
clearance of the Commission's proposal.
48 (17637) 11418/96; see HC 36-ix (1996-97), paragraph
2 (15 January 1997), and HC 36-xvi (1996-97), paragraph 10 (5
March 1997). Back
49 (17905);
see HC 36-xvi (1996-97), paragraph 10 (5 March 1997). Back
|
