END OF LIFE VEHICLES
(21119)
7214/00
COM(00) 166
| Amended draft Directive on End of Life Vehicles.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 175 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| Document originated:
| 16 March 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 20 March 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 19 April 2000 |
| Department:
| Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 17 April 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see (20117) 8000/99: HC 23-xi (1999-2000), paragraph 11 (8 March 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| In Conciliation |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 The aim of this proposal is to harmonise
measures adopted by different Member States to deal with the amount
and the toxicity of waste from vehicles which have reached the
end of their life (ELVs).
5.2 A Common Position was adopted on this
proposal on 10 September 1999[19].
On 29 February the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce
(Ms Patricia Hewitt) brought us up to date, describing amendments
proposed by the European Parliament at Second Reading[20].
No Commission amended text was available at that time.
Conciliation and implementation
5.3 As the Minister expected, the proposal
was referred to the Conciliation Committee and she tells us in
her EM of 17 April that the process started on 27 March. The six
week period allowed is expected to be extended by the Council
by two weeks.[21]
Once the Directive has come into force, Member States will have
18 months to implement it. The timetable, therefore, remains as
predicted and she expects the Directive to be implemented in late
2001/early 2002.
Commission document
5.4 The Commission has issued an amended
text which includes those European Parliament amendments which
it can accept. The Minister summarises the difference between
this proposal and the Common Position text, and comments on the
UK view, as follows:
"— the Commission's proposal includes
requirements for manufacturers to produce dismantling 'information'
rather than dismantling 'manuals'. The UK could accept these helpful
amendments, which make it clear that manufacturers could make
information available electronically, as well as in traditional
hard copy format;
"— it requires component manufacturers
to take safety and environmental requirements into account when
encouraging the re-use of components. This is acceptable to the
UK. It also requires component producers to make information on
dismantling, storage and testing of their components available
to recovery facilities. Most delegations (including the UK) accept
this, as does the Commission;
"— it states that the proposal shall
apply to vehicles irrespective of how they have been serviced
or repaired during use and irrespective of whether they have been
fitted with spare parts made by companies other than their original
manufacturer. This is a helpful clarification which the UK could
accept;
"— it exempts Special Purpose Vehicles,
such as ambulances, hearses and motor caravans, from the proposal's
recycling and recyclability targets. Most, if not all, vehicles
of this type would already come under the existing exemption for
low volume producers, but the UK has no objection to this amendment;
"— it states that ELV collection
points must be registered and that they may only issue Certificates
of Destruction (CoDs) if they are licensed under the Waste Framework
Directive. The UK is presently considering our approach on these
amendments: our view is that collection points should be registered
but that they should not have to be licensed, as they will not
be carrying out any treatment operations;
"— it says that Member States 'shall'
(instead of 'may') encourage treatment operations to introduce
certified environmental management systems. The UK could accept
this;
"— it introduces the latest appropriate
comitology procedures and the UK could accept this;
"— the Commission has not accepted
Parliament's amendments on producer responsibility and on heavy
metals, although the Parliament is expected to press for these
amendments during conciliation."
Regulatory Impact Assessment
5.5 An updated Regulatory Impact Assessment
(RIA), based on the amended text, is attached to the Explanatory
Memorandum.
5.6 The costs to the UK of the June 1999
Common Position text were estimated at £315 million per annum
for 2006 and £391 million per annum for 2015, plus unquantified
costs associated with redesign, heavy metals restrictions and
coding of parts. Benefits of £31 million were identified.
These costs were less than the estimates based on the Commission's
1997 first draft.
5.7 This amended text would increase the
costs from these estimated in June 1999 by between £2.7 million
per annum to £13.4 million per annum. Part of the higher
figure would depend on the amount of data the Environment Agency
(EA) would require under amended Article 5.3, which provides that
only ELV collection points which hold permits can issue Certificates
of Destruction (CoDs). In addition, the EA might incur costs of
"several millions of pounds" for monitoring additional
collection sites, if these became part of the permit régime.
If the 6,300 dealership outlets in the UK became collection points,
but did not issue CoDs, the cost of registering with the EA is
estimated to be some £0.3 million per annum.
Conclusion
5.8 The Commission's amended text in
some respects improves on the Common Position text, and, with
the exception of the provisions relating to the licensing of collection
points, it raises no new concerns. We thank the Minister for providing
us with the updated RIA and ask the Government to inform us, by
letter, of the outcome of the Conciliation. In the meantime, we
are not clearing this document.
19 80951/1/99 REV 1. Not deposited, but copy made
available. Back
20 See (20117) 8000/99. See headnotes to this paragraph. Back
21 Under Article 251(7) EC. Back
| 
