MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
(21628)
11492/00
COM(00) 566
|
Draft Directive on measuring instruments.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 95 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 15 September 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 15 September 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 4 October 2000 |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 24 October 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date known |
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 Measuring instruments are generally
regulated nationally in each Member State in circumstances where
persons who have a direct interest in the result of the measurement
are not in a position to judge or control the accuracy of the
instrument. Typical examples include, in the field of consumer
protection, petrol pumps, beer glasses, meters for water, gas
and electricity; and in the field of public protection, evidential
breath analysers and exhaust gas analysers. Although such instruments
are widely regulated in Member States, the Union has not adopted
any harmonising legislation. The Commission estimates that the
value of the products traded in the area of measuring instruments
is of the order of 10% of Community GDP. The utilities sector
for electricity, gas, water and heat meters is characterised by
the presence of a few multinational manufacturers or their subsidiaries,
which account for about 50% of the market.
The document
4.2 The proposal is for legislation, to
be known as the Measuring Instruments Directive (MID), to harmonise
the regulation of measuring instruments. The proposal specifies
a list of measuring instruments categories which are currently
widely regulated in Member States. The effect of the proposal
would be that, if a Member State wished to continue to regulate
any of the instruments on the list, the instruments would have
to comply fully with the technical provisions of the MID. Member
States would have the option not to regulate categories or types
of instruments on the list.
4.3 Regulation may be for reasons of consumer
protection, fair trading, public health, public safety, or other
reasons. However the justification for the proposal is to enable
manufacturers to design products for a European Single Market
based on the MID standards or alternatively to operate in an unrestricted
market in those Member States where the instruments in question
remained unregulated.
4.4 The method of regulation proposed would
be appropriate to the type of instrument and generally consist
of an approval stage for the design or type of the instrument,
followed by a verification stage for each instrument which may
be either under self-verification by the manufacturer or by a
third party (Notified Bodies authorised by Member States).
4.5 The scope of the proposal is such that
it would have effect only up to the stage of placing the product
on the market and putting it into use. It does not include any
obligation on Member States to ensure that regulated instruments
continue to remain in compliance with the MID when in service.
Continuing compliance may be a key requirement, for example, for
consumer protection or public safety, but that would remain a
matter for national legislation in each Member State.
4.6 The proposal includes arrangements for
a Standing Committee, the Measuring Instruments Committee (MIC),
able, amongst other things, to modify the specified requirements
for measuring instruments as set out in the instrument —
specific annexes.
4.7 The proposal includes transitional arrangements
for instruments approved under existing national legislation.
The Minister's view
4.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24
October 2000, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition
and Consumer Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry (Dr
Kim Howells) says that the Government is broadly in favour of
the proposal because of its potential for removing or reducing
barriers to trade in the measuring instruments field without the
need for increased prescription in the UK. The effects on UK law
will, he says, be deregulatory, in so far as the proposal would
allow alternative modes of assessment of conformity not currently
available to manufacturers and provide a wider choice of Notified
Bodies both in the UK and in other Member States from which manufacturers
could request approvals.
4.9 The Minister notes that evidential breath
analysers are used for law enforcement purposes in the UK and
are currently subject to Home Office approval, which forms an
integral part of the legal process. Exhaust gas analysers are
used in the emissions testing of motor vehicles subject to MOT
testing. In both cases, under the MID, it would appear to be necessary
for the UK to accept instruments that had been approved under
the requirements of the MID in other Member States. The Minister
indicates that preliminary investigations show that other Member
States also generally require high standards of accuracy and reliability
for such instruments, so harmonisation should not cause any reduction
in the standard of results. However, the Minister says that, in
respect of evidential breath and exhaust analysers, there is concern
about the legality of public bodies which use these instruments
in legal processes requiring technical requirements over and above
the essential requirements of the MID. There is also a need more
generally to clarify any implications for the operation of the
public procurement directives.
4.10 The Minister notes that, in respect
of instruments that are regulated under the MID, the MIC will
be able to modify specified requirements and that the Government
wishes to change the powers of this Committee so that it is more
like a "regulatory committee", with the power vested
in the Member States through qualified majority voting and not
in the Commission (the proposal at present is that the Committee
should be of the "advisory" type). As regards possible
financial implications, the Minister says that, broadly speaking,
he expects the MID to be financially neutral except for its effects
on local authorities and some costs in initial implementation.
Local authorities will stand to lose some income in the form of
verification fees as self-verification by manufacturers etc becomes
possible. In that respect the effect of the MID will be to reinforce
a trend already under way in the UK because of changes in legislation
in 1999 allowing for self-verification.
Conclusion
4.11 This is a potentially important
measure in terms of establishing the basis for a Single Market
in a significant area, where the public is totally reliant on
effective regulation. It will be important to ensure that the
needs of consumer and public protection are properly balanced
against the economic and commercial advantages of completing the
Single Market in this area. In principle, however, this balance
is no different at Community level from the national level.
4.12 We note the Minister's concern about
the status of the Measuring Instruments Committee and also about
the need to clarify any possible implications for the use of instruments
(for example evidential breath analysers and exhaust gas analysers)
used in law enforcement procedures, and, more generally, any implications
for the public procurement directives. We recognise that Council
discussions on this proposal are only just starting. Bearing in
mind the concerns and uncertainties expressed by the Minister,
we leave the document uncleared and request that the Minister
keep us in touch with its further progress, with particular regard
to the points he has mentioned. At that stage, we would also be
glad to have a more detailed explanation of the legal concerns.
| 
