33 Safety of road tunnels
| (24187)
5207/03
COM(02) 769
| Draft Directive on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network.
|
| Legal base | Article 71(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Ministers' letters of 16 and 29 September 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xii (2002-03), paragraph 2 (12 February 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
33.1 In February 2003 we left uncleared[72]
this draft Directive, which would harmonise the organisation of
tunnel safety at national level and clarify the different roles
and responsibilities of the various organisations involved in
managing, operating, maintaining, repairing and upgrading tunnels.
It would apply only to tunnels longer than 500 metres within the
Trans-European Road Network (TERN). The objective is to prevent
accidents happening, but where they do so to keep their impact
to a minimum. The number of road accidents occurring in tunnels
is relatively small, but fires are fairly frequent, and the fires
with the most serious consequences have mostly been the result
of accidents.
33.2 We noted that we shared the Government's reservations
about the draft Directive in relation not only to the practicality
of the proposals but also to their proportionality and compliance
with the principle of subsidiarity. We asked for a report on
progress on these issues and for a Regulatory Impact Assessment
before the Council reached political agreement on the draft Directive.
The Ministers' letters
33.3 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Dr Kim Howells) writes in his letter of 16 September that because
of possible, unexpected, rapid progress in the European Parliament
the Italian Presidency might press for political agreement at
the Transport Council of 9-10 October 2003. He continues that
the Government has made significant progress towards securing
key amendments to the draft, in particular, significant improvement
in terms of proportionality and costs. He adds that, given the
helpfulness of the Presidency in securing these improvements,
he would not wish to withhold support for a political agreement,
even though our scrutiny process is not complete.
33.4 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Transport (Mr David Jamieson) tells us in his letter
of 29 September that the Transport Council was likely to adopt
a common approach rather than a political agreement.
33.5 The Minister also gives us more detail of the
improvements to the draft Directive secured in negotiation:
· the
retrospective requirement to bring existing tunnels into conformity
with the Directive has been amended to requiring Member States
to conduct a risk analysis where adaptation would otherwise be
too costly;
· the requirement
to install lay-bys in uni-directional tunnels (all UK TERN tunnels
are uni-directional) has been deleted;
· the requirement
for every third cross-section in twin-tube tunnels to be designed
for the passage of emergency service vehicles has been deleted;
and
· the Annex of
the Directive relating to road signs (the subsidiarity issue)
has been changed. For signs not covered by the Vienna Convention,
Member States are free to modify the symbols in the Directive,
provided this does not alter their essential characteristics.
33.6 The Minister comments "that as a result
of these amendments to the draft Directive, potential costs to
the UK are now significantly lower than previously estimated by
the Commission's consultants, with a commensurate fall in the
costs of delay to tunnel users." But he continues: "Despite
the changes to the text made in the Working Group, however, the
Government continues to believe that the Directive's costs outweigh
its benefits".
33.7 The Minister concludes: "We are given to
understand that other Member States are quite happy with the text
as currently drafted, and if it were to come to a vote in the
Council it is likely that it would command a clear qualified majority."
33.8 The Minister encloses the promised Regulatory
Impact Assessment and draws our attention to the absence of the
usual declaration about costs and benefits. The Regulatory Impact
Assessment concludes:
"The Department for Transport, having participated
in the working group that has been developing the text of the
proposed Directive, believes that it now incorporates many of
the UK's demands. Nevertheless, the Government continues to believe
that the expenditure required by the Directive could achieve better
road safety outcomes if spent in other ways. However, given the
likely Qualified Majority support for the Directive across the
European Union, an abstention or vote against the Directive would
be nugatory, and counterproductive in terms of international perception
of the UK's commitment to road safety."
33.9 We understand that a general approach was adopted
at the Transport Council of 9-10 October, which the Minister acquiesced
in, whilst reiterating the Government's concerns about costs.
Conclusion
33.10 We are grateful to the Ministers for their
reports on progress on this draft Directive. We note that significant
improvements to the text have been achieved, particularly in relation
to the problems identified when we considered this document previously,
but that the Government believes that the value of the proposal
is outweighed by the likely costs.
33.11 We note also the Government's decision,
given the probability of a clear qualified majority in favour
of the revised text, nevertheless to join that majority if a vote
is taken. We understand the case the Government makes for acting
so and, having no further questions to ask, clear the document.
72 See headnote. Back
| 
