Supplementary memorandum by the Department
for Transport (EU 01C)
EU COMPETENCE IN TRANSPORT
The Secretary of State for Transport gave evidence
before the Transport Select Committee on 26 May. During the course
of his evidence he undertook to write to the Committee with further
information on six issues. The following note from the Department
for Transport provides this information.
Q412-416: Delays in approving new air routes
from Manchester Airport due to Community procedures
Mr Stringer asked whether EU procedures for
the approval of bilateral agreements had caused delays in the
agreement of new air services rights for Pakistan International
Airlines from Manchester Airport.
The UK has negotiated a number of new and amended
bilateral air services agreements since the new arrangements for
Community notification and incorporation of standard clauses (now
incorporated in Regulation 847/2004) were first agreed. The application
of these new arrangements has meant that some agreements have
had to be implemented provisionally pending approval by the Commission.
But they have not prevented bilateral agreements being reached;
and in only one case, the negotiations with Hong Kong, has there
been a delay in implementing an agreement. In that case, as mentioned
in the oral evidence, the delay was as a result of concerns expressed
by the other party, which both we and the Commission have been
working to resolve.
As regards possible new air services from Pakistan
using Manchester Airport, negotiations have yet to take place
on this issue. The new arrangements embodied in Regulation 847/2004
have not therefore come into play, nor have they had any bearing
on decisions about the timing of possible negotiations.
Q434: Commission Impact Assessments
In its Better Regulation Action Plan, adopted
in June 2002, the Commission committed itself to the following
key measures:
— The introduction of a two stage
impact assessment process, covering the economic, social and
environmental impacts of policy proposals—to be implemented
gradually from the start of 2003, with a view to being fully operational
in 2004-05. Impact assessment will be applied to all proposals
listed in the Annual Policy Strategy or Work Programme. All proposals
will be subject to a preliminary assessment, with some proposals
being selected for extended assessment.
In its Work Programme for 2003, the Commission
did not produce preliminary assessments, but, as a pilot, identified
43 proposals that were to be subject to extended impact assessment,
six of which were in the field of transport.
— A commitment to establishing and
adhering to minimum standards for consultation to improve
the openness and transparency of the policy-making process from
the start of 2003. Although the UK feels that there is still room
for improvement in the quality of pre-legislative consultation
undertaken by the Commission, the situation is being monitored
by Departments and the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels,
who encourage the Commission to adhere to the commitments they
made in the 2003 Action Plan.
All Directorates-General within the Commission
are signed up to the Action Plan. However, it will take time to
become embedded in the Commission's working practices. Commission
delivery on this agenda is a priority for the UK, and UK policy
officials have therefore been encouraging the Commission to carry
out impact assessments for all proposals adopted before the new
initiative comes fully into force.
Two recently published transport proposals were
identified as significant in the Annual Work Programme for 2003:
— Proposal for a Directive on the
development of the Community's railways to gradually open up the
market for international passenger services by rail (at annex
A).
— Communication from the Commission
on information and communications technologies for safe and intelligent
vehicles (at annex B).
These were both accompanied by an extended impact
assessment when they were published. I attach copies of both extended
impact assessments for your information.
The UK Government also produces its own domestic
regulatory impact assessment in connection with every new proposal
for European legislation, and these are all submitted to a Minister
for consideration.
Q478: Implementation of AAIB recommendations
in report on Manchester Airport crash (August 1985)
Graham Stringer asked about suggestions made
in evidence that the recommendations made by the Air Accident
Investigation Branch in their report on the 1985 Manchester air
disaster have not been implemented, by and large, and that the
reason is that we are waiting for everybody to get to the same
level of safety.
The majority of the AAIB's recommendations have
in fact been implemented. Of the 31 recommendations, the Civil
Aviation Authority accepted 22, either partially or fully, and
has ensured that action has been taken, either nationally or internationally,
to implement them. A further eight recommendations were accepted
and subjected to further review, following which no further action
was taken either because the current requirements were considered
to be adequate, or further action was considered not justified
following a safety-benefit analysis.
This leaves just one recommendation where regulatory
action has not been taken pending international agreement. That
recommendation covers three subjects—cabin crew view, access
through bulkheads and access to overwing exits. Although there
has been no regulatory action, progress has been made in all three
areas. On cabin crew view, improved design standards have been
applied on all recent aircraft type certification programmes through
the use of updated guidance. On the access through bulkheads and
access to overwing exits, the results of CAA research and safety-benefit
studies were used as the basis for two proposed amendments to
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) for European design requirements.
However, the JAA was unable to progress them. Since 28 September
2003 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) assumed responsibility
for setting the design standards of most aircraft manufactured
and operated within the European Union. This includes responsibility
for cabin interiors and emergency access standards. Both of these
proposed amendments to European design requirements are included
on the EASA forward rulemaking programme for 2005 onwards. With
the advent of the EASA there is now a good process in place for
taking these recommendations forward and ensuring that agreed
changes are implemented.
Q488: DfT Staff seconded to the European
Commission and Agencies
The Secretary of state was asked how many DfT
staff are seconded to the Commision. Currently there are six,
in the areas shown in the following table.
| Grade | Directorate General of the Commission
| Field of Work |
| 1 | G7 | Competition
| Antitrust enforcement and merger control in the railway sector, looking into potentially anti-competitive behaviour which impacts on inter-State trade. Also dealing with the competition aspects of inland transport state aid cases such as Railtrack/Network Rail, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the London Underground PPP.
|
| 2 | HEO | Transport & Energy
| Communication Unit, produces press releases, press memos, videos, publications, and arranges conferences.
|
| 3 | SEO | Enterprise
| Mechanical engineer working in the Automotive Industry Unit connected to DTI work as well as DfT—legislation on vehicle safety.
|
| 4 | SPTO | Enterprise
| Automotive Unit electronic diagnostic systems.
|
| 5 | G7 | Transport & Energy
| Environmental impact of aviation. |
| 6 | SEO | Transport & Energy
| Responsible for Satellite Navigation Systems (GALILEO) and Intelligent Transport Systems and service. Managing part of the 2001-06 financial programme for the deployment of ITS on the Trans-European road network.
|
| | |
|
The Department actively seeks secondments to the Commission,
encouraging staff to apply when opportunities arise, and looking
for relevant opportunities. Each member of staff on secondment
has a Departmental "sponsor", in a related area of work,
to keep the Secondee in touch with DfT. We hold an annual seminar
for secondees in Brussels, and the Department helps staff find
suitable and relevant posts on return.
Q497: exercise of the principle of subsidiarity
Mr Stevenson asked for an example of an issue that has been
the subject of a subsidiarity debate since the signing of the
Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
The principle of subsidiarity sets boundaries to the exercise
of Community competence. There is a related principle of proportionality,
both found in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community. This says that in policy areas where competence is
shared with member states:
"the Community shall act "only if and in so far as the
objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the Member States"
"Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what
is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."
With each new proposal published the Commission should give
its own position with regard to the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality. The Department's experience is that the Commission
generally does this. The judgements reached about subsidiarity
and proportionality are, of course, often the subject of debate
in negotiations.
There are many cases in which the UK has sought to ensure
an appropriate balance between Community and national measures.
Road safety provides a useful example.
The European Community has competence to act in the field
of road safety under Article 71 of the EC Treaty. Nevertheless,
the UK maintains that road safety is primarily an area for national
legislation and that the public would not understand Community
legislation overriding domestic road safety policy. However, there
are equally times when the UK has accepted that Community action
is appropriate; for example, in a single market for goods and
services, and in a continent of integrated road networks, drivers
expect a degree of harmonisation of rules and standards.
This can be illustrated using the following three examples
of proposed Community action in the area of road safety:
The UK supported Community action in relation to rules on
fitting seat belts in vehicles. Construction standards for vehicles
have been progressively harmonised across Europe over a number
of years. This allows freedom of trade of vehicles between Member
States, whilst ensuring that essential safety and environmental
standards are maintained. Against this background, the UK has
supported common standards for seat belt fitting.
The UK accepted the introduction of rules on the use of seat
belts in 1991, as we have long advocated the benefits of seat
belt wearing. While the arguments about subsidiarity and proportionality
were less clear-cut here, there were no road safety grounds for
opposition. Much of the 2003 Directive was concerned with improving
the safety of children in vehicles and the UK accepted rules on
seat belt use as part of a wider negotiating aim to ensure that
the Directive was sensible and enforceable.
The UK and others successfully resisted proposals on the
harmonisation of blood alcohol limits. The Commission has long
sought harmonisation of levels of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of
blood (the UK current level is 80mg to 100ml). The Commission
argued that people who drive between Member States should expect
approximately the same laws in each. The UK argued that a number
of different approaches can lead to similarly successful results,
as shown by the UK's success in tackling drink-driving at a national
level through the use of very severe penalties and effective enforcement.
The Commission accepted that the UK track record in this area
demonstrated that that approaches other than lowering of the blood
alcohol limit could have equally successful results in tackling
drink-driving, and replaced its proposal for a Directive with
a non-binding Commission Recommendation.
Furthermore, the UK and many other Member States argued that
the main thrust of road safety policy in the EU should be a matter
for action at national level and for co-operation between member
states. This has been accepted, at least for now, as demonstrated
by the recognition in the Recommendation on enforcement in the
field of road safety, that the "harmonisation of rules does
not appear to be the panacea for reducing death rates" and
that success appears to lie in the appropriate enforcement of
existing relevant rules.
| 
