1 1 Promotion of clean
road vehicles
| (27162)
5130/06
COM(05) 634
+ ADD 1
| Draft Directive on the promotion of clean road vehicles
Commission Staff Working Document: Annex to the draft Directive on the promotion of clean road vehicles
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 13 March 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xx (2005-06), para 2 (1 March 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee (decision reported on 1 March 2006)
|
Background
1.1 On 1 March 2006, we reported on this proposal, which seeks
to encourage the development of a market for "clean"
vehicles over 3.5 tonnes by requiring that 25% of such vehicles
purchased or newly leased by the public sector each year should
meet the more stringent EEV (Enhanced Environmentally friendly
Vehicle) standard of emission control. In doing so, we noted that,
although in principle the Government shares the objectives behind
this proposal, it had a number of reservations, not least over
its effectiveness and whether it complies with the principle of
subsidiarity. We were also concerned about the justification for
a statutory requirement obliging the public sector when purchasing
new vehicles of this kind to have greater regard than the private
or voluntary sectors to environmental standards. We therefore
recommended the document for debate in European Standing Committee.
Minister's letter of 13 March 2006
1.2 We have since seen a copy of a letter from the Minister of
State at the Department of Transport (Dr Stephen Ladyman) to the
Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European
Union which addresses further the question of subsidiarity. In
that letter, the Minister says:
"Since the Explanatory Memorandum was prepared we have been
able to give more consideration to the subsidiarity issue. We
have concluded that the Directive proposal may be compliant with
the principle of subsidiarity. However this conclusion does depend
on the Commission providing us with convincing analysis on how
the proposal would create a 'critical mass' for demand for EEV
vehicles that would not occur if Member States acted alone.
"In order to show that this proposal is not
compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, it would be necessary
to show that the objectives of the proposal could be sufficiently
achieved by Member States or that these objectives could not be
better achieved by the EC by reason of the scale or effect of
the proposed action.
"The Treaty of Amsterdam gives further guidance
on the application of the principle of subsidiarity. In particular,
the following guidelines should be used in examining whether the
condition above is fulfilled:
a. the proposed legislation has transnational aspects
which cannot be satisfactorily regulated by action by Member States;
b. action by Member States alone, or lack of Community
action, would either conflict with the objectives of the Treaty
or otherwise significantly damage Member States' interests;
c. action at Community level would produce clear
benefit by reason of its scale or effects compared with action
at the level of Member States.
"Regarding 'a' above, the proposed legislation
does have transnational aspects, in that the vehicle market is
pan-European. As the proposal would affect the public procurement
of vehicles, a further transnational aspect is that procurement
law is set at a European level in order to enhance and maintain
the internal market, and any action undertaken on procurement
must be consistent with EU procurement rules.
"Turning to 'b' above it is doubtful that action
at member state level alone would conflict with the Treaty's objectives
or significantly damage member state's interests. This could go
to show that the proposal does not fulfil the principle of subsidiarity.
However, the Commission has argued that the specific objective
of creating a market for cleaner vehicles (i.e. of the EEV standard)
requires the economies of scale that could come only from a mass
market — the sort that might result from mandatory purchasing
of such vehicles by the combined public sectors of the EU. It
has explained in its own Explanatory Memorandum that, in its opinion,
action at Member State level would not create a sufficient critical
mass for industry to invest in cleaner technologies. So according
to the Commission the measure could produce clear benefit by reason
of scale and effect compared with action at the level of Member
States, in compliance with the guideline at 'c' above.
"For all that the Commission may have a point
here, I think that it is dependent upon its producing very clear
analysis in support. The Commission explains that it set the requirement
at the minimum level necessary to achieve the objective yet there
seems to be no clear justification for fixing at 25% the quota
of EEV vehicles that the public sector is to be required by the
Directive's provisions to purchase or lease. Nor is there any
opportunity cost analysis comparing any expenditure required to
implement the directive with other possibly more effective uses.
On the other hand, should the Commission back its view up with
adequate research data, it seems to me that it could reasonably
be argued that the proposal is compliant with the principle of
subsidiarity.
"You are right to ask about the proportionality
of the measure. My initial view is that the measure may not be
proportionate. The Explanatory Memorandum has already identified
our concerns that the Proposal might be overtaken by events, given
that 'Euro V' standards will become mandatory anyway in 2009 and
that we hope to be considering proposals from the Commission for
'Euro VI' within a year. But at the moment we have a real difficulty
in assessing the costs and benefits of the proposal because of
the lack of data on the number and types of vehicle that might
be affected in the UK.
"For this reason I intend to start detailed
consultation with those that have an interest as soon as possible,
informing them of our view on subsidiarity and gathering the information
needed to make a proper judgement on overall costs and effectiveness.
I will, of course, keep the Committees informed of progress in
this matter."
Conclusion
1.3 Since these comments by the Minister are relevant
to the debate in European Standing Committee, which we understand
has now been arranged for 24 April 2006, we are drawing them to
the attention of the House.
| 
