European Scrutiny Committee Contents


12 Energy efficiency: tyres

(a)

(30193)

15920/08

+ ADDs 1-2

COM(08) 779

(b)

(30748)

11707/1/09

COM(09) 348


Draft Directive on labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters



Amended Draft Regulation on labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters

Legal baseArticle 95 EC; co-decision; QMV
Document originated (b) 14 July 2009
Deposited in Parliament (b) 7 July 2009
DepartmentTransport
Basis of consideration (a) SEM of 7 July 2009

(b) EM of 2 November 2009

Previous Committee Report (a) HC 19-ii (2008-09), chapter 4 (17 December 2008)

(b) None

To be discussed in Council Possibly 19-20 November 2009
Committee's assessment Politically important
Committee's decision Cleared

Background

12.1 In October 2006 the Commission put forward an Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, aimed at providing a catalyst for action in the period 2007-12. This reiterated the economic and environmental benefits of achieving a 20% saving by 2020, and the extent of the contributions which could be achieved in relation to residential buildings, commercial buildings, manufacturing and transport.[39]

12.2 In July 2008 the Commission presented a Communication, Greening transport, which noted that, although transport is key to the economy and competitiveness of the Community, it also imposes negative impacts on society, such as noise, congestion and emissions, which are expected to get worse following projected growth in transport use. The Communication summarised the work that had already been done by the Community to make transport more sustainable and set out the further initiatives that were expected to emerge over the next year. Amongst the latter would be a proposal for a system of tyre labelling.[40]

12.3 The draft Directive, document (a), was the proposal foreshadowed in the Communication, Greening transport. The Commission said, amongst other matters, that:

·  the objective was to promote improved vehicle fuel efficiency through a market driven change towards more fuel-efficient tyres, the so-called low rolling-resistance tyres;

  • directed at the demand side, the proposal was to complement the type approval legislation on tyres which is to address the supply side by means of minimum requirements on tyre rolling resistance, wet grip and external rolling noise, scheduled to take effect from October 2012;[41]
  • the implementation dates of this proposal and the type approval legislation were intended to coincide; and
  • the grading and labelling scheme in the proposal would provide harmonised and easy-to-understand information to consumers, companies and retailers by grading tyre performance characteristics.

12.4 The draft Directive the Commission presented would:

  • cover tyres for vehicles and their trailers in tyre classes C1 (cars), C2 (light and medium commercial vehicles) and C3 (heavy commercial vehicles, coaches and buses) — some tyres were excluded, for example, temporary-use spare tyres and studded winter tyres;
  • guarantee information on tyre performance would be made available to end-users via different media, for example electronic, catalogues, stickers;
  • provide for a label similar in design to that attached to new electrical appliances, giving the end user values shown in bands, running from A (best) to G (worst) for rolling resistance (all tyres) and wet grip (initially C1 tyres), and provide a single value for noise (all tyres);
  • to minimise logistics costs, provide for the label to comprise pictograms, thus not requiring the industry or tyre dealers to attach a dedicated sticker in all Community official languages;
  • provide for the pictograms to be explained on a company's website;
  • lay responsibilities on tyre suppliers and distributors and car suppliers and distributors to inform the purchaser of the grading of the tyres, by means of stickers attached to tyres, provision of the information at points of sale where tyres were not displayed, inclusion of information on bills of sale and inclusion in technical brochures. This requirement would apply both to replacement tyres and tyres fitted to new vehicles;
  • require Member States to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, including penalties for non-compliance, by 1 November 2011 at the latest;
  • require Member States to communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and the Directive; and
  • require Member States to apply those provisions from 1 November 2012.

12.5 When we considered this proposal, in December 2008, we were told that:

  • although the Government was still considering the policy implications of the proposal, it welcomed the principle of providing the prospective consumer with information relating the environmental performance of tyres;
  • nevertheless, the Government had a fairly lengthy list of initial comments;
  • the Government thought that the proposal complied with the proportionality principle, but whilst generally it also complied with the principle of subsidiarity, a provision on national fiscal policy was inappropriate and unacceptable;
  • the Government intended to conduct a public consultation on the proposal in due course; and
  • an impact assessment would be prepared, which would come to us under cover of a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum.

12.6 We commented that clearly there was much in the draft Directive that would need attention during negotiation. So before we would consider the matter further we wished to have from the Government, not only the promised impact assessment and an account of the outcome of the public consultation, but also information about developments on the several matters the Minister had drawn to our attention, particularly on the fiscal policy issue. Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.[42]

The new document

12.7 The draft Regulation, document (b), is an amended proposal from the Commission based on its acceptance of either the wording or the intent of some of the amendments made by the European Parliament in its first reading of the original proposal.[43] The first amendment accepted is that the proposed legislation should take the form of a Regulation rather than a Directive. From this flow other amendments required simply because of the difference between a Directive and a Regulation — for example, deletion of the provision relating to transposition. The other amendments to the original proposal are to:

  • clarify that the aim of the proposal is to promote wet grip and external rolling noise as well as fuel efficiency;
  • clarify the definition of the "point of sale";
  • require provision of supplementary standardised information explaining the contents of labels;
  • require tyre suppliers to provide the measured rolling resistance coefficient on technical promotional literature for C2 and C3 tyres and to make public on their websites the declared rolling resistance coefficient, wet grip index and external rolling noise emissions;
  • alter the requirements on tyre distributors in relation to information supplied with a bill;
  • improve the wording generally of the requirements on tyre suppliers and distributors;
  • revise a recital to emphasise that testing methods should provide end-users with reliable and reproducible information;
  • substitute provisions on market surveillance and enforcement with a cross-reference to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008;
  • allow the possibility of adaptation through comitology[44] of the labelling scheme for the technical specificities of snow and Nordic winter tyres;
  • remove the possibility of adding through comitology new parameters on the proposed label;
  • list the matters the Commission is to cover in the review it is to undertake five years after the application of the legislation; and
  • adding a recital encouraging tyre manufacturers, suppliers and distributors to introduce the requirements of the legislation before the implementation date.

The Government's view

12.8 In his Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July 2009, on document (a), and Explanatory Memorandum of 2 November 2009, on document (b), the Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Sadiq Khan) gives us the Government's more considered views on the proposal, an account of developments during Council working group negotiations, an impact assessment and an account of the Government's public consultation. He attaches to his second memorandum a "trialogue" revised text of the draft Regulation, document (b), based on discussions between the Swedish Presidency and the European Parliament and on which it is expected the Presidency will seek political agreement, possibly at a Council on 19-20 November 2009.[45] The Minister also tells us of the Government's views on the European Parliament's first reading amendments, noting that it considers that the Commission had generally made the correct choices in incorporating them.

12.9 Points of concern to the Government in the original or subsequent texts and the resolution in the trialogue text are:

  • originally there was a requirement for self-adhesive labels to be applied to tyres to indicate their relative performance in terms of rolling resistance, wet grip, and noise. The Government approved of the format proposed for the labels, but believed that the requirement that the labels should be self-adhesive, rather than simply securely affixed, was probably over-prescriptive. The sticker requirement itself remains unchanged, but the trialogue text allows the alternative of the information, in the agreed format, to accompany any batch of identical tyres sent out by suppliers and to be drawn to the attention of end-users by distributors;
  • originally there was confusion as to whether point of sale labelling was to apply to all types of tyre, C1, C2, and C3, covered by the proposal. The Government thought that the performance bands for C3 tyres were intended for use simply in advertising materials, technical documentation, and information supplied with sales invoices, without the point of sale labelling requirement. It is now clear that, as the Government wishes, C3 tyres are excluded from that requirement;
  • amendments are included in the trialogue text to address the Government's concerns that information on wet grip will not initially be available for C2 or C3 tyres and about the format for the provision of such information, which is now at the discretion of distributors;
  • the Government considered the proposed requirement that vehicle suppliers should provide information, on the worst combination of the rolling resistance, wet grip and noise from all tyres, where different tyres are fitted to a vehicle but the consumer is not offered a choice of tyre, to be burdensome, unreasonable, and likely to be counter-productive. It secured deletion of this requirement, however it was unsuccessful in preventing extension of the provision of information requirements from car dealers to van and lorry dealers also. But, on balance the Government regards the revised text of the relevant article as acceptable;
  • Presidency discussions with the European Parliament led to the addition of a graphic in the label showing one of three noise categories met by the tyre in addition to the originally proposed noise value, which the Government welcomes as an improvement to consumer understanding;
  • Government concerns that tyre testing requirements would add additional burdens for both Member States and manufacturers have been mitigated somewhat by agreement that labelling requirements will not apply to tyres manufactured before July 2012 and amendments to the annex on verification procedures;
  • the original proposal prohibited Member States from providing financial incentives for tyres in the higher rolling resistance categories 'D' to 'G'. The Government considered that this would breach the principle of fiscal sovereignty and seriously restrict future national flexibility. Moreover the scope of the fiscal incentives would have been amendable through comitology. In the event there was general support for the Government's opposition and the trialogue text explicitly indicates that taxation and fiscal measures do not constitute incentives for the purpose of the draft Regulation;
  • the use of comitology to decide technical matters is uncontroversial, however there appeared to be a suggestion in the original text that essential tyre performance parameters might be dealt with in the same way. The Government believed that this would be inappropriate and intended to seek a clarification and the trialogue text defines the Commission's powers more clearly, so meeting the Government's concerns;
  • as proposed by the European Parliament the range of the review of the Regulation the Commission is to present by March 2015 has been expanded so as to permit assessment of the effectiveness and scope of the legislation, including the effectiveness of the alternative labelling options, rather than limiting the review to simply addressing the technical question of the rolling resistance bands. The Government welcomes these amendments which will ensure that the effectiveness of the measure is properly reviewed, particularly in respect of the labelling options, and conforms to the principles of better regulation; and
  • the trialogue text clarifies that the proposal is expected to produce safety and economic, as well as environmental, benefits and now excludes racing tyres.

12.10 Commenting on the Government's impact assessment the Minister says that:

  • the Government's best judgement is that the proposal delivers net costs to the UK without costs to the Government;
  • the net present value is in the range of -£176 million to -£8 million;
  • although overall costs exceed benefits, the Government estimates costs to industry to be relatively small;
  • costs are comprised primarily of additional expenditure incurred voluntarily by consumers choosing to purchase better-performing tyres;
  • the Government's analysis suggests that, when considered from the consumer's point of view, the savings made on fuel (if fuel duty is included) from switching to tyres with a lower rolling resistance will outweigh the cost of the upgrade; and
  • the main monetised benefits are fuel and carbon dioxide savings.

12.11 On the Government's public consultation, which was held between 14 May and 7 August 2009, the Minister says that:

  • in line with the Government's view, respondents were generally supportive of the provision of information to consumers throughout the purchasing process as a means of informing choice and driving change;
  • some argued for extension of the information provided and/or for an associated programme of education or for inclusion of the information on tyre sidewalls (this later point was rejected by the European Parliament and by most Member States);
  • a few expressed concerns about the apparent emphasis on the environment which they felt could be at the expense of safety, particularly for C2 and C3 tyres, for which no safety testing criteria were yet available;
  • some respondents, including representatives of the tyre industry, thought that provision of information at the point of sale would be a more proportionate and effective means of communicating information than a label attached to the tyre, especially if this could be done electronically — tyres were not usually visible to consumers at retail outlets and labels were sometimes detached;
  • the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services also thought this option would be least difficult to enforce (this approach is permitted, as an optional alternative to labelling of every tyre, in the trialogue text);
  • representatives of the road freight industry were divided as to the merits of labelling for C3 (heavy vehicle) tyres. One body considered that the information was already taken into account by many commercial vehicle operators, another supported provision of information but thought that it could confuse operators making choices as to the optimal tyre for their purposes;
  • representatives of motor manufacturers were opposed to the provision of information on tyre performance on new vehicles arguing that it had no direct link to overall vehicle performance in areas such as fuel consumption and noise and could be confusing to consumers making choices on new vehicles;
  • one thought that burdens could be reduced by allowing dealers to provide information by electronic means and only for the worst performing tyres where choices of size or rim were offered;
  • representatives of the tyre industry expressed concerns that additional testing to provide or verify the labelled information should not be required over and above that undertaken for type approving tyres to the relevant standards; and
  • respondents also drew attention to the role of appropriate and dissuasive penalties and to the need for clarity in defining the media to which the technical promotional literature requirements applied.

12.12 The Minister asserts that in the negotiations the Government has been successful in achieving its objectives in a number of areas, notably on exclusion of requirements in relation to fiscal incentives, and considers the package developed in the trialogue to be a reasonable resolution to the negotiations.

Conclusion

12.13 We are grateful to the Minister for his account of where matters stand on this proposal. We note that the Government has been able to have the unacceptable fiscal aspect of the original text rejected and regards the trialogue text as a reasonable outcome to the negotiations. We have no further questions to ask and now clear both documents.





39   (27944) 14349/06 + ADDs 1-3: see HC 41-ii (2006-07), chapter 8 (29 November 2006). Back

40   (29850) 11851/08 + ADD 1: see HC 16-xxx (2007-08), chapter 15 (8 October 2008). Back

41   (29713) 10099/08 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 16-xxv (2007-08), chapter 4 (25 June 2008), HC 19-iv (2008-09), chapter 8 (21 January 2009) and HC 19-x (2008-09), chapter 5 (11 March 2009). Back

42   See headnote. Back

43   For all of the proposed amendments see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2009-0248&language=EN&ring=A6-2009-0218.  Back

44   Comitology is the system of committees which oversees the exercise by the Commission of powers delegated to it by the Council and the European Parliament. Comitology committees are made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. There are three types of procedure (advisory, management and regulatory), an important difference between which is the degree of involvement and power of Member States' representatives. So-called "Regulatory with Scrutiny", introduced in July 2006, gives a scrutiny role to the European Parliament in most applications of comitology. Back

45   See http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14024.en09.pdf.  Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 20 November 2009