2 Marketing of construction products
| (29711) 10037/08 COM(08) 311
+ ADD 1
+ ADD 2
| Draft Regulation laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products
Commission staff working document: impact assessment of the proposal
Commission staff working document: summary of impact assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 95 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Communities and Local Government
|
| Basis of consideration | Supplementary EM of 4 February 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxv (2007-08), chapter 3 (25 June 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 28-29 May 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Previous scrutiny of the document
2.1 When we considered this draft Regulation last June, we noted
that, in 1989, the Council adopted a Directive ("the Construction
Products Directive") which specified conditions for the marketing
of products used in the construction of buildings and civil engineering
works.[4] The aim was to
ensure that reliable information was presented about products
and to help establish fair competition in the EC's single market
.
2.2 If a product is marked with "CE" (conformité
européene) consumers know that it has been assessed
against a common European standard. CE marked products should
be accepted onto the market anywhere in the European Economic
Area. The CE mark indicates the characteristics of the product
but does not guarantee that it is suitable for a particular purpose.
2.3 The Commission proposes the repeal of the Construction
Products Directive and its replacement by this draft Regulation
for two main reasons. First, the 1989 Directive has not succeeded
in creating a single market for construction products partly because
of differences in the way in which Member States have transposed
the provisions into national law. For example, some Member States
(including the UK) have voluntary CE markings whereas, in others,
CE marking is compulsory. Second, the Commission wishes to make
the requirements for the marketing of construction products easier
to apply, more effective and less onerous for manufacturers (especially
for small businesses).
2.4 The main differences between the Construction
Products Directive and the proposed Regulation are as follows:
- The Regulation would have direct
effect. Member States would not need to transpose it. So there
would be no room for Member States to apply the requirements differently
in their national legislation (for example, the use of CE marking
for construction products would become mandatory). The aim is
to remove nationally-created obstacles to fair competition in
a single market for construction products.
- The arrangements for assessing new and innovative
products which are not covered by harmonised standards would be
simplified and standardised.
- For unique products and products produced by
"micro-enterprises" (that is, enterprises with fewer
than 10 employees and an annual turnover of not more than €2
million) there would a simplified process for the assessment and
verification of the product's performance using Standard Technical
Documentation.
- The credibility of the assessment processes would
be strengthened by the introduction of stricter criteria for the
"notified bodies" which test and certify products.
2.5 In June 2008, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government
(Mr Ian Wright) told us that the greatest change for the UK, if
the proposed Regulation were adopted, would be the introduction
of mandatory CE marking. He said that an increasing number of
UK manufacturers are already CE marking and so making the marking
mandatory would have no effect on them. The effects would be felt
especially by businesses which trade only on the domestic market
and which are, therefore, less likely to be using the CE mark
at the moment.
2.6 The Minister told us that the Government would
consult manufacturers and other interested bodies ("the stakeholders")
about the draft Regulation and the position the UK might take
on it. The Government would also have meetings with representatives
of the stakeholders during the negotiations in the Council working
group. Arrangements were being made, in particular, to obtain
the views of small businesses.
2.7 We concluded that the aims of the proposal —
simplification and clarification of the requirements for the marketing
of construction products and the removal of barriers to the single
market —seemed admirable. But the negotiations had only
just begun, the Minister's Impact Assessment of the proposal was
not yet available and the Government's consultations with the
stakeholders would be important. We decided to keep the document
under scrutiny and asked the Minister to send us a report on the
consultations, a copy of the Impact Assessment and progress reports
on the negotiations.
The Minister's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 4 February 2009
2.8 The Minister's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
provides the information we requested. It reports that there have
already been eight meetings of the working group of officials
to consider the draft Regulation; there will be two further meetings
in February. The Minister expected that, on 11 February, the European
Parliament's Internal Market and Consumers Committee would vote
on proposals for about 400 amendments to the draft Regulation
and that the European Parliament would have its First Reading
of the document on 1 April. The Council is due to consider it
on 28-29 May.
2.9 The Minister says that there are differences
of opinion between all the parties involved — Member States,
the Commission and the European Parliament. Indeed, there is not
even consensus about whether the main purpose of the proposed
Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market
for construction products or to bring greater consistency to the
way Member States regulate the products.
2.10 During the negotiations, the Government has
given broad support to the Commission's draft subject to some
amendments. It has opposed changes proposed by the French Presidency
and the European Parliament which, in the Government's view, risk
creating extra burdens for industry and conflict with the principle
of subsidiarity.
2.11 The Minister encloses with his Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum the final version of the Government's Impact
Assessment. It takes account of the comments the Government received
from the industry and others when it consulted them about a draft
of the assessment. He tells us that the main findings of the final
Assessment are as follows:
- the voluntary take-up of CE
marking in the UK is likely to be about 60%;
- the move to mandatory CE marking would probably
impose on UK manufacturers a one-off cost of £40 million
and subsequent annual costs of £7 million;
- it has not been possible to quantify the potential
benefits of the draft Regulation; and
- mandatory CE marking would have a disproportionately
adverse effect on the manufacturers (mostly small businesses)
of individual products made for a particular project.
2.12 The Government consultations on the draft Regulation
lasted from July 2008 to January 2009. There were 52 written responses.
The Department also had meetings with representatives of the industry
and experts. A summary of the responses is attached to the Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum. Key points from the responses are:
- manufacturers who already use
CE marking are in favour or neutral about the proposed move to
mandatory marking, whereas those who do not are opposed to the
move;
- there is strong and widespread opposition to
the proposal for a simplified process for the assessment and verification
of products made by micro-enterprises on the grounds that the
proposals are unclear, could cause confusion and might provide
insufficient checks on products which are safety-critical; and
- there is support for proposals which the respondents
thought would clarify the existing requirements and opposition
to changes which respondents thought unnecessary or over-complicated.
2.13 The Minister says that, in the remaining negotiations,
the Government will accept a text of the Regulation which:
- would improve the single market
for construction products through a system which is fair, proportionate
and cost-effective for business; and
- would comply with the principle of subsidiarity.
In particular, the Government considers that the
practical meaning of the proposed Articles on special arrangements
for micro-enterprises is unclear and it remains to be convinced
that the arrangements would offer any practical benefit to small
businesses.
Conclusion
2.14 We are grateful to the Minister for his clear
and comprehensive response to our request for further information.
It is not apparent, at this stage, that the likely benefits of
the proposed changes would justify the additional costs they would
impose on manufacturers. There are still disagreements between
Member States on some major questions. Moreover, it is by no means
clear that the amendments the European Parliament is likely to
propose would be acceptable. We have decided, therefore, to keep
the document under scrutiny and to ask the Minister for a further
progress report after the European Parliament's First Reading
of the draft Regulation on 1 April.
4 Council Directive 89/106/EEC: OJ No. L 40, 11.2.89,
p.12. Back
| 
