|
10 Roadworthiness of vehicles
| Legal base | Article 91; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 22 October 2012
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 86-xv (2012-13), chapter 1 (17 October 2012)
|
| Discussion in Council | Possibly 20 December 2012
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested; reference of Reasoned Opinion for debate rescinded.
|
BACKGROUND
10.1 The current EU regime sets minimum standards for roadworthiness
testing across the EU. Before a vehicle is allowed to be put
on the market, it has to fulfil all the relevant type or individual
approval requirements guaranteeing an optimal level of safety
and environmental standards. Every Member State has the obligation
to register for the first time any vehicle that has EU type-approval
on the basis of a "Certificate of Conformity" issued
by the vehicle manufacturer. This registration is the official
authorisation for the use on public roads and enforces the different
introduction dates of different vehicles' requirements. Following
this, cars on the road have to be regularly submitted to periodic
roadworthiness tests. The aim of these tests is to ensure that
such cars remain roadworthy, safe and do not pose any danger to
the driver and other road users. Cars are therefore checked for
compliance with certain requirements, such as those for safety
and environmental protection, as well as for retrofitting requirements.
10.2 The Commission has proposed this new package of measures
dealing with roadworthiness of motor vehicles and trailers. It
moves beyond the current regime by seeking to ensure a vehicle
maintains compliance with its original specification throughout
its life in respect of safety elements and environmental protection.
The two draft Regulations and the draft Directive in the package
would replace existing Directives already transposed into domestic
legislation. The Commission's primary aim is to harmonise vehicle
testing throughout the EU to reduce fatalities, injuries and harmful
emissions. The package aims to facilitate the market in second
hand vehicles by easing the movement of used vehicles between
Member States and to reduce fraud in the second hand car market.
10.3 Broadly the Commission aims to:
- widen the scope of vehicles that are to be tested;
- increase the frequency at which vehicles are
tested (for those Member States that require tests every two years);
- ensure vehicles and their components comply with
original manufacturers' specifications;
- ensure higher standards for vehicle testers and
test equipment;
- facilitate interchange of information on vehicle
inspection between Member States; and
- reduce mileage fraud on used vehicles.
10.4 When we considered these proposals earlier
this month we recommended that the House submit a Reasoned Opinion
on the document (a) to the Presidents of the European Parliament,
the Council and the Commission, pursuant to Article 6 of Protocol
(No 2) TFEU on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity
and Proportionality. We also noted that, whilst an issue of a
criminal offence of odometer fraud had been resolved satisfactorily,
other important issues remained, with regard particularly to the
potential onerous burdens for government, businesses and motorists.
So we asked to hear, before considering these proposals further,
about:
- developments in working group
discussions that might mitigate potential burdens; and
- the Government's own assessment of the costs
and benefits of the proposals, especially in the light of the
comments it was seeking from interest groups.
Meanwhile the documents remained under scrutiny.[49]
THE
MINISTER'S
LETTER
10.5 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Stephen Hammond), writes now in connection
with our recommendation that the House submits a Reasoned Opinion
on these proposals. The Minister says that:
- the Government is supportive
of the important role of both Houses in issuing Reasoned Opinions
direct to the EU institutions where they consider that an EU legislative
proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity;
- it is committed to using its best endeavours
to find time for Reasoned Opinion debates and it would have very
much welcomed the opportunity to hold a debate to enable the Reasoned
Opinion to be sent to the EU institutions before the deadline
of midnight on 22 October;
- unfortunately, however, it was not possible to
arrange the debate for that day at such short notice and without
limiting the time available for the general debate on Hillsborough;
and
- the Government will, nevertheless, take full
account of the Reasoned Opinion during the negotiations.
The Minister comments that:
- it is always useful to be able
to cite what Parliament has said when explaining the Government's
position to other Member States and it will do so in this instance;
and
- the work we have done on the subsidiarity implications
of the proposals is comprehensive, targeted and effective and
it is essential that the Commission, other Member States and MEPs
are made aware of it.
10.6 The Minister adds that the Government intends
to challenge strongly provisions that imply costs for government,
the public or industry and that this is the position it is taking
during the ongoing negotiations.
CONCLUSION
10.7 It is regrettable that the timing prevented
submission of the Reasoned Opinion, as we had recommended. In
the circumstances our Chairman will send it, as our opinion, to
the presidents of the three EU institutions, as part of the political
dialogue they advocated by the Commission. We rescind our decision
to refer the Reasoned Opinion for debate.
10.8 That said, we are grateful for the Minister's
comments on the Reasoned Opinion and for the use to which he proposes
to put it.
10.9 We remind the Minister that, before we consider
these proposals further, we should like to hear about:
- developments in working group
discussions that might mitigate potential burdens; and
- the Government's own assessment of the costs
and benefits of the proposals, especially in the light of the
comments it is seeking from interest groups.
10.10 MEANWHILE
THE DOCUMENTS
REMAIN UNDER
SCRUTINY.
49 See headnote. Back
| 
