7 Roadworthiness of vehicles
| (a)
(34131)
12786/12
+ ADDs 1-3
COM(12) 380
(b)
(34138)
12803/12
+ ADDs 1-3
COM(12) 381
(c)
(34139)
12809/12
+ ADDs 1-4
COM(12) 382
|
Draft Regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC
Draft Directive amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles
Draft Regulation on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC
|
| Legal base | Article 91; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 23 May 2012
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 86-xv (2012-13), chapter 1 (17 October 2012), HC 86-xvi (2012-13), chapter 10 (24 October 2012) and HC 86-xxv (2012-13), chapter 8 (19 December 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | 10 June 2013
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared
(b) and (c) Not cleared; scrutiny waivers granted and further information requested
|
Background
7.1 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. Cars on the road have to be regularly
submitted for 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.
7.2 In July 2012 the Commission proposed this
new package of measures dealing with roadworthiness of motor vehicles
and trailers. It would move 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 was to
harmonise vehicle testing throughout the EU to reduce fatalities,
injuries and harmful emissions. The package aimed 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.
7.3 We have considered these proposals a number
of times. In October 2012 we wrote to the Presidents of the Council,
the European Parliament and the Commission about concerns we had
in relation to the Draft Regulation on periodic roadworthiness
tests, document (a), and the subsidiarity principle. In December
2012 we noted significant improvements that were now achievable
in relation to that same proposal and agreed, in terms of paragraph
(3)(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of 17 November 1998,
that the Government could, if an acceptable deal could be secured,
support a general approach on the proposal at the December 2012
Transport Council. Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny
pending a report on developments. As for the other two proposals,
we noted that there had been as yet little discussion of them
and they too remained under scrutiny pending further information.[19]
The Minister's letter
7.4 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Department for Transport (Stephen Hammond), writes now
about developments on the proposals, which have been under negotiation
for nearly a year. The Minister reports first that the December
2012 Transport Council did agree a general approach on the Draft
Regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests, document (a). He
says that:
- the general approach represented
a much more acceptable version of the proposal to the UK and dealt
with many of the Government's concerns;
- it would, if the European Parliament agrees,
convert the proposed Regulation to a Directive; and
- the Government believes that the modified Directive
would support road safety, but without imposing excessive costs
and unnecessary administrative burden on the Government and road
users.
7.5 Turning to the other proposals in the Commission's
package the Minister says that:
- during the Irish Presidency
discussions in working group have mostly focused on the proposed
Regulation on roadside inspection of commercial vehicles, document
(c);
- progress in working groups was slow initially
but has picked up in the last month or so, as the Presidency's
ambition is to reach a general approach on the proposal at the
Transport Council on 10 June;
- one final working group meeting is scheduled
before the Council, agreement is close and the Government anticipates
that it should be able to get the further concessions it wants;
- discussions on the much smaller draft Directive
dealing with minor amendments to the EU specification for vehicle
registration documents, document (b), only started on 13 May;
and
- the Presidency also hopes to reach a general
approach on this proposal at the June Transport Council, however
with little progress made so far it is doubtful that it will be
ready.
7.6 The Minister then discusses in more detail
the proposal on roadside inspection, document (c). He says first,
on some financial implications, that:
- the initial assessed cost associated
with the proposal was £48 million over five years;
- that estimate was, however, incomplete as officials
felt that many costs could be mitigated on implementation or avoided
through careful amendment of the proposal; and
- resources were limited in the time available
so the focus was on obtaining figures for impacts with high degrees
of certainty that could be defended in discussions with other
Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament.
7.7 The Minister continues by reminding us that
the original roadside inspection proposal included:
- a roadside inspection target
of 5% of commercial vehicles, including N1 vehicles (vans such
as a Transit or smaller);
- adoption of a compulsory risk rating system for
vehicle operators, including N1 light commercial vehicles, (uncosted
and likely to be very expensive);
- ability to charge a fee to the owner of a vehicle
inspected at the roadside if a major or dangerous defect were
found;
- a requirement to keep the original roadworthiness
certificate on board the vehicle at all times, (uncosted and inconvenient);
- a requirement that if a detailed roadworthiness
inspection were needed that this should be conducted at premises
no more than 10 kilometres away from the roadside inspection or
by using mobile inspection units, (uncosted and inflexible for
hauliers); and
- a requirement that roadside inspectors should
be qualified to the same standard as periodic testing inspectors.
7.8 The Minister then tells us that two key issues
divide the Member States at the moment and are likely to need
to be resolved ahead of or during the June Transport Council ¯
inclusion, or not, of N1 vehicles within the scope of the proposal
and the rules surrounding the inspection of the securing of loads.
He says that in both cases the Government believes that a suitable
compromise is possible. The Minister explains that:
- inclusion of N1 vehicles as
a type of vehicle subject to roadside inspection is not at issue
in itself for the UK;
- the Government has the power to inspect such
vehicles and it does;
- its concern is that the systems embedded in the
proposal would make inspection slower, more complex, more expensive
and less effective for vans because there would be new obligations
for inspectors and restrictions on how van inspections must be
done;
- the Government is seeking either the total exclusion
of N1 vehicles from the scope or the removal of all subsidiary
obligations for N1 vehicles, (they would still be inspected but
all other rules relating to the inspection would remain with the
Member State);
- exclusion of N1 vehicles is probably the majority
view among Member States;
- the Government's proposed compromise on removal
of all detailed obligations for N1 vehicles is yet to be discussed
by the Member States;
- the issue of inspection of load securing has
proved to be very difficult in working group meetings;
- a consensus is yet to be reached but opinion
has moved towards a flexible approach which would allow Member
States to check load securing using the legislation as guidance
rather than a compulsory standard;
- the Government has been supporting this more
flexible approach as there is massive diversity through the EU
on how inspections are done now; and
- it is expected that the final text will be suitable
for the Government as the remaining debate is revolving around
detail that is not likely to be of concern to the UK.
7.9 The Minister tells us that there is otherwise
a broad consensus elsewhere and that the key changes the Government
believes will be agreed for the general approach are:
- change from a Regulation to
a Directive;
- allowing use of permanent dedicated roadside
testing sites as an alternative to having expensive mobile units,
(this saves significant cost);
- small trailers (O1) and medium trailers (O2)
removed from the scope of the Directive, (Member States still
able to inspect at their discretion);
- removal of a specific target for a minimum number
of roadside tests based on a percentage of the total number of
commercial vehicle registered in its territory, (the UK along
with some other Member States is wary of target based approaches
as there is a risk of specification creep);
- major changes to the risk rating systems so they
work better, exclude N1 vans and are more flexible for authorities,
(reduces cost for the UK);
- change to the initial tests so that there is
flexibility to be more targeted in finding faults so they can
be rectified quickly and the vehicle allowed to proceed on its
journey when safe without having mandatory "more detailed"
inspection, (this supports road safety, is quicker for business
and has a nil cost for the UK as it aligns with existing system
and practice);
- changes to the "more detailed" inspections,
now avoiding the costs associated with over specification on where
these could take place;
- removal of fee charging provisions and the requirement
to keep an original test certificate on board vehicles at all
times; and
- inspectors would have to be trained for the job
they perform, so it would no longer be necessary for training
beyond what is needed.
7.10 The Minister encloses with his letter a
table, which we annex, outlining the financial impact of these
changes to the roadside inspection proposal, comparing the original
Commission text with the expected general approach text. He says
that in addition to avoiding costs in areas where the Government
had been able to identify the impacts, costs have also been avoided
in the areas that had not been previously been valued, such as
changes to risk rating system and mandatory "more detailed"
testing at facilities remote from the roadside.
7.11 The Minister comments that:
- considerable progress has been
made on the roadside inspection proposal and the text is now greatly
improved;
- many concessions have been gained and if a general
approach is possible at the June Transport Council it would be
sensible for the Government to protect these by indicating its
support;
- negotiations are, however, ongoing on some issues,
including the N1 point, and these are not expected to be concluded
in time for consideration at our final meeting before the Council;
and
- the Government is continuing to work closely
with other Member States on these remaining issues, but it is
possible that some may not be resolved until the Council itself.
7.12 He emphasises that:
- there has been no dilution
in the standards of roadside inspection in the UK as result of
the changes made at the working group meetings; and
- across the EU as a whole the Government would
expect higher standards of inspection and therefore improved road
safety.
7.13 The Minister tells us that it is possible
that the draft amending Directive concerning registration documents
for vehicles, document (b), may also reach a general approach.
He says that:
- the proposal is limited, but
may have serious consequences, as it includes a requirement that
a vehicle registration must be withdrawn if a vehicle is prohibited
from use;
- this is opposed by the Government as this would
add major bureaucratic burdens into the process without any positive
benefit;
- some Member States use the vehicle registration
to give effect to a prohibition, but Northern Ireland and Great
Britain do not;
- the problem with the current text is that Member
States would be forced to use the withdrawal of registration process
regardless of whether they need to or not;
- many other Member States are also opposed to
the use of withdrawal of registration too;
- a very simple change to the text is likely to
solve the problem so that Member States who need to use the provision
could do so and those that do not need to use the withdrawal method
could use alternatives; and
- the general approach on the periodic roadworthiness
testing proposal, document (a), used this way of dealing with
the issue, so it is likely that a similar approach will also be
taken for the registration Directive.
7.14 The Minister says that, although he expects
that the proposed general approach on the roadside inspection
proposal, document (c), will be in a form that the Government
would be content to support and that it might be possible to resolve
concerns on the proposal on registration documents, document (b),
he appreciates that we may not be ready to lift the scrutiny reserve
on the proposals while the outcome of further negotiations is
unknown. He asks therefore if we would grant waivers, in
terms of paragraph (3)(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of
17 November 1998, so that the Government may, if acceptable deals
can be secured, support a general approach on the proposal at
the June Transport Council.
7.15 Finally the Minister tells us that:
- the European Parliament is
also considering the whole roadworthiness package;
- it is scheduled to vote in plenary on amendments
in late May; and
- its amendments will not be included in the general
approach texts.
Conclusion
7.16 We are grateful to the Minister for his
account of the satisfactory general approach on the periodic testing
proposal, document (a), and now clear that document.
7.17 As for the other two proposals, we note
the significant improvements that are now achievable in relation
to the roadside inspection proposal, document (c), and
the possibility of a simple change being agreed to the proposal
on registration documents, document (b), so rendering
it acceptable. So we are content to agree, in terms of paragraph
(3)(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of 17 November 1998,
that the Government may, if acceptable deals can be secured, support
general approaches on these proposals at the June Transport Council.
Meanwhile the documents remain under scrutiny pending a report
from the Minister of further developments.
19 See headnote. Back
|
